1745 Shilling Overdate ?

[arthurcrown]

Was examining my new arrival of shillings and noticed what looks like an overdate of the 5 on this 1745 (roses in angles).

There's an 1745/3 listed in Spink but I'm not sure if it's maybe this or a double struck 5

Any opinions pls

[Garrett]

Very interesting !

My *guess* is double-struck '5'.

Only a guess, thanks for showing us.

cheers Garrett.

[azda]

5 over 5. if it were a 3 the downwards stroke Would be running from Right to left down towards the Curve of the 5

Edited December 21, 2014 by azda

[Coinery]

5 for me!

[Michael-Roo]

Was examining my new arrival of shillings and noticed what looks like an overdate of the 5 on this 1745 (roses in angles).

There's an 1745/3 listed in Spink but I'm not sure if it's maybe this or a double struck 5

Any opinions pls

Hi Arthur.

My 1745 Lima shilling has the same overdate (attached).

[arthurcrown]

Seems strange that as it's from a different reverse die it still has the same double struck 5.

Would something like this occur if the die got damaged and needed re-engraving ?

[Michael-Roo]

There are people on here more qualified than I am to answer this one……

[Rob]

As the reverse dies were current for a few years, it is likely that all serviceable dies were recut with the new date. They used to fill in the old numeral and then recut the new one. Sometimes this is clearly seen as an overdate but at other times not. Overdates are much more common than people realise, it's just that they aren't immediately obvious. If you have a previously used die it will have been hardened for use. To recut the date it is therefore necessary to soften the die before working on it. If the die is too hard it will be difficult to sink the new numeral in the same place every blow. What you will see is a series of glancing blows which result in punch creep for want of a better expression.

Using the attached James I halfgroat to demonstrate what I mean, the mark seen is a spur rowel over saltire. The saltire has right angles whereas the spur rowel does not. You can see a series of cuts moving from top left to bottom right. In the hand there are 5 or 6 of these, all slightly offset from the previous one. This was a case of a new die being recut with the new mark. No silver was brought into the mint for coining during the period of the saltire mark because the market price for silver remained above face value based on the weight of the coins, but dies would have been produced in anticipation of work. Rather than throw the die away, it was more cost effective to recut just a small part. Other denominations are also known with an overcut saltire mark.

[arthurcrown]

I did wonder if old dies might of been re-used, i.e date changes or plain angles engraved with roses etc.

In the case of a double struck number in the date, as mine and Michaels, would that mean the 5 was already there in the old die, possibly 1735 ?

[Rob]

I did wonder if old dies might of been re-used, i.e date changes or plain angles engraved with roses etc.

In the case of a double struck number in the date, as mine and Michaels, would that mean the 5 was already there in the old die, possibly 1735 ?

I think it is more likely to be a case of the die being too hard to punch in the new digit. Try hitting a sheet of hardened metal with a chisel and hammer (or an Accrington blue with a lumphammer) and you find that it will bounce off. Until the initial groove is made, the job is a bit hit and miss, excuse the pun. Misalignment is the order of the day. I think the same happens with recut dies if they aren't soft enough.

I don't think it would be 1735 which is too distant in the past.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Rob