Die clash or dud? Vicky shilling.

[SidS]

I've had this coin a long while and I can't make up my mind about this one.

In Dicken's words it really is like a Tale of Two Cities. It was the best of times and it was the worst of times...

It passes the silver magnet slide test. Is a little underweight being 5.59g rather than 5.7g. It has also been cleaned - mostly on the reverse.

I can't decide whether it's a counterfeit coin (see the reverse) or whether it is the result of a die clash.

The obverse is sharp and well struck. The reverse is ever so slightly concave, with the most indented area lining up with the strands of hair which run over the top of Vicky's ear on the obverse (see the stained patch under HIL. All of which would say errs towards the die clash.

However, I can't get over the 'worn' look being so at odds with the obverse. The wreathes look simply worn to me rather than the result of poor strike. So yes wear would account for the lighter than mint weight. Great, but why is there little to no wear on the obverse?

Apologies for less than ideal photos, best I can do with a mobile! Before @LawrenceChard points it out to me. Duly noted. 😁

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by SidS

[paulmerton]

I'm really not sure. I've rotated the obverse by 180 degrees and flipping it horizontally to make the features line up (that year does have coin alignment doesn't it?) but can't see anything obvious that points to a die clash. It might be easier to be sure if the reverse photo was in better focus (the obverse photo looks fine so it should be possible if you trick your phone!)

[SidS]

18 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

I'm really not sure. I've rotated the obverse by 180 degrees and flipping it horizontally to make the features line up (that year does have coin alignment doesn't it?) but can't see anything obvious that points to a die clash. It might be easier to be sure if the reverse photo was in better focus (the obverse photo looks fine so it should be possible if you trick your phone!)

That's the thing, it is in focus. The reverse really is that bad. The lack of definition as the photo shows, is the coin not the camera.

It is indeed coin alignment.

I did take two. Here's the other, not sure if it's much different to be fair.

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by SidS

[paulmerton]

2 minutes ago, SidS said:

That's the thing, it is in focus. The reverse really is that bad. The lack of definition as the photo shows, is the coin not the camera.

It is indeed coin alignment.

Are you sure? The denticles on the obverse look much sharper than those on the reverse.

[SidS]

I'll try and take another shortly. Bear with me.

Finally got there, see below. There's a few other contemporary dates to compare. Note that the 1848 is very worn, the wreaths well gone, but the ONE SHILLING is still clear.

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by SidS

[SidS]

[paulmerton]

Nice photos. I'd be very surprised if it's a die clash causing that. If it's not wear alone causing that sort of sinking, it could be a strike through error.

What's the weight compared with the others that have similarly worn features? That could be indicative.

[SidS]

39 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Nice photos. I'd be very surprised if it's a die clash causing that. If it's not wear alone causing that sort of sinking, it could be a strike through error.

What's the weight compared with the others that have similarly worn features? That could be indicative.

The weight of the range from 1848-1859 coins are between 5.07g and 5.53g. The worn 1848 being at the 5.07g and the 1859 being 5.53g.

So the 1853 with the weird reverse is heavier being 5.59g - which would make sense for the obverse grade.

Have you noticed the hair line cracks (stress cracks?) on the reverse? From the leaves to the left of the bow, it runs upwards and forks into two under the first I in Shilling.

Until I took these photos, I never noticed that the F in FD is either double struck, or struck over another letter.

Edited March 1, 2023 by SidS

[paulmerton]

2 minutes ago, SidS said:

The weight of the range from 1848-1859 coins are between 5.07g and 5.53g. The worn 1848 being at the 5.07g and the 1859 being 5.53g.

So the 1853 with the weird reverse is heavier being 5.59g - which would make sense for the obverse grade.

Have you noticed the hair line cracks (stress cracks?) on the reverse? From the leaves to the left of the bow, it runs upwards and forks into two under the first I in Shilling.

If the cracks are recessed on the coin, as opposed to proud ones caused by a cracked die, then that could also point towards a strike though, or simply someone hitting the coin with something post-mint.

[SidS]

50 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

If the cracks are recessed on the coin, as opposed to proud ones caused by a cracked die, then that could also point towards a strike though, or simply someone hitting the coin with something post-mint.

Thanks for your insight. I'm thinking it is probably a strike though. The only reason I think that more likely, is that I would have thought someone hitting the coin would have caused damage to the obverse as well. I've had a few coins that were punched with advertising and it usually leaves a blank spot on the obverse. Of course I could be talking complete nonsense, but going on what I've seen previously it seems less likely.

Looking at some pictures of strike throughs I can see some similarities.

It wasn't a term I'd heard before, errors are not an area of expertise of mine at all.

[SidS]

A random internet search shows up this (not my image).

One side sharp, the other mushy and a mess.

 

 

[paulmerton]

1 minute ago, SidS said:

Thanks for your insight. I'm thinking it is probably a strike though. The only reason I think that more likely, is that I would have thought someone hitting the coin would have caused damage to the obverse as well. I've had a few coins that were punched with advertising and it usually leaves a blank spot on the obverse. Of course I could be talking complete nonsense, but going on what I've seen previously it seems less likely.

Looking at some pictures of strike throughs I can see some similarities.

It wasn't a term I'd heard before, errors are not an area of expertise of mine at all.

Yes, it does seem likely, but with quite a bit of wear it's hard to know for sure. At least the weight suggests the shallow part hasn't been mechanically removed post mint, but I'm not sure how numismatically interesting (more valuable?) it is when the error is not very easy to discern. Someone else should chip in so it's not just me replying 🤣

Going back to die clashes, I came across a belter of an example the other day, where you can read the "50 PENCE" text where it would appear on the other side of the coin. There are no other reverse elements visible, so I wonder if the dies clashed at a slight angle:

And a Jemima Puddleduck 50p where you can see the outline of the Queen's face from a die clash:

[paulmerton]

4 minutes ago, SidS said:

A random internet search shows up this (not my image).

One side sharp, the other mushy and a mess.

 

 

What's the context on that one? Struck through?

[SidS]

5 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

What's the context on that one? Struck through?

Struck through a die cap it says.

See here:

https://www.mycoinalog.com/australian-coins/pre-decimal-coins/australia-1952-shilling-struck-through-a-die-cap-error/

Edited March 1, 2023 by SidS

[SidS]

7 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Yes, it does seem likely, but with quite a bit of wear it's hard to know for sure. At least the weight suggests the shallow part hasn't been mechanically removed post mint, but I'm not sure how numismatically interesting (more valuable?)

Value I'm not so worried about. I picked it up on eBay for about £30-£35 three or four years ago. They were selling off loads of dates and I thought, well that's a looker.

I did wonder if I had been done over with a fake. Still it's a good looking one at that if it were!