1862 1/2D 2 over 2

[scott 129]

nit of an odd one, most listings for "over" are usualy simple repunches on top of the old one, this is a repunch but the 2 is differant totally, some 1862's had a sloped 2 , this has a stright 2 over slanted 2

http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view.aspx?id=966090

is visible on here but not that detailed

click this to get a larger image, its clear on there.

[scott 129]

well, nothing, is it counted as a type or not?

[1949threepence 3,366]

well, nothing, is it counted as a type or not?

Not sure, but as you say, there is a definite slant on the "2". Apart from "Die letter A, B or C to left of lighthouse", classed as extremely rare, there are no variants of the 1862 halfpenny listed (that I can see anyway). It may be just a one off error.

Interesting.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

well, nothing, is it counted as a type or not?

Not sure, but as you say, there is a definite slant on the "2". Apart from "Die letter A, B or C to left of lighthouse", classed as extremely rare, there are no variants of the 1862 halfpenny listed (that I can see anyway). It may be just a one off error.

Interesting.

Don't forget the newly discovered A to the RIGHT of the Lighthouse

[scott 129]

wow nice, dont forget the 2 over 1 too, butcan mine be listed as a veriant

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

wow nice, dont forget the 2 over 1 too, butcan mine be listed as a veriant

I've have the 2/1 PENNY, but I never heard of a 2/1 HALF-penny....

[RLC35 288]

B&C, That a really pronounced 2/1. Most of those pennies are must less clear. Thanks for posting.

[Red Riley 2]

well, nothing, is it counted as a type or not?

It's a very dark image - I had to Photoshop it to see anything - so most people won't have known what you were driving at. The 2 appears to be re-stamped over something, probably another 2, but the level of magnification needed and the low resolution means that it is very fuzzy. I don't have another 1862 halfpenny with which to compare it, but the dates on early bronze was frequently all over the place, and looking at the picture in Freeman, it appears that the slight slant may be normal for the issue.

Broadly speaking, coins minted from dies where a number has been re-cut over the same number, are not regarded as major, or in most cases even minor varieties but there is no hard and fast definition of what constitutes a variety, so if you want it to be one, then it is! Unlikely however that it will ever be worth much more than normal.

[Peckris 579]

the dates on early bronze was frequently all over the place, and looking at the picture in Freeman, it appears that the slight slant may be normal for the issue.

Broadly speaking, coins minted from dies where a number has been re-cut over the same number, are not regarded as major, or in most cases even minor varieties but there is no hard and fast definition of what constitutes a variety, so if you want it to be one, then it is! Unlikely however that it will ever be worth much more than normal.

I agree. Those early bronzes contain so many date and even legend curiosities - different size, spaced and slant of dates, broken or half missing letters ... just keeping tabs on genuine (i.e. deliberate) varieties is difficult enough, but when you add failing dies and punches, well most people give up!

[scott 129]

well there are some listed variants with 1 over 1's etc