Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
azda

1850 Sov

Recommended Posts

A clear unlisted variety me thinks

IMG_8680.JPG

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael-Roo said:

Wow, couldn't be clearer. Nice find Dave.

Unfortunately not mine, popped up on a Sov group i'm in, but thought i'd share so you can keep your eyes peeled, but its clear as day....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also at a time when sovereign dies were being reused for farthings so a potential farthing variety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colin G. said:

Also at a time when sovereign dies were being reused for farthings so a potential farthing variety

Wow, never knew that! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 4:38 PM, azda said:

A clear unlisted variety me thinks

IMG_8680.JPG

I’d question that, Dave, the monarch was definitely seated on a throne for that date, and that denomination! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excuse my ignorance but is it to do with the 5 over 8 or 8 over 5 on the date  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, craigy said:

excuse my ignorance but is it to do with the 5 over 8 or 8 over 5 on the date  ?

5 over 8, but god knows why it would even be there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, azda said:

5 over 8, but god knows why it would even be there

Presumably the 5 was entered and subsequently corrected with an 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob said:

Presumably the 5 was entered and subsequently corrected with an 8.

But the 8 seems to be underneath the 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, azda said:

But the 8 seems to be underneath the 5

What appears to look underneath on a coin is on top on the die as the die is reversed i.e. the field part is the highest point on the die.

All sounds a bit back to front 😶

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

What appears to look underneath on a coin is on top on the die as the die is reversed i.e. the field part is the highest point on the die.

All sounds a bit back to front 😶

Surely the digit would be struck twice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, azda said:

Surely the digit would be struck twice

It has been with two numbers ,first the 5 and then an 8 the second strike a correction that was not done firm enough IMO.

The first 5 being entered as again should of been done in reverse the third number on a coin would be the second to look at on the die.

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks to me like someone has punched the 8 using a concave tool with a recessed 5.

The 5’s are also slightly different.

There is also an indentation surrounding the number which looks like the striking tool edge. This wouldn’t be present on an over strike. 

Be interesting to see what the mint thinks of it.

Edited by Diaconis
drunken mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there another one to compare with? I can imagine if this variety is "Extremely rare" it would be very lucrative to copy, and this one leaves me suspicious to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a very similar error or die repair rarity on an 1851 Threepence, often referred to as a 1551 Threepence!

By the way, the picture is culled from the net, not mine! This seems too to be an exceptionally rare piece - how many others of this are out there? Any at all, like the sovereign? 

 

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality it all depends on how hard a device has been punched, the deepest appearing as the digit on top, regardless of which one was entered first. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Coinery said:

In reality it all depends on how hard a device has been punched, the deepest appearing as the digit on top, regardless of which one was entered first. 

Just suppose for a moment that it's fake and the error did not occur at the mint.  Someone may have doctored the '8' to look like a '5', that is how it looks to me. If I would want to create another 'full' number out of an existing number I would take the one with the most meat, I think the '8' would be the ideal candidate and a '5' would fit perfectly over the top in a hollow punch.

Spink mentions this as 8/5 as being Extremely rare, and conventionally, the first digit predominates over the second. This is a 5/8.

Just found the slab photograph at Heritage which looks even more suspect don't you think?

623141718_Screenshot2019-03-17at21_27_14.png.1f00307aa01e24d2e0565933b0b553a1.png

It would need RM (not PCGS, sorry PCGS) authentication before I coughed up over $4,000 for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I feel really happy with that date error. I can’t see any foul play, even when I’m trying to seek it out...not that I’m any expert, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Coinery said:

In reality it all depends on how hard a device has been punched, the deepest appearing as the digit on top, regardless of which one was entered first. 

Of which probably the best example is the 1817 GEOE shilling. There isn't a person on the planet who would replace the correct R with an E.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is not to suggest that the 5 was actually intended to be recut, and therefore on the working die it would have been the second digit from the left, the cutter made a mistake and instinctively recut the 8 by mistake due to the inverted design of the die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rob said:

Of which probably the best example is the 1817 GEOE shilling. There isn't a person on the planet who would replace the correct R with an E.

If your eyesight was going an R does look a bit like an E 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

If your eyesight was going an R does look a bit like an E 😂

It is E/R in terms of relief. The R is much lower relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Colin G. said:

What is not to suggest that the 5 was actually intended to be recut, and therefore on the working die it would have been the second digit from the left, the cutter made a mistake and instinctively recut the 8 by mistake due to the inverted design of the die?

A very rational idea, as logical an explanation as any. I guess that same rationale applies to the time the die was first cut too.

I think the interesting point to clear up, though, is the idea that when an error occurs, it’s assumed the highest device (the one in greatest relief) is the first entered, when in fact it’s only about which device has been struck the hardest/deepest that has it sit on top of another letter/number/device on the actual coin.

Diaconis talks about 5/8 and 8/5 but they are in this example one and the same (with only how hard the punch was struck to differentiate) when all the points are explored into how the 5 happened  there in the first place. The 8 could’ve been first on the die and then unintentionally recut at a later date with a deep strike of the 5 (meaning to recut the 5 but using Colin’s suggestion), putting it in higher relief on the milled coin. Or, when the die was first made, a 5 was accidentally entered where the 8 should be, and was subsequently recut/repaired with a lighter strike of an 8, still leaving the 5 in higher relief on the milled coin. 

A bit wordy, I’m not sure everyone is grasping the concept. 

Edited by Coinery
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×