1837 over legend R/R

[Danz]

Just got this one through the post today. It's a 1837 shilling. I could see the R over R on the listing so had a bid on it. The lower R is quite out of place. I've graded it as fine. I have not seen another one like it. Could it be classed as a variety as not a repair on a worn die. What do think?

Edited August 30, 2014 by Danz

[Peckris]

It's certainly not a repair to a worn die - my guess is that the R was badly mispunched and they tried a repunch of the character. In which case there ought to be others from the same die?

[Danz]

Here is another R over R 1837 Shilling. Pretty bad condition. Can this be classed as a variety now?

Edited October 18, 2014 by Danz

[Rob]

Here is another R over R 1837 Shilling. Pretty bad condition. Can this be classed as a variety now?

You can call anything you like a variety - it's your coin to do what you like.

What it isn't, is a deliberate design difference, an incorrect letter, a spelling mistake or any other major fault. Given it takes a few blows with the hammer to punch in a letter, you must appreciate that to correctly align the characters required considerable skill. These coins predated the reducing equipment now used, so all work was done at the micro level and so a somewhat misaligned legend on a coin should be expected from time to time. For a good selection of unevenly punched legends look at the early copper fractions. If you are going to include small variations in the vertical alignment, then you would also have to list the various separations found in the hoirizontal axis. As discussed previously, this would result in a comprehensive list of dies produced, but I question whether it would do much for the typical variety collector.

[Danz]

I see where your coming from. Not a deliberate variety but accidental which is quite common. I will keep it as an R/R variety. Cheers Dan.

[Andrew W]

On 10/18/2014 at 7:25 PM, Danz said:

I see where your coming from. Not a deliberate variety but accidental which is quite common. I will keep it as an R/R variety. Cheers Dan.

Hi Danz,

 I've just discovered another 1837 R over lower R. 

[zookeeperz]

If it's not a variety why do they class 1 over lower 1 recut a variety? and it isn't just a mispunch like on all the coins of this era where for the most part most of the coins have some form of repunching but 99% of those are the same and predominantly horizontal. To miss by that much is however way you look at it        a mistake and is not a typical re punch. Won't hold a massive premium like a R/B or B/R but i'll have a wager with you that if you put that coin up for sale with another shilling same grade this coin will sell for a lot more. Just because it doesn't interest all collectors in the purist form there are plenty that will snap it up because it is a minor variety something not seen regularly. What would the call be if every letter on that coin was repunched the same offset would it be classed still as a non variety? I think not so 1 letter or 20 letters it's a minor variety as it appears more than once on the year but in the handfuls  if that  1825 / higher 5 farthing comes to mind   and the 1837/7 misaligned both carry hefty premiums.

[DrLarry]

it seems to depend who finds it.  An accident is an error that R over the lower R should be clearly in my book an example of variety if there are several examples.  As I have said before these selective processes that lead to legend errors seem flawed in my opinion.  If there has been remodelling of a letter either as a smaller type overprinted by a larger type or a change in the style of the legend which clearly shows historic changes then we dismiss an essential part of the history of a coins "development" for me this is an anathema of being a good collector, it is a duty as custodian of history to understand this mechanism of minting from start to finish.  To me I find it ridiculous if an error occurred it is not noted, notwithstanding this position of inconvenience that the "variety" imposes that we have to have a book the size of an encyclopedia to note them all there is a responsibility for future generation to ensure the information it clearly collected so that someone can use the data to resolve a question.  I have said before and I will say it again.  If we find an error list it in some online system , force everyone to relook at their own examples, and build up a picture of the number of each type in existence around the world in collections.  It is not good enough to say  an error is a variety only if it is a mistake like a B over an R.  Even if we do list these new varieties a pattern (data) may arise from them which may make us look differently at coining in a certain period. 

[DrLarry]

The only way to change things is to act as a collective.  I think that misalignments are vitally important when you put them in relation to alterations in other design aspects like the inner circle or lettering sometimes I feel they clearly show that a die may have been reused from a pattern or some lost design.  If nothing else it makes us question the quality controls of the mint it also gives us a very human viewpoint someone bungled their job for that days work  tried to hide it? the supervisor missed it? working conditions at the time and the relative value in time and effort to resolve these problems.  It is not just in the silver or copper department look at how many errors there are in Victorian Sovereigns.  

[DrLarry]

either way I find the R over the R in this 37 "cool" as one of my kids would say ....I will search for one myself 

[Andrew W]

15 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

either way I find the R over the R in this 37 "cool" as one of my kids would say ....I will search for one myself 

Good luck.

[DrLarry]

never say never .....I enjoy a challenge