Possible Overdates on Gold Sovereigns and Other Coins

[LawrenceChard]

I have always liked overdates on any coins. They tell a story.

Some overdates are well-known, but I always suspect there are others lurking out there waiting to be discovered.

We happened to be looking at a few 1865 shield sovereigns recently:

This one might have something under the 6 of the date.

It happens to be die number 14

This also could be 6 over ?

and we did a macro of it:

What's more, the 5 looks a bit mushy, possibly hiding something?

That one was die number 13

A third example:

... and with a macro:

Die number 20

Notice, they all appear to have something under the "6".

I also noticed, just now, that they all have a broken denticle (tooth) near the 5 of the date.

Here's a fourth example:

Die number 17

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[dicker]

@LawrenceChard It is when I see posts like this, I realise how little I know.  I cannot “see” the over date on the 6, despite the excellent photography.  

[refero]

the second one posted has 3 broken denticles ; looks like they had to work a lot around that "5"..)

[sovereignsteve]

Interesting. How coincidental could the broken denticle be, in exactly the same position.
These coins are clearly not from the same die, the date numbers vary too much.
Do the denticles originate from the die or the collar? If the latter, perhaps the same damaged collar was used on several dies. This would make sense as the hardened steel collar is unlikely to wear as much as the die, which will be subject to massive stress. The collar will probably be supported all around it's circumference.
This then begs the question of how the collar is being positioned in exactly the same position between die changes.

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

Interesting. How coincidental could the broken denticle be, in exactly the same position.
These coins are clearly not from the same die, the date numbers vary too much.
Do the denticles originate from the die or the collar? If the latter, perhaps the same damaged collar was used on several dies. This would make sense as the hardened steel collar is unlikely to wear as much as the die, which will be subject to massive stress. The collar will probably be supported all around it's circumference.
This then begs the question of how the collar is being positioned in exactly the same position between die changes.

The denticles are part of the die, not the serrated collar.

Because the same denticle is damaged on all, and we have photographed 5 coins, although there are only 4 shown, the damage must have been on the "hub" from which the dies are made. All 5 coins have different die numbers, otherwise the above might not have been accurate.

Oh, and the denticles cannot be part of the collar, because the blank has to be struck by the dies, from above and below. It the denticles were part of the collar, it / they would obstruct the dies.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[sovereignsteve]

4 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Because the same denticle is damaged on all, and we have photographed 5 coins, although there are only 4 shown, the damage must have been on the "hub" from which the dies are made.

makes sense

5 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

All 5 coins have different die numbers, otherwise the above might not have been accurate.

you're forgetting the die numbers are on the reverse die. it is documented that they used different numbers of obverse and reverse dies, not necessarily in pairs as they wore out at different rates

7 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Oh, and the denticles cannot be part of the collar, because the blank has to be struck by the dies, from above and below. It the denticles were part of the collar, it / they would obstruct the dies.

good point, I missed that obvious logic🙄

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

you're forgetting the die numbers are on the reverse die. it is documented that they used different numbers of obverse and reverse dies, not necessarily in pairs as they wore out at different rates

 

No, I was not forgetting that. We do also have photos of the reverses, but I did not include them in the post, as they were almost irrelevant.

I mentioned the dies numbers partly as a memo to self, and I had to rename the obverse images to include die numbers, to make it easier for myself. This will also help, me at least, if I refer back to it, or add the 5th or other photos at some stage.

If I ever forget which side of shield sovereigns the die numbers are on, it will be time to shoot me.

😎

[sovereignsteve]

It seemed you were ruling out the coins being from the same obverse die because the die numbers were different. My mistake.

[Booky586]

16 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I have always liked overdates on any coins. They tell a story.

Some overdates are well-known, but I always suspect there are others lurking out there waiting to be discovered.

We happened to be looking at a few 1865 shield sovereigns recently:

This one might have something under the 6 of the date.

It happens to be die number 14

This also could be 6 over ?

and we did a macro of it:

What's more, the 5 looks a bit mushy, possibly hiding something?

That one was die number 13

A third example:

... and with a macro:

Die number 20

Notice, they all appear to have something under the "6".

I also noticed, just now, that they all have a broken denticle (tooth) near the 5 of the date.

Here's a fourth example:

Die number 17

 

 

 

I can see subtle differences between all 4 dates such as character spacings, especially between the 8 and 6, and font styles on the 5. On the 4th coin the number 6 looks bolder, and a shadow of another 6, may be from an overstrike?

But other than that I can't see another number hiding below.

Good information about hubs and dies too. I've been comparing the letter T in VICTORIA and GRATIA and noticed the the punch used isn't perfect, the serif on the left is shorter than the one on the right. This shows on all the coins so I wonder if this is transferred from the hub, like the damaged denticle. 

[dicker]

Hi @LawrenceChard I hope you don't mind me posting the below photos of coins around the same date for reference around the denticle question.  I don't have a 1865 to compare against.

Both of the below I took photos of this morning - 1862 and 1863 (No Die numbers).

If you count denticles from the left side of the 1 going right, the 9th denticle is malformed on your samples and the ones below of 1862 and 1863.

The 1863 also has '6' and '3' that look like they were done by the engravers assistant after a couple of pints!

 

Best

Dicker

 

 

[SidS]

12 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

The denticles are part of the die, not the serrated collar.

Because the same denticle is damaged on all, and we have photographed 5 coins, although there are only 4 shown, the damage must have been on the "hub" from which the dies are made. All 5 coins have different die numbers, otherwise the above might not have been accurate.

Oh, and the denticles cannot be part of the collar, because the blank has to be struck by the dies, from above and below. It the denticles were part of the collar, it / they would obstruct the dies.

Shame they're not 1840s-50s sovereigns, because an examination of the farthings of those dates would reveal a lot. Sovereign dies being past their usefulness were then transferred over to strike farthings instead. Unfortunately, the 1860s era had seen the bun head bronzes arrive and an end to the practice.

Not only overdates but you get a fair few die cracks as well on some issues as the dies degrade to their unusable point.

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, Booky586 said:

I can see subtle differences between all 4 dates such as character spacings, especially between the 8 and 6, and font styles on the 5. On the 4th coin the number 6 looks bolder, and a shadow of another 6, may be from an overstrike?

But other than that I can't see another number hiding below.

Good information about hubs and dies too. I've been comparing the letter T in VICTORIA and GRATIA and noticed the the punch used isn't perfect, the serif on the left is shorter than the one on the right. This shows on all the coins so I wonder if this is transferred from the hub, like the damaged denticle. 

"I wonder if this is transferred from the hub" 

Yes, almost certainly.

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, dicker said:

Hi @LawrenceChard I hope you don't mind me posting the below photos of coins around the same date for reference around the denticle question.  I don't have a 1865 to compare against.

Both of the below I took photos of this morning - 1862 and 1863 (No Die numbers).

If you count denticles from the left side of the 1 going right, the 9th denticle is malformed on your samples and the ones below of 1862 and 1863.

The 1863 also has '6' and '3' that look like they were done by the engravers assistant after a couple of pints!

Best

Dicker

I certainly don't mind at all.

Your observations are interesting.

... and that's a good pint point about the numerals.

[LawrenceChard]

2 hours ago, SidS said:

Shame they're not 1840s-50s sovereigns, because an examination of the farthings of those dates would reveal a lot. Sovereign dies being past their usefulness were then transferred over to strike farthings instead. Unfortunately, the 1860s era had seen the bun head bronzes arrive and an end to the practice.

Not only overdates but you get a fair few die cracks as well on some issues as the dies degrade to their unusable point.

Those are good points.

I don't get to look at as many Victoria fathings as I do sovereigns, but I am sure you are right.

[Foster88]

9 hours ago, dicker said:

Hi @LawrenceChard I hope you don't mind me posting the below photos of coins around the same date for reference around the denticle question.  I don't have a 1865 to compare against.

Both of the below I took photos of this morning - 1862 and 1863 (No Die numbers).

If you count denticles from the left side of the 1 going right, the 9th denticle is malformed on your samples and the ones below of 1862 and 1863.

The 1863 also has '6' and '3' that look like they were done by the engravers assistant after a couple of pints!

 

Best

Dicker

 

 

That’s interesting @dicker and your comment prompted me to have a look at an 1863 that I have. But my photo is dreadful and and old photo but you can just about see it.

I had a look and lo and behold, the 9th denticle from the ‘1’ to the right is damaged/ virtually non existent.

The ‘6’ and the ‘3’ must have been engraved by the same inebriated assistant as yours was.

[SidS]

11 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

That’s interesting @dicker and your comment prompted me to have a look at an 1863 that I have. But my photo is dreadful and and old photo but you can just about see it.

I had a look and lo and behold, the 9th denticle from the ‘1’ to the right is damaged/ virtually non existent.

The ‘6’ and the ‘3’ must have been engraved by the same inebriated assistant as yours was.

The second W in the truncation doesn't look so great either. It puts me in the mind of take your child to work day...

"Well there's how you engrave a 'W', now you have a go... Hmm there's a bit more practice needed there son, never mind let's try a '6' and a '3'... Ah well, I see what you tried to do there, but maybe you should stick to cleaning chimneys."

I'll have to see if I've got any of my old coin pics left, I used to have a few 1863s.

[SidS]

9 hours ago, dicker said:

Hi @LawrenceChard I hope you don't mind me posting the below photos of coins around the same date for reference around the denticle question.  I don't have a 1865 to compare against.

Both of the below I took photos of this morning - 1862 and 1863 (No Die numbers).

If you count denticles from the left side of the 1 going right, the 9th denticle is malformed on your samples and the ones below of 1862 and 1863.

The 1863 also has '6' and '3' that look like they were done by the engravers assistant after a couple of pints!

 

Best

Dicker

 

 

The 8 in the 1862 looks like it might be over something.

[Britannia47]

Just checked my 1862 (no die number) and 1864 (die number 69)  Exactly the same stunted denticle on both coins, just to the left of the last date digit!   It would be fanciful to suggest it was done deliberately, but would need others to check similar sovereigns to see if this is a common feature? Bit of a mystery really!

[Roy]

Not a 63 but a 68!

Edited April 26, 2022 by Roy

[Britannia47]

Just checked a few more sovereigns of that period 1861 - 1870.  It would appear that the 'broken' denticle appears on all the sovereigns dated 1862 to 1869 (at least mine do! )  1861 is normal as is 1870. 

So for 8 years this seems to be the case. Why is this?  I'm sure others are in a better position to explain. My 1868 and 2 x 1869s also have the denticle disease!  Anyway a photo of a 1862 & 1864.... 

 

 

[SidS]

Well it's a bit mushy, but here's one from Tony Clayton's site that I gave him permission to use many years ago. I don't have this coin now, so I can't reshoot it.

Looks like the denticle is as the others.

 

[dicker]

The denticles around the broken one are different on across Sovereign years from what I can see.  

Might the broken denticle be deliberately created?  

[Roy]

3 minutes ago, dicker said:

Might the broken denticle be deliberately created?  

It sounds likely, but I couldn't possibly explain why!

I left my book in the Philippines, but does anyone have a Marsh to hand? Any remarks?

[GoldDiggerDave]

3 minutes ago, Roy said:

It sounds likely, but I couldn't possibly explain why!

I left my book in the Philippines, but does anyone have a Marsh to hand? Any remarks?

Always got a marsh to hand what do you need to know? 

[Roy]

Looking for an explanation of the missing/broken denticle Dave.

See above mate 👍