Interesting 1871 Victoria Shield Sovereign 1 Over 1? Die Number 25

[LawrenceChard]

Interesting 1871 Victoria Shield Sovereign 1 Over 1? Die Number 25

The first "1" in the date has a die crack running from its top right, which is mildly interesting but not too unusual, but at the bottom left there seems to be a mis-placed "1" which has been overstruck.

It could be just another die crack, which would be disappointing.

I received a message "Lawrence Chard any comments on this? That 2 looks blobby!"

Indeed it does, but I think that's all, just a blobby numeral!

😎

[Ukbullionfan]

Cool story Bro. 👍

[Booky586]

Not too sure about the number "1" but has the reverse a die clash or two?

Either side of the crown there's the impression of Victoria's neck. It might even be the cause of the die crack!

[LawrenceChard]

14 hours ago, Booky586 said:

Not too sure about the number "1" but has the reverse a die clash or two?

Either side of the crown there's the impression of Victoria's neck. It might even be the cause of the die crack!

Yes, dies clashes were frequent on shilelds, some more obvious than others.

It will not have helped die longevity!

😎

[dicker]

Quite a tricky one but on balance the bit at the bottom looks quite regular and prob a “1”

The 2 on the Die number is not that well executed but not unusual!

Some more examples 

Die 22

 

Die 47

Die 30

 

Die 18

 

There are more that I have looked at but none that look like a 1 over 1!

The links are embedded so I have not nicked the images!

[LawrenceChard]

54 minutes ago, dicker said:

Quite a tricky one but on balance the bit at the bottom looks quite regular and prob a “1”

The 2 on the Die number is not that well executed but not unusual!

Some more examples 

Die 22

 

Die 47

Die 30

 

Die 18

 

There are more that I have looked at but none that look like a 1 over 1!

The links are embedded so I have not nicked the images!

There seems to be a strong link between die cracks and the first 1 in 1871.

I wonder if any of those are from the same die.

😎

[dicker]

I think yes! These appear across a wide range of die numbers in 1871.  

I have not looked at Sovs in adjacent years - would be interesting.

Die cracks do seem to repeat in the same areas on specific years, most interestingly sometime with different obv and rev errors.

[Foster88]

Here’s another two 1871 sovereigns that I came across with the same die crack through the first ‘1’ in the date.

These aren’t my coins or my photos I should add.

@LawrenceChard @dicker

[LawrenceChard]

8 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

Here’s another two 1871 sovereigns that I came across with the same die crack through the first ‘1’ in the date.

These aren’t my coins or my photos I should add.

@LawrenceChard @dicker

The top one has its die crack in a different place.

The bottom one has a thick first "1" in date.

😎

Edited August 17, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[dicker]

Thanks!  Definitely a die weakness / flaw.

 Why?  I don’t know why this is seen across so many sovereigns of this date.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[GoldDiggerDave]

8 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

Here’s another two 1871 sovereigns that I came across with the same die crack through the first ‘1’ in the date.

These aren’t my coins or my photos I should add.

@LawrenceChard @dicker

Got a few like this 

[Foster88]

13 minutes ago, dicker said:

Thanks!  Definitely a die weakness / flaw.

 Why?  I don’t know why this is seen across so many sovereigns of this date.

Thoughts anyone?

 

One thought I had was, now before I say, I have no idea how the dies were made back then. But could it be that all dies were made from a master die, maybe with the 18 already punched in as that wouldn’t change until 1900 and the last two numbers of the date added later to each die?

This might explain it and also explain why we now have varieties such as the 1862 sovereign which has both wide and narrow date varieties.

[SidS]

12 hours ago, Foster88 said:

One thought I had was, now before I say, I have no idea how the dies were made back then. But could it be that all dies were made from a master die, maybe with the 18 already punched in as that wouldn’t change until 1900 and the last two numbers of the date added later to each die?

This might explain it and also explain why we now have varieties such as the 1862 sovereign which has both wide and narrow date varieties.

1874 at the latest for London mint. I'm certain they would use different dies (or die components) to prepare the St. George issues - the date moving to the reverse.

Aussie mints kept striking shields until 1887 - primarily for the Asian/Middle Eastern markets.

[dicker]

10 hours ago, SidS said:

 

Aussie mints kept striking shields until 1887 - primarily for the Asian/Middle Eastern markets.

I was unaware of this.  I had read that the Shield design was retained in Australia because of the demand from the public.  

[SidS]

11 hours ago, dicker said:

I was unaware of this.  I had read that the Shield design was retained in Australia because of the demand from the public.  

I can't remember where I read that info though!

[Britannia47]

A previous Marsh (1999)  shows a die crack above the 1 of the 1871. I've checked mine (with die number 2) - also the 1870 and 1872 and found nothing untoward.  

Anyway, usual photo....😃

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Britannia47
Date mistake

[SidS]

18 minutes ago, Britannia47 said:

A previous Marsh (1999)  shows a die crack above the 1 of the 1871. I've checked mine (with die number 2) - also the 1970 and 1972 and found nothing untoward.  

Anyway, usual photo....😃

 

Are you sure you checked your 1970 and 1972 sovereigns? 😉