• The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

  • Join The Silver Forum

    The Silver Forum is one of the largest and best loved silver and gold precious metals forums in the world. Join today for FREE! Browse the sponsors topics (hidden to guests) for deals and offers, check out the bargains in the members trade section and join in with our community reacting and commenting on topic posts. If you have any questions whatsoever about precious metals collecting and investing please join and start a topic and we will be here to help with our knowledge :) happy stacking. 

sg86

Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

Recommended Posts

If half sovs can be included, may I ask the gathered to help me decide which Marsh number the attached belong with? I wouldn't look in Spink, it doesn't seem to feature there.

I had a thread a while back and Sovereignsteve gave some useful direction, which I appreciated, but I'm still a bit mixed up.

I'll not say any more, it would be better to let you decide, I have my opinion and would like to test it.

I realise it doesn't completely fit the OP bill, but as I find contradictory material in the text I thought it might help clear it up.

 

1880obv.JPG

1880rev.JPG

Edited by Sovsaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sovsaver said:

If half sovs can be included, may I ask the gathered to help me decide which Marsh number the attached belong with? I wouldn't look in Spink, it doesn't seem to feature there.

I had a thread a while back and Sovereignsteve gave some useful direction, which I appreciated, but I'm still a bit mixed up.

I'll not say any more, it would be better to let you decide, I have my opinion and would like to test it.

I realise it doesn't completely fit the OP bill, but as I find contradictory material in the text I thought it might help clear it up.

I wish I personally had more half sovereigns to compare and database but unfortunately I don't, so can only go by Marsh and others.

What exactly is your query though, as I see it, it's Marsh 455, Type 1B?

From the pictures it looks like it may be a 8/7 in date, and I'm not sure if it's common for the shield to encroach on the die number like that, again I've not seen enough pieces and the ones I do have are in storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New errors as far as I can tell:

1) 1852 "I" over lower "I" in "DEI". - I love this overdate, the correction is just so lazy, bad day at the office! Also what makes this interesting is I have 2 separate variations of the same error, but with the I's at slightly different angles!

2) 1852 "M" over tilted "M" in "BRITANNIARUM". - Never seen one of these before in any date (yet)

3) 1852 "I" over tilted "I" in "DEI". - This isn't just doubling

 

1)

DSC06348.thumb.JPG.aeb886303ea5ad3da10e08e45f2b71ce.JPG

2)

DSC06353.thumb.JPG.fad73f3efbb707b2f6c07f754f48e3ed.JPG

3)

DSC06362.thumb.JPG.8e0dfe327129940178656bd671033e38.JPG

 

Edited by sg86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sg86 said:

I wish I personally had more half sovereigns to compare and database but unfortunately I don't, so can only go by Marsh and others.

What exactly is your query though, as I see it, it's Marsh 455, Type 1B?

From the pictures it looks like it may be a 8/7 in date, and I'm not sure if it's common for the shield to encroach on the die number like that, again I've not seen enough pieces and the ones I do have are in storage.

Your answer is helpful, thanks. I don't think there's any number overstamp, just a little nick in the top right of the second 8 might make it look so.

I agree it's a type 1B, that's clear, but what's not immediately obvious at quick glance is the mintage note for M455, it says, "See Type IC No. 456". If you do that you'll see that those 1880 IC coins are rare, and are actually obverse 5 (A5). The obverse in my image is unless I'm mistaken obverse 4 (same as the 1876 - 1879 IB coins. If that's correct then my coin here has to be 455A, doesn't it? The thing that totally confuses me is the "low relief" comment, I'm not sure my coin is low relief, but am convinced it's obverse 4 due to the gap between the hair and legend and the truncation size and distance from "1" in date. Difference seen on pages 125 and 127 of Marsh 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sovsaver said:

Your answer is helpful, thanks. I don't think there's any number overstamp, just a little nick in the top right of the second 8 might make it look so.

I agree it's a type 1B, that's clear, but what's not immediately obvious at quick glance is the mintage note for M455, it says, "See Type IC No. 456". If you do that you'll see that those 1880 IC coins are rare, and are actually obverse 5 (A5). The obverse in my image is unless I'm mistaken obverse 4 (same as the 1876 - 1879 IB coins. If that's correct then my coin here has to be 455A, doesn't it? The thing that totally confuses me is the "low relief" comment, I'm not sure my coin is low relief, but am convinced it's obverse 4 due to the gap between the hair and legend and the truncation size and distance from "1" in date. Difference seen on pages 125 and 127 of Marsh 2017.

I agree it's a 1B clearly with obverse 4 although I'm not sure it is in low relief. As I said in your earlier thread, I don't think all the varieties from 1880 are clearly defined yet. That would put it as MM455A and Spink doesn't recognise it. Most likely category would be S3860E, currently listed from 1876 - 1879. I'm not convinced about it having a narrow hair ribbon either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turning into a bit of a picture thread but I think anyone coming across this thread with a question, the pictures can only help :)

Today we have an 1853, A for V in VICTORIA, however I think it's also been corrected with a V over the A after

DSC06382.thumb.JPG.7fbcbc295968e9e8805027e60e8a9781.JPG

Edited by sg86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

I agree it's a 1B clearly with obverse 4 although I'm not sure it is in low relief. As I said in your earlier thread, I don't think all the varieties from 1880 are clearly defined yet. That would put it as MM455A and Spink doesn't recognise it. Most likely category would be S3860E, currently listed from 1876 - 1879. I'm not convinced about it having a narrow hair ribbon either.

Thanks, I'm not sure about the ribbon, certainly narrower than obv 1, 2 & 3. I'm happy enough to call it M455A, not withstanding the uncertainty about the low relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need an opinion on these two, the first is a botched G in GRATIA, maybe a rotated G but opinions welcomed. The second is something under the 6 in date, no idea, could be a die flaw? I won't record if it's not a clear error.

1861 is a very sloppy year, 100s of tiny differences and i'm not recording the tiny ones, only clear errors.

DSC06406-2.JPG.e05c39cf65b3e8967850b7096f031710.JPG

DSC06410-2.JPG.d9c7e7000fe7cc21c38edc6fccb0bdc6.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now