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.

youliveyoulean

Die numbers on Young Head Half Sovereigns

Recommended Posts

Hi,

attached is a list by Marsh of the die numbers so far known on the young head half sovereigns 1863 - 1880.

I have never spent much time looking at these before but stumbled across a couple in my tray which weren't on the list. Perhaps there is little interest in them and the list has not been updated since the revised edition of the Gold Sovereign by Marsh came out (I have a 2017 copy)? 

As per the list, I also note some of the dies were used throughout the entire series of the type 1B shield for the 17 different years (according to the book, die number 3 for example would appear to have been used for most years including the 1st year of issue in 1863 and the last year 1880).

Is there anyone who can provide some background why some of these dies were used so many times in different years? 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DSC_0173.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I had a similar question on here about a year ago about die numbers on Sovereigns. I think we came to the conclusion that there were a set of dies made for the year and numbers probably were reused every year. So die 3 in 1865 would be different to die 3 in 1866. Now I have no iron clad evidence that, that is correct, however, I think it unlikely to have been the same die 3 from 1863 to 1880.

 

I would be happy to be proved wrong though. The only way to do that though would be to find a die flaw on one year and have the very same flaw on a subsequent year. The problem there though is that once dies reach the point of cracks and flaws they are pretty much life expired and would be discarded soon after I should imagine. Conversely, if one could find a die number used say in 1870 that always presented with a flaw, but in 1871 the flaw was absent then that surely would be eividence to suggest that they are different dies each year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sylvester is right - dies didn't last forever and certainly not for more than a year. It's possible that at the end of a year a die may have been used again next year (if it was still good) but I doubt there would have been much overlap.

I think half sovereigns are probably one of the less popular denominations so probably no one has reported newer die numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I have been compiling a list of half sovereign die numbers for the past few years and to date I have confirmed 738 including the auction/dealer etc where they have appeared. My total includes  324 new die numbers that do not appear in Marsh. However there are 179 die numbers that appear in Marsh and 7 that appeared in Michael Mapleton's list that have yet to be confirmed. 

The die numbers where engraved in batches and it is my opinion the reason for die numbers where to record the operative who produced the coin or for some other recording purpose rather than being to measure die wear. Take for example the coarser border variant Spink reference 3860a Die numbers 1-8 where used in 1870 and die numbers 9-13 where used in 1871 however in 1871 dies 9 and 10 also exist with the normal border.

If you would let me know the die numbers you have that do not appear in Marsh I will let you know if I already recorded them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, very impressive that you press on with this. I have to confess that even though I very much like the Vicky half sovereign series, I have not recorded the die numbers as it was just beyond my interest level. Please continue with your enthusiastic studies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 3:26 AM, Ashtonian said:

Hi,

I have been compiling a list of half sovereign die numbers for the past few years and to date I have confirmed 738 including the auction/dealer etc where they have appeared. My total includes  324 new die numbers that do not appear in Marsh. However there are 179 die numbers that appear in Marsh and 7 that appeared in Michael Mapleton's list that have yet to be confirmed. 

The die numbers where engraved in batches and it is my opinion the reason for die numbers where to record the operative who produced the coin or for some other recording purpose rather than being to measure die wear. Take for example the coarser border variant Spink reference 3860a Die numbers 1-8 where used in 1870 and die numbers 9-13 where used in 1871 however in 1871 dies 9 and 10 also exist with the normal border.

If you would let me know the die numbers you have that do not appear in Marsh I will let you know if I already recorded them.

Are you going to publish somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Hopefully some time in the future, At the moment I am researching all circulation Half Sovereigns issued by the London Mint  from 1817 to 1915,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 6:26 PM, Ashtonian said:

Hi,

I have been compiling a list of half sovereign die numbers for the past few years and to date I have confirmed 738 including the auction/dealer etc where they have appeared. My total includes  324 new die numbers that do not appear in Marsh. However there are 179 die numbers that appear in Marsh and 7 that appeared in Michael Mapleton's list that have yet to be confirmed. 

The die numbers where engraved in batches and it is my opinion the reason for die numbers where to record the operative who produced the coin or for some other recording purpose rather than being to measure die wear. Take for example the coarser border variant Spink reference 3860a Die numbers 1-8 where used in 1870 and die numbers 9-13 where used in 1871 however in 1871 dies 9 and 10 also exist with the normal border.

If you would let me know the die numbers you have that do not appear in Marsh I will let you know if I already recorded them.

Hi, die numbers relating to operators looks possible up until 1871 and 1872 where suddenly there would appear to be literally 100s of new employees producing half sovereigns as 100s of new die numbers appear.  Any thoughts on that?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

Production at the Royal Mint increased sharply in the early 1870's for nearly every denomination produced. In my opinion an employee could be assigned a range of  die numbers or die numbers taken from a particular range. Lets take the 1879 half sovereign as an example, we know that production of this rare half sovereign was completed on one day the 6th December 1879 amounting to mintage of approximately 35050 (my figures) with 10 different die numbers being recorded. Gold being a soft metal this would give an average production of 3505 per die which appears very low especially if compared to  the previous year, where the mintage was 2,317,558 and 89 recorded die numbers so far, giving an average of 26,040 per die. if the dies were handed out to more than one operative this would make more sense. Die numbers recorded for 1879 are:

57 & 58               (57 also recorded in 1878 but not 58)

88 & 89               (not recorded in either 1878 or 1880)

95                        (not recorded in either 1878 or 1880)

112, 116, 119     (119 also recorded in 1880)

161 & 180          (only recorded on the 1879 coin)

How many different operators are involved in this  production run could be 1 could be 10 but more likely 2 or 3

I think by 1873 the futility of using die numbers had become apparent to the Royal Mint and this is why the the new Sovereign and the re-introduced half crown did not have die numbers.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work Ashtonian. I have two 1879 London half sovs so will check on them later tonight for die numbers. What is the best you have seen, mine are both gEF...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 1879 London Mint half sovereign in gEF would be up there with the best. The top grade at NGC is only MS61 and PCGS has an AU58 example which previously sold at St James auctions back in 2009 graded by St James  almost extremely fine. The last one I seen offered was at Locke and England in July 2017 which was only in gF condition and this went for more than GBP200 . The Sydney mint coin is a lot more easy to obtain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, mine are in SDB but one each has been graded by NGC and PCG at AU55. Mine is pictured on the PCGS site when you look under population census; I got them so long ago I don't remember where they came from....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCGS one is die #88, have to find the NGC which is not with the rest??

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

×