Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[sovereignsteve]

11 minutes ago, sg86 said:

This is the fascinating part for me, so actual dies were potentially changed during use? Pure speculation or do we have any knowledge or other examples of this?

When I've been looking through different dies before I never looked for this happening. I have found an error on a die number that then exists on 4-5 others that I've seen, so just assumed all dies would be the same apart from slight wear differences

I don't think anyone really knows all facts about dies used and die numbers.

as you say you can often see the same error on several coins but maybe In extreme cases such as this, the die was replaced including the individual die number?

i have no idea if they did this, but if I were minting sovs routinely, I would do a small run of perhaps a dozen coins and check them before releasing the pair of dies for routine production. Any defective ones such as this could be melted, perhaps the odd one slipped through. You know workers do "strange" things sometimes😉

[TheGoldSovereign]

4 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I don't think anyone really knows all facts about dies used and die numbers.

as you say you can often see the same error on several coins but maybe In extreme cases such as this, the die was replaced including the individual die number?

i have no idea if they did this, but if I were minting sovs routinely, I would do a small run of perhaps a dozen coins and check them before releasing the pair of dies for routine production. Any defective ones such as this could be melted, perhaps the odd one slipped through. You know workers do "strange" things sometimes😉

Yea I'm with you, it makes things interesting, at least for me

 

[augur]

2 hours ago, sg86 said:

This is the fascinating part for me, so actual dies were potentially changed during use? Pure speculation or do we have any knowledge or other examples of this?

I think it is evident: once there are too many cracks or the die breaks it gets changed. I believe to have read 50,000 +/-10,000 coins for sovereigns per die but it will also depend on the metallurgy of the die alloy and the pressure used to strike. They will have checked every bag they produced and QC in those days actually meant something more than a sticker. I guess that's why they started to introduce die numbers to see how long they actually go. 

---

Added 0 minutes later...

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by augur
The dreaded double post strikes again

[sovereignsteve]

5 hours ago, augur said:

I think it is evident: once there are too many cracks or the die breaks it gets changed. I believe to have read 50,000 +/-10,000 coins for sovereigns per die but it will also depend on the metallurgy of the die alloy and the pressure used to strike. They will have checked every bag they produced and QC in those days actually meant something more than a sticker. I guess that's why they started to introduce die numbers to see how long they actually go. 

---

Added 0 minutes later...

 

There is no doubt that dies only lasted so long before they were changed and the die numbers were probably introduced to check the number of strikes in the life of a die.

However, the issue is if a die was found to be faulty at the start of it's life whether a replacement would be made using the same number.

The OP notes that he has several coins with the same die number as the coin in question but without the flaw. The problem with this evidence is that the flaw is on the obverse so it wouldn't have had a die number anyway.

It would have been easy for them to change the obverse die in this case and continue to use the numbered reverse die.

It was common for one of the dies in the pair to strike many more coins than the other so they would produce more of the weaker dies to allow for this. i can't remember which one wore out quicker but I would guess the obverse as it has more relief than the reverse.

Edit: there is a report in Marsh about obverse dies at the Melbourne mint only lasting for 8000 pieces against 14000 for the reverse. This was a cause for concern as it wa a lot lower than expected.

Edited May 30, 2019 by sovereignsteve

[KevjustKev]

As I know next to nothing about varieties and the like, anything special about this, 1884 Sydney mint job? Also worth grading?

 

[1817Karl]

 I have this variety... 1862 R over R in Victoria, anyone else have one of these , I wouldn't mind having a look at other images of this variety.

Marsh45C

Karl

[ilovesilverireallydo]

So picked one up today that looks odd. Sydney but the “s” is way too close, never seen one like this

[Xander]

I noticed Chards have one with the S quite high up.

[SovTracker]

Not seen one that high myself

[Xander]

Mint mark seem to be a bit higher on the S. M. Sovs. 

[ilovesilverireallydo]

1 hour ago, SovTracker said:

Not seen one that high myself

Neither have I, and I have seen hundreds...

maybe @sg86 might be able to comment if a genuine error 

[TheGoldSovereign]

Hi, yes I've seen quite a few touching the truncation like this in different years. I did record some severe ones like this as a variety. 

[ilovesilverireallydo]

On 27/07/2019 at 15:09, sg86 said:

Hi, yes I've seen quite a few touching the truncation like this in different years. I did record some severe ones like this as a variety. 

No added value then?  want to sell it but unsure what a fair price would be!

[TheGoldSovereign]

To be totally honest minor differences in dies like this I record because they are interesting and different, they are going to be rarer for sure but I'm not sure the demand for slight varieties at this point in time is great enough to increase value by much,

I do think this could change in years to come, and of course that's just my opinion . You can definitely market it as such and see, but on a young head you're probably only looking at what 290-300 at current gold? 

 

[ilovesilverireallydo]

1 hour ago, sg86 said:

To be totally honest minor differences in dies like this I record because they are interesting and different, they are going to be rarer for sure but I'm not sure the demand for slight varieties at this point in time is great enough to increase value by much,

 I do think this could change in years to come, and of course that's just my opinion . You can definitely market it as such and see, but on a young head you're probably only looking at what 290-300 at current gold? 

  

To be honest I am hoping for £290 on it - so lets hope so! 

[sovereignsteve]

On 27 July 2019 at 14:43, ilovesilverireallydo said:

Neither have I, and I have seen hundreds...

....  if a genuine error 

Moi aussi

but yes genuine error in that it originates in die production, engraver off target when he punched the S  

[sovereignsteve]

4 hours ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

No added value then?  want to sell it but unsure what a fair price would be!

Only added value if collectors regard as an error worth having. I've never seen one offered for sale as such. Someone needs to test the water then😉

[ilovesilverireallydo]

23 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Only added value if collectors regard as an error worth having. I've never seen one offered for sale as such. Someone needs to test the water then😉

lol I just posted it for sale lets see  

[1817Karl]

Hello all.

I recently received this 1847 Shield Back Sovereign with the striking error on the N in Britanniarum. Anyone had a similar coin, share any insight.  See the images attached. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by 1817SovereignCollector
Image change.

[sovereignsteve]

Never seen one; N over wonky N?

[1817Karl]

16 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

Never seen one; N over wonky N?

Will have to call it a Willy Wonka...

[Foster88]

Could anybody tell me, is this the ‘big zero’ in 1860 that I’ve read about on the 1860 sovereign that is sometimes seen?

If so I wonder how rare it is.

[sovereignsteve]

Not rare, the mint were very relaxed with their number and letter punching in the early 1860's

[sovereignsteve]

In this case it's difficult to tell on casual glance as it appears the 8 and 6 are too small. Or it could be the 1 and 0 are too big.

Some large 0's for this year are of the elongated 0 type, some are actually O's

[Foster88]

Another new purchase of mine. Could anybody tell me if this is the ‘wide date’ variety of the 1862 sovereign? 

The wide date seems to go for a slight premium when I checked sold prices. This is my first shield back sovereign and I’m very much hoping it is. 🤔

The 2 looks a bit separate from the 6 to me but it could just be my eyes. Not the best photo, I haven’t received the coin yet.

Could you advise @sovereignsteve?

Edited August 31, 2019 by Foster88