Danz Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) 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 Quote
Peckris Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 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? Quote
Danz Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) 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 Quote
Rob Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 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. Quote
Danz Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 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. Quote
Andrew W Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 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. 2 Quote
zookeeperz Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 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. 1 Quote
Andrew W Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 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. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.