1652 over 1 Half Crown

[hibernianscribe]

I've just bought this super Commonwealth half crown with excellent provenance including previous sale by Spink, so its authenticity is certain. It is a 1652 over 1 variant that neither North nor Spink references describe, so no pictures to refer to. It is apparently listed by ESC as 'rare' (ESC old 26 and ESC new 430) although at present I don't have a copy of English Silver Coinage to look at. Now that I have the coin in my hand I am having some difficulty actually seeing the changed digit although the 2 does appear 'different' and with my digital microscope I think I can see just a smidgeon of a serif along the bottom edge of the 2. Since this is the first of these that I have actually seen I'm wondering whether others are as difficult to classify. Can anyone enlighten me on the process they would have used to change the 1 to 2 - would the original digit have been scraped off before re-stamping or would they have just applied the new digit over the old? Whatever they did this is quite a neat job and not as obvious as say, 1865 over 3 pennies.

Could any of you more wise than me offer any advice on this?

Edited January 17, 2018 by hibernianscribe

[davetmoneyer]

Hi generally the later digit would be stamped over the earlier digit, ( see Liz overdates and Chas I 3d overdates 1646/4 oxford)

 

[zookeeperz]

I think it's a case of something there so safer to call it a 1. Myself it looks more like it could of been an upside down 3  ?

[Rob]

There is evidence from only 20 years later on from the milled coinage that dies were also filled and recut with the new date - e.g. see the 1675/3/2 halfpenny in the unlisted thread. This method was definitely used until the 19th century.

I don't know whether any hammered dies were so treated, but given the short intervening period it must be a possibility.

As for whether dies were ground down and the new feature entered, I would say it happened on occasion. Sometimes it was only necessary to add an arc for example, so I guess the action would depend on the outcome required.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Rob

[hibernianscribe]

Quote

 

Thanks for your inputs. This query has spurred me into finally getting a copy of English Silver Coinage from 1649 (6th edition, 2015) which I picked up at an excellent price of £36 with free postage so I'm quite pleased. It arrived this morning and is a fine volume. I now don't know why I delayed so long in getting one.

It has photos of all of the variants including the one I was querying and mine is pretty much like the picture in the book. From what Rob says above, I reckon the die was filled then re-cut. Due to the angle of lighting I think, my photo in my first post doesn't actually show what is clearly shown in the book but when I examine the coin I can see the ghost of the 1 running up the left (front) side of the 2.

Edited January 18, 2018 by hibernianscribe

[Rob]

I threw the question of filling and recutting into the mix as a possibility, but without any proof either way.

It could be partly rubbed down and recut. The evidence from some coins dating to the civil war shows underlying detail that can be identified as being from a particular (different) die. This only predating your coin by a few years suggests that it was standard practice at the time. Pre-Civil War, I have a type 4 halfcrown with a star mark overlying an anchor. Anchor is unknown on a type 4. Similarly there was a type 3 halfcrown went through Lockdales in the past year or so with an underlying Portcullis, used on type 2 coins of that denomination.

Engraving the dies on the end of a piece of hand-held bar for hammered coins is more flexible than dies used for mechanical presses where the surfaces need to be more consistently parallel given the mechanical alignment of the press. A seriously undulating die face in the latter case would produce inferior coins. 

[Coys55]

I find this a useful resource for Commonweath varieties: http://www.sunandanchor.com/html/data_page.html

[hibernianscribe]

20 hours ago, Coys55 said:

I find this a useful resource for Commonweath varieties: http://www.sunandanchor.com/html/data_page.html

Thanks for that - I agree, this is a very useful site!