Possible Overdates on Gold Sovereigns and Other Coins

[SidS]

Just pure speculation, but the broken denticle seems to align with the find digit of the date no? Could it be to aid placement of the final digit when preparing the dies? Seems very precise.

[dicker]

So could the broken denticle be a “trap” to catch out counterfeiters?

Much like OS Maps have features that are deliberately in-correct to “catch” companies copying their maps and producing their own.

Just a left of field thought!

[Britannia47]

What if this barely visible flaw/damage (unlikely to have been noticed in the 1860s ) was a means of the RM identifying their sovereigns as genuine? After all 8 years without rectification of this broken denticle seems absurd, unless the R M s quality control was as bad as it is now!   

Only just seen Dickers response above - like minds maybe

Edited April 27, 2022 by Britannia47

[Roy]

On 25/04/2022 at 09:10, LawrenceChard said:

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

I can't believe that @LawrenceChard is the first person in 160 years to have noticed this! 🤓

The man is a legend! 😎 😉

[LawrenceChard]

Doug produced this composite image:

Which makes it easy to compare the date area of all 5 of the sovereigns.

[dicker]

Die 17 and die 18 have significantly different denticles, yet have the same broken one.

Curious to say the least. If Die numbers were introduced to help quality, I can’t believe this would have been missed over a number of years and across many different die number checks. 

[Foster88]

I’m leaning to think, having read the rest of this thread and checked my own, albeit small contribution of my 1863 sovereign, this must be deliberate.

It looks like it’s the 9th denticle from the ‘1’ in the ‘18..’ of the date is either omitted or just visible. As others have said above, maybe it is just a ‘marker’ for the final number to follow.

I’m not sure about other sovereigns of the 1860’s but I am aware of the 1862 being referred to a wide date variety. Maybe the engravers were engraving the date numbers too far apart or too narrow and this break in the denticles was to create a focal point or marker for the last number to the engraver.

This is just speculation of course.

But it could have happened like this.

RM: (1862) “You’re spacing the date too wide, you’ve got to cram that last number in now”

Engraver: “But I’ve got loads of room....  I started with 186....if I can just....”

RM: “Well you didn’t engrave them great yesterday, you did @dicker 1863 and @Foster88 1863 after a night at the local inn. You’ll be in the workhouse before long.”

Engraver: “But we need a marker to know when to end the date, especially after a night at the inn of wine, women and song”.

RM: “That’s why we introduced the break in the 9th denticle as a marker to finish the date.... now finish the date and @LawrenceChard and TSF members will discover this in 160 years time.”

Edited April 28, 2022 by Foster88

[SidS]

Looked at photos of what I used to have, my findings are:

Broken denticle: 1854, 1858, 1860, 1862-1869

Normal denticle: 1850-1853, 1855-1857, 1859, 1861 and 1870-1873.

All the broken denticle issues have incuse WW that I can see.

[dicker]

Has anyone seen any on and M or S branch Mint Sovs?  I have not.

Best

Dicker

[SidS]

48 minutes ago, dicker said:

Has anyone seen any on and M or S branch Mint Sovs?  I have not.

Best

Dicker

London did supply the dies to these mints however, so there is chance of one turning up no doubt. I never had any branch mint shields of this era though so I can't help.

To add extra info, none of the 1840s sovereigns had broken denticles either.

[GoldDiggerDave]

 DIE 24

 DIE 36

 DIE 50

 

Interesting to see they all have a similar denticle break, 

 

@dicker for comparison this below is a Sydney branch mint 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by GoldDiggerDave

[Britannia47]

Only have a couple. 1874M & 1881S, Both WW Relief with normal denticles. Perhaps just a London mint experiment mainly between 1862 - 1869 inclusive, although have just discovered 2 earlier sovereigns with broken denticles - 1854 & 1855! An 1843 however is normal. 

[SidS]

1 hour ago, Britannia47 said:

Only have a couple. 1874M & 1881S, Both WW Relief with normal denticles. Perhaps just a London mint experiment mainly between 1862 - 1869 inclusive, although have just discovered 2 earlier sovereigns with broken denticles - 1854 & 1855! An 1843 however is normal. 

Yep, I had an 1854 as well.

[GoldDiggerDave]

13 hours ago, dicker said:

So could the broken denticle be a “trap” to catch out counterfeiters?

Much like OS Maps have features that are deliberately in-correct to “catch” companies copying their maps and producing their own.

Just a left of field thought!

I remember this in the news Argleton which is an anagram of Not Real G supposedly aimed at Google maps copying OS maps.  
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argleton

 

[LawrenceChard]

4 hours ago, dicker said:

Has anyone seen any on and M or S branch Mint Sovs?  I have not.

Best

Dicker

I nipped into our local M & S branch to check, but they didn't have any sovs in stock.

😎

[SidS]

14 hours ago, dicker said:

So could the broken denticle be a “trap” to catch out counterfeiters?

Much like OS Maps have features that are deliberately in-correct to “catch” companies copying their maps and producing their own.

Just a left of field thought!

 

So far it seems no genuine sovereigns were struck in 1861 therefore! 😁

 

We've busted the Mint's 161 year secret. Lots of 6s and 1s there, it must have been destined.

[Foster88]

@LawrenceChard I got the opportunity to have a look at mine and would you believe, as I expected, the denticle is missing but only on the 1860’s I have.

I did check an 1853 and there wasn’t any denticle break. Which makes me think, at this point, it’s a recurring theme seen in 1860’s sovereigns.

Also, I noticed that the engraving of the 1860’s sovereigns is all over the place. Not so much once die numbers were introduced.

The last photo is an 1870 and no missing denticle.

Photos below to add to the ongoing mystery and my part to contribute.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Foster88

[Foster88]

@dicker after posting my above comment and reading back through the thread to your comment from a few days ago, I think you might be correct.

The ‘9th’ denticle on my 1862’s and 1863 also have the same denticle missing or hardly visible.

I doubt this is a coincidence.

I wonder if this is just an 1860’s feature.

[dicker]

I have looked a number more ‘60’s Sovs under high magnification.  The same denticle break exists with different denticle patterns around it.

So I think deliberate. There are other areas to hide an “indicator” but this is in my opinion a good area that is protected from wear by the rim and the date.

I do however think that the smartest way to hide some copy protection would be a missing ridge on the side of the coin. 

A mystery, and assuming it is not an error across all London Sovs of the era, then I can only think it is to:

- Line up date numerals

- Indicator for some reason to those in the know

Anyone have any other thoughts?

Best

Dicker

[Foster88]

@dicker the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to think it’s to spot counterfeits/fakes.

How would that be spotted, if you think about it, in 1860’s context when a sovereign was being spent in everyday life. It wouldn’t be picked up.

As an example, if someone went to the bank perhaps to pay in a sovereign, the bank clerk isn’t going to get out a loupe to examine the coin.

Which leads me to think it’s more to do with The Royal Mint at the time and some type of ‘marker’ for the engraver.

I’m just summasing of course by process of elimination.

[SidS]

Notice the 1870 are of WW in relief, thus one would presume a new die/hub etc. Altogether.

I believe the incuse WW was introduced in about 1853. There was an overlap of three years or so through to about 1855 where Relief and Incuse were both used.

Now my 1854 and 1858s both had the broken denticle and another poster also has an 1854 and an 1855 too. I assume these were all incuse variants, mine were.

Has anyone found an 1861 issue with a broken denticle yet?

Edited May 2, 2022 by SidS

[Britannia47]

25 minutes ago, SidS said:

Notice the 1870 are of WW in relief, thus one would presume a new die/hub etc. Altogether.

I believe the incuse WW was introduced in about 1853. There was an overlap of three years or so through to about 1855 where Relief and Incuse were both used.

Now my 1854 and 1858s both had the broken denticle and another poster also has an 1854 and an 1855 too. I assume these were all incuse variants, mine were.

Has anyone found an 1861 issue with a broken denticle yet?

I refer you to my post last Wednesday - The 1861 is normal, as is 1870, thus concluding that the broken denticle is from 1862 to 1869 as far as this decade goes. 

I think we are all agreed now that this denticle is ‘deliberate’  for whatever unknown reason. Perhaps its the engravers version of the Free Masons handshake?! 😎

[dicker]

So a little internet research this morning has revealed that 1871, 2, 3 Sydney Shields seem to have the broken / reduced size denticle.  Can’t see any after that!

One might suppose that the end of run dies from London we’re shipped to Sydney with the broken denticle, and replaced in 1874

Note: 1871 was the first year of Shields, taking over from the “Australia” design.  

[GoldDiggerDave]

1 hour ago, SidS said:

Notice the 1870 are of WW in relief, thus one would presume a new die/hub etc. Altogether.

I believe the incuse WW was introduced in about 1853. There was an overlap of three years or so through to about 1855 where Relief and Incuse were both used.

Now my 1854 and 1858s both had the broken denticle and another poster also has an 1854 and an 1855 too. I assume these were all incuse variants, mine were.

Has anyone found an 1861 issue with a broken denticle yet?

 

[LawrenceChard]

9 hours ago, Foster88 said:

@LawrenceChard I got the opportunity to have a look at mine and would you believe, as I expected, the denticle is missing but only on the 1860’s I have.

I did check an 1853 and there wasn’t any denticle break. Which makes me think, at this point, it’s a recurring theme seen in 1860’s sovereigns.

Also, I noticed that the engraving of the 1860’s sovereigns is all over the place. Not so much once die numbers were introduced.

The last photo is an 1870 and no missing denticle.

Photos below to add to the ongoing mystery and my part to contribute.

 

 

9 hours ago, Foster88 said:

@dicker after posting my above comment and reading back through the thread to your comment from a few days ago, I think you might be correct.

The ‘9th’ denticle on my 1862’s and 1863 also have the same denticle missing or hardly visible.

I doubt this is a coincidence.

I wonder if this is just an 1860’s feature.

 

8 hours ago, dicker said:

I have looked a number more ‘60’s Sovs under high magnification.  The same denticle break exists with different denticle patterns around it.

So I think deliberate. There are other areas to hide an “indicator” but this is in my opinion a good area that is protected from wear by the rim and the date.

I do however think that the smartest way to hide some copy protection would be a missing ridge on the side of the coin. 

A mystery, and assuming it is not an error across all London Sovs of the era, then I can only think it is to:

- Line up date numerals

- Indicator for some reason to those in the know

Anyone have any other thoughts?

Best

Dicker

 

7 hours ago, Foster88 said:

@dicker the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to think it’s to spot counterfeits/fakes.

How would that be spotted, if you think about it, in 1860’s context when a sovereign was being spent in everyday life. It wouldn’t be picked up.

As an example, if someone went to the bank perhaps to pay in a sovereign, the bank clerk isn’t going to get out a loupe to examine the coin.

Which leads me to think it’s more to do with The Royal Mint at the time and some type of ‘marker’ for the engraver.

I’m just summasing of course by process of elimination.

 

1 hour ago, SidS said:

Notice the 1870 are of WW in relief, thus one would presume a new die/hub etc. Altogether.

I believe the incuse WW was introduced in about 1853. There was an overlap of three years or so through to about 1855 where Relief and Incuse were both used.

Now my 1854 and 1858s both had the broken denticle and another poster also has an 1854 and an 1855 too. I assume these were all incuse variants, mine were.

Has anyone found an 1861 issue with a broken denticle yet?

 

1 hour ago, Britannia47 said:

I refer you to my post last Wednesday - The 1861 is normal, as is 1870, thus concluding that the broken denticle is from 1862 to 1869 as far as this decade goes. 

I think we are all agreed now that this denticle is ‘deliberate’  for whatever unknown reason. Perhaps its the engravers version of the Free Masons handshake?! 😎

So, the broken denticle seems to be on shield sovereigns from 1861 to 1869 for the London Mint, plus 1871 to 1873 for Sydney Mint.

All seem to be WW Incuse.

I agree, these must have been from the same master hub, which must then have been replaced.

I don't think the broken denticle design would have been deliberate, much more likely to have been damage to the hub, and the part of the raised denticle becoming broken off.

A raised feature on the hub would translate to an incuse copy on any dies made from it, which in turn would mean a raised part on coins. 

As the denticles on coins are raised, this explains how and why part of it is missing, corresponding exactly with the same feature on the hub.

If the Mint had wanted to add some forgery detection, it could have placed one or more small dots or lines, raised or incuse, as privy marks. The missing denticle is consistent with accidental or wear and tear damage to the hub.

Counterfeit detection might still be aided by the missing denticle, but not necessarily by the public or traders, mainly by the Mint if called upon to give an expert opinion. But still not a deliberate feature.

It looks like this topic / thread should have been about missing denticles rather than possible overdates!

😎