Elizabeth 1st sixpence 157? 5 over 4

[dppepperpot 2]

Hi all, new to the forum. Found this hammered coin whilst metal detecting, and noticed an error on the date 5 over 4 Is this common or unusual.  Thanks for looking

Edited August 4, 2017 by dppepperpot

[Ukstu 436]

Overdates and die sinkers errors i think they are called are not terrible unusual. I've a few hammered with letters over letters. Not sure if it adds value to them. I asked a similar question years ago on another forum and was told it happens , sometimes people where working under candle light in low natural light environments so mistakes could be made , add in illiteracy and possibly a few beers to the mix and mistakes are bound to occur. I've a few early milled also with overdates (James II).  One of mine. Letter under the A in Cantor.

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Ukstu
Image added

[dppepperpot 2]

Hi ukstu, thank you for the information. 

[Ukstu 436]

Your welcome. 

[Guest guest]

And old dies were used until they broke wherever possible, so at the year end, the date would be recut. The same would happen with the initial mark changeover

[Ukstu 436]

22 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

And old dies were used until they broke wherever possible, so at the year end, the date would be recut. The same would happen with the initial mark changeover

Thanks for that. Never thought of that. Makes sense. Thats a more likely scenario for an overdate. ?

Edited August 4, 2017 by Ukstu

[Coinery 926]

Nice clear example of 5/4 

looking at the top of the lions and breaks in the shield I'm guessing this is a sixpence?

whether a sixpence or 3d, both are well documented with 5/4, and with the Eglantine being one of the most prolific marks of the reign it's not rare. However, it's great to have unambiguous examples of these overdates...great find, can we see the full coin?

[Coinery 926]

OK, just reread the title! So, a sixpence, meaning a BCW reverse die EG-e