George V reverse ghosting

[Peckris]

We have all discussed the reverse 'ghosting' on the first period of George V coinage (1911 - 1926, especially up to 1920). As is known this was the result of an imbalance between the deeply cut, heavily cut obverse portrait, and an often shallow reverse unprotected by a decent rim. The 'ghost' on the reverse is an outline of the portrait edge, particularly the upper head and forehead, rather than the facial features and neck.

But it only occurs on some denominations, and only slightly on others compared to the worst denominations - penny, halfpenny, and shilling. I've done some Photoshop comparisons showing the exact location of the upper portrait edge in relation to the reverse design. Hopefully it will be seen that where there is an expanse of empty field, that is where the ghosting occurs.

The first example is the halfcrown : this reverse has a good strong design, and there is virtually no part of it which invites ghosting - even the one bit of field (left, central) is protected by the strong curved edge of the shield.

(I will attach the other reverses in separate posts, due to image sizes).

[Peckris]

The florin has plenty of empty field, and therefore there is sometimes a bit of ghosting. But it's light, and this is due to 1) a decent reverse rim and 2) quite good protection from the parts of the design that breaks up the empty field - particularly the sceptres.

[Peckris]

The shilling shows clearly why ghosting is such a problem. There is a small rim, and a huge area of empty field to the left of lion-on-crown. Above, the portrait edge is below the inner circle and is a large uninterrupted length. Finally, even on the right hand side there is scope for ghosting with lots of empty space.

[Peckris]

The sixpence is less prone to ghosting than the shilling - the rim and indeed the whole design is larger in proportion to the flan than on the shilling (due to the small size of the coin); and it is also noticeable that the top of the portrait falls OUTSIDE the inner circle and within the legend, reducing the scope for ghosting.

[Peckris]

I have ignored the silver threepence and farthing - these coins are too small, and the reverse design therefore proportionately larger and heavier on the flans than on the larger coins. Conversely, the portrait is comparatively less heavy, given that the legend needs to be larger in proportion.

The penny on the other hand (and the halfpenny which conforms to the same effects) is a classic example of ghosting at its worst. The rim is too small to give any protection, and there is a lot of empty field. In fact, the only interruption to the portrait edge is Britannia's helmet, and the negligible width of her forearm and the trident. These two denominations suffer the worst ghosting, and only the shilling can rival it of the silver denominations.

I hope this review of reverse designs in relation to the obverse portrait has been helpful.

[Gary D]

We know what causes ghosting, a heavy observe design, but do we know what it is. I would suggest it's an effect in the crystal structure as there's no metal missing leaving a cavity. To me it would suggest it's an area in the coin where there has been a larger flow of material leaving the crystals in the coins structure very elongated giving a different surface appearance.

[scott]

it pops up everywhere, i have examples of small head geo V geo VI and elizabeth II

[Peter]

Ghosting appeared on the 1840 2 prong 1/4d.

What caused this? apart from worn dies.

http://www.omnicoin.com/viewcoin/947669

[Nick]

Ghosting appeared on the 1840 2 prong 1/4d.

What caused this? apart from worn dies.

http://www.omnicoin.com/viewcoin/947669

Is that not a case of clashed dies rather than ghosting?

[Peter]

Ghosting appeared on the 1840 2 prong 1/4d.

What caused this? apart from worn dies.

http://www.omnicoin.com/viewcoin/947669

Is that not a case of clashed dies rather than ghosting?

Could well be a clashed die although the rest of the reverse is struck OK (apart from the 3rd prong).

I've had examples with the prong gradually disappearing with no sign of Vickies head.But when the prong has gone completely the head is always there.

[Nick]

Ghosting appeared on the 1840 2 prong 1/4d.

What caused this? apart from worn dies.

http://www.omnicoin.com/viewcoin/947669

Is that not a case of clashed dies rather than ghosting?

Could well be a clashed die although the rest of the reverse is struck OK (apart from the 3rd prong).

I've had examples with the prong gradually disappearing with no sign of Vickies head.But when the prong has gone completely the head is always there.

I think that the two effects (die wear and die clashing) are independent, although a worn die will have had a lot more opportunity to have clashed.

[VickySilver]

Well said, I concur. That farthing is IMO definately a case of clashed dies. One of the wonderful things about those copper farthings is that they come lovely and I always like to think of them as "Poor Man's Sovereigns" given the origin of the obverse dies.

Overall, I tend to deduct value for ghosting as it detracts from the appearance of the coin; unfortunately, this is hard to avoid with such coins as the 1918-1919 pennies.

[Peckris]

Ghosting appeared on the 1840 2 prong 1/4d.

What caused this? apart from worn dies.

http://www.omnicoin.com/viewcoin/947669

I go along with the others' verdict of clashed dies - it's definitely not ghosting as the impression is indented not raised. Also the outline of the original design is perfect, whereas ghosting causes a vague outline, slightly raised.

Well said, I concur. That farthing is IMO definately a case of clashed dies. One of the wonderful things about those copper farthings is that they come lovely and I always like to think of them as "Poor Man's Sovereigns" given the origin of the obverse dies.

Overall, I tend to deduct value for ghosting as it detracts from the appearance of the coin; unfortunately, this is hard to avoid with such coins as the 1918-1919 pennies.

The question of value is an interesting one. I guess it will vary from dealer to dealer, from collector to collector. As with die cracks too. I have BU 1860 beaded border halfpenny with 100% gleaming lustre as if it came from the Mint yesterday. But also a longish thin die crack on the obverse. As a result it cost me £20 from a Midland Fair dealer (in the 90s). I thought that was a bargain then, and I still do now. In the same way, a badly ghosted but BU Geo V penny wouldn't put me off one bit if it was a date I wanted.

[declanwmagee]

The question of value is an interesting one. I guess it will vary from dealer to dealer, from collector to collector. As with die cracks too. I have BU 1860 beaded border halfpenny with 100% gleaming lustre as if it came from the Mint yesterday. But also a longish thin die crack on the obverse. As a result it cost me £20 from a Midland Fair dealer (in the 90s). I thought that was a bargain then, and I still do now. In the same way, a badly ghosted but BU Geo V penny wouldn't put me off one bit if it was a date I wanted.

No, nor me. If I ended up with a BU ghosty and and a BU without, of the same date, I'd probably create a new variety and keep both. Although it gets a footnote in Peck, the 1918KN bird's foot is only a dicky die, but it gets the same treatment in my collection. A slot for 1918KN, and a slot for 1918KN BF.

[Rob]

The question of value is an interesting one. I guess it will vary from dealer to dealer, from collector to collector. As with die cracks too. I have BU 1860 beaded border halfpenny with 100% gleaming lustre as if it came from the Mint yesterday. But also a longish thin die crack on the obverse. As a result it cost me £20 from a Midland Fair dealer (in the 90s). I thought that was a bargain then, and I still do now. In the same way, a badly ghosted but BU Geo V penny wouldn't put me off one bit if it was a date I wanted.

No, nor me. If I ended up with a BU ghosty and and a BU without, of the same date, I'd probably create a new variety and keep both. Although it gets a footnote in Peck, the 1918KN bird's foot is only a dicky die, but it gets the same treatment in my collection. A slot for 1918KN, and a slot for 1918KN BF.

I'd be happy with just a single KN if I could find one in the right grade.

[davidrj]

The question of value is an interesting one. I guess it will vary from dealer to dealer, from collector to collector. As with die cracks too. I have BU 1860 beaded border halfpenny with 100% gleaming lustre as if it came from the Mint yesterday. But also a longish thin die crack on the obverse. As a result it cost me £20 from a Midland Fair dealer (in the 90s). I thought that was a bargain then, and I still do now. In the same way, a badly ghosted but BU Geo V penny wouldn't put me off one bit if it was a date I wanted.

No, nor me. If I ended up with a BU ghosty and and a BU without, of the same date, I'd probably create a new variety and keep both. Although it gets a footnote in Peck, the 1918KN bird's foot is only a dicky die, but it gets the same treatment in my collection. A slot for 1918KN, and a slot for 1918KN BF.

A well struck ghosty is fine by me,

Any serious collector of George V knows that the obverse die tweaks were an ongoing battle by the Mint to reduce ghosting, to me excluding examples of ghosting from a collection seems daft. The ones without ghosting in some years can be considered the freaks

David

[scott]

i like this ghostie

this has ghosting as well, look at the wear pattern.

[ski]

please excuse my ignorance but ive not heard the term clashed dies before, what is this and how does it come about and affect the coin?

ski

[Peckris]

i like this ghostie

this has ghosting as well, look at the wear pattern.

scott - the 1929 is possibly not actual ghosting? Would I be right in thinking it only shows up in the lustre pattern and the field is still flat? I can barely detect anything on the George VI penny, but the wear pattern may show up something? It probably isn't raised in any way though..

please excuse my ignorance but ive not heard the term clashed dies before, what is this and how does it come about and affect the coin?

ski

Clashed dies is where a planchet has gone walkabouts (i.e. for some reason isn't where it should be!) - the dies clash together with no blank between them and as a result, the design from one die can leave a faint impression on the other die. This in turn will leave an impression on subsequent coins until noticed and taken out of commission. I'm not sure of the actual physics, as it involves a design that is IMPRESSED somehow transferring (if the design was RAISED it would be easy to explain).

[Rob]

Clashed dies is where a planchet has gone walkabouts (i.e. for some reason isn't where it should be!) - the dies clash together with no blank between them and as a result, the design from one die can leave a faint impression on the other die. This in turn will leave an impression on subsequent coins until noticed and taken out of commission. I'm not sure of the actual physics, as it involves a design that is IMPRESSED somehow transferring (if the design was RAISED it would be easy to explain).

It is straightforward. All you see is the outline with no internal detail, as the junction between field and design where the angle of incidence changes is responsible for the damage together with the field. The field, which is the higher feature on a die will therefore depress the metal on the softer die where there was physical contact, while not touching the die where the incuse design is. This results in a new raised (incuse on the damaged die) design feature equal to the parts of the impressing die's field. The damage will of course be effected on the softer of the two dies, which could be either one depending on the degree of hardening achieved for each die during manufacture. Dies produced under nominally the same conditions will still have subtle differences in their physical properties arising from localised inhomogeneity in the metal mix, temperature differences within the oven during hardening and by extension an effective difference in conditioning time at a specific temperature. One variation will be hardness.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Rob

[Nick]

please excuse my ignorance but ive not heard the term clashed dies before, what is this and how does it come about and affect the coin?

ski

Clashed dies is where a planchet has gone walkabouts (i.e. for some reason isn't where it should be!) - the dies clash together with no blank between them and as a result, the design from one die can leave a faint impression on the other die. This in turn will leave an impression on subsequent coins until noticed and taken out of commission. I'm not sure of the actual physics, as it involves a design that is IMPRESSED somehow transferring (if the design was RAISED it would be easy to explain).

Here's an example of a clashed die shilling. The first picture is a merged image to show where the obverse would be on the reverse and the second picture is the actual reverse. A heck of a lot of earlier Victorian coins show signs of die clashing.

[VickySilver]

I have seen TPG services downgrade for dieclash, but sometimes I am not sure if they recognise in individual case that is what is going on with the coin (ie it should NOT affect the technical grade of a coin).

And ocassionally the ghosting of Britannia can highlight George V's bust with a pleasant interplay with the "carwheel" lustre as the coin is rotated.

[ski]

many thanx for the explanations, also for the pics of the shilling.

[Peckris]

Clashed dies is where a planchet has gone walkabouts (i.e. for some reason isn't where it should be!) - the dies clash together with no blank between them and as a result, the design from one die can leave a faint impression on the other die. This in turn will leave an impression on subsequent coins until noticed and taken out of commission. I'm not sure of the actual physics, as it involves a design that is IMPRESSED somehow transferring (if the design was RAISED it would be easy to explain).

It is straightforward. All you see is the outline with no internal detail, as the junction between field and design where the angle of incidence changes is responsible for the damage together with the field. The field, which is the higher feature on a die will therefore depress the metal on the softer die where there was physical contact, while not touching the die where the incuse design is. This results in a new raised (incuse on the damaged die) design feature equal to the parts of the impressing die's field. The damage will of course be effected on the softer of the two dies, which could be either one depending on the degree of hardening achieved for each die during manufacture. Dies produced under nominally the same conditions will still have subtle differences in their physical properties arising from localised inhomogeneity in the metal mix, temperature differences within the oven during hardening and by extension an effective difference in conditioning time at a specific temperature. One variation will be hardness.

Ah, that makes more sense now - thanks for the explanation Rob.