1845 Half Crown - 5/3 ?

[Phil]

Hi all,

This is my first post on here and I would value an opinion on this Young Head

Do you think this is a five over three - or some other error?

Many thanks in advance

[Coinery]

Welcome aboard, Phil!

A really difficult one...it does look as though there are some interesting features. However, I would say that, what looks like an upper back-curve of a three, is just a little too inconsistent with the shape for a full-shaped 3? Also, the little prominences at the front top-edge, and front-edge, of the 5, look a little damaged/clogged die, cruddy, a little like the edges of the 4?

I don't know, would need a little more experience of type, which is not in short supply on here!

A die-study would help!

[Rob]

This is Adams 663 which was catalogued in the sale as a 3 over 3, but Colin thought it 5 over 3 or possibly 3 over 5. Whatever, it wasn't cleanly struck. Sorry, the best I can do image-wise.

Edit to add: Why does Photobucket add this stupid /url on the back of every image? It appears to be getting progressively more difficult to use. What happened to good old copy and paste?

Edited August 30, 2013 by Rob

[Paulus]

Rob, I don't like the latest version of Photobucket either but you can still click (single left click) inside the IMG field and control + V into here, as I just have:

Capturing your image and reposting via photobucket took less than 1 minute, I still think it is the best method but there may well be better alternatives to Photobucket!

[RLC35]

Hi all,

This is my first post on here and I would value an opinion on this Young Head

Do you think this is a five over three - or some other error?

Many thanks in advance

1845-hc-o-scan.jpg

1845-date.jpg

Phil,

There is a little residue around the numbers of the date that make it difficult to tell for sure if it is an overdate. Wash the coin with soap and water gently (maybe even use a soft toothbrush on the date), pat it dry, and use a 10x or better loupe...you should be able to get a better picture of if you have a overdate, or just a dirty date!

[Nick]

Edit to add: Why does Photobucket add this stupid /url on the back of every image? It appears to be getting progressively more difficult to use. What happened to good old copy and paste?

You can configure PhotoBucket not to add the url tags. Login to PhotoBucket. Click on arrow next to username (top right of screen) and select "User Settings". Now select the "Albums" tab and untick "Link back to albums". Save your settings. The url tags will no longer appear.

[Phil]

Thanks all,

I will give the coin a careful clean as suggested and see if I can get a clearer scan - I will upload when I have done this

[Phil]

Hi Again,

Well I have given this a gentle clean with soapy water & soft toothbrush. I think I have managed to remove the crud from around the date.

Under various loupes it does look like the remains of an underlying digit but I have also done my best to present a clearer scan this time which I think shows this detail more clearly.

I welcome any comments

Thanks again

[Coinery]

Hi Again,

Well I have given this a gentle clean with soapy water & soft toothbrush. I think I have managed to remove the crud from around the date.

Under various loupes it does look like the remains of an underlying digit but I have also done my best to present a clearer scan this time which I think shows this detail more clearly.

I welcome any comments

Thanks again

1845-date-2.jpg

Amazing how that 'back loop' and the protrusions I saw on the phone have disappeared! It could be a three, though I'd not personally buy it as such, or truly think it to be, not without a die-match or much better evidence!

Edit: Idon't think it's an overdate, sorry!

Edited August 30, 2013 by Coinery

[Rob]

It might possibly contain traces of an underlying 4. Crossing the ball of the 5 is a line of dots which join a small rounded curl in the adjacent field. There is also a possible flat line equating to the foot of a 4 by the 5 base and a disturbance in the upper void of the 5 which would be correct for a 4 upright. There is anecdotal evidence for the time to suggest that die life was worryingly short in the 1840s and so dies were likely to have their useful lives extended by any means possible. Changing the final digit is an obvious means of doing so. I don't think there is an underlying 3 though.

IMO people shouldn't get too hung up on whether it is a documented overdate or not. Dies were reclaimed wherever possible, and I think it likely that most years exist with the previous year's date overstruck, potentially on any denomination.

[Coinery]

I think the big problem is, unless any said variety is acknowledged to be so by the academic towers, it just doesn't exist, other than speculativley (unless you can privately prove otherwise).

In general, there are few who splash out on a variety/rarity unless it's been sanctioned by 'the board', though we all enjoy pushing the boundaries!

If you want a new varity out of this, Phil, you just need to find a high-grade example from the same die, and/or look for any features that can link it to the original 3 die.

All good fun!

[Phil]

Thanks all for taking the time to have another look and reply.

In the cold light of day (and after the initial wishful thinking subsided) but most importantly having read your replies I must agree with you that this is not a 5/3.

Possibly as Rob said, it could be a 4 and true, I have come across many unlisted overstrikes through my decades of collecting as I am sure many of us have and I don't try to seek a premium for such examples when I come to sell them on.

I think I will sell this one on as an 1845 with the mention of possible unlisted overstrike.

Question answered - thanks again for all your input - it is very much appreciated.

[Peckris]

Capturing your image and reposting via photobucket took less than 1 minute, I still think it is the best method but there may well be better alternatives to Photobucket!

Uploading here direct from your own computer, takes about 10 seconds. (And I could take ANY of your images and convert it to a manageable 150K!)

This is Adams 663 which was catalogued in the sale as a 3 over 3, but Colin thought it 5 over 3 or possibly 3 over 5. Whatever, it wasn't cleanly struck. Sorry, the best I can do image-wise.

Or possibly just a poorly struck 3 or a poorly struck 5?

Edit: Idon't think it's an overdate, sorry!

Nor me. It's a worn coin anyway, and it appears to be a 5 that's slightly damaged, probably post-minting.