Die errors and die numbers

[Coppers 58]

Coin Collecting to me is now more than a fad...I want it to be my pension...although the selling bit is going to prove a heartache.

Peter...Coin collecting is a great hobby and can turn out to be a great investment and thus supplement one's pension, but bear in mind that prices for many coins have sharply increased in recent years and it should not come as a surprise if at some point, the market heads the other way.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

I'm glad you told me that! I've put 'collecting sovereigns by die number' on the backburner for a few years now. I guess i'll just leave it there, although i did have my doubts as to how good an approach that was.

Although to be honest i got pulled in by hammered before i managed to get back collecting sovereigns and once the hammered bug gets you milled becomes a bit of a bore. So maybe i'm safe? Yeah safe in the realms of the 12th century! That's safe?

Safer than actually living in the 12th century and collecting contemporary coinage......... LOL!!

[Peter 615]

I will warn everyone on this forum that pensions will become the biggest scandal/ripoff of the 21st Century.

Only the Final Salary schemes are worth considering but I note pension funds are requiring more and more

contributions.

Equity schemes...forget it....buy quality furniture ,coins,gold,art.

At present I have about £100k tied up in equity pensions which at present lets me access 25% tax free at retirement...the balance will give me less than £100 a week.

I won't be investing anymore in a pension.

[Sylvester 15]

Land's the best bet, anywhere that's a good candidate for housing or a road.

[Peter 615]

Sylvester

At your age it must be difficult...(I'm only 20 years older)

Decent company schemes will soon disappear or are disappearing.

Look after nr 1 because future goverments can't afford to or won't look after you.

Maybe I'm greedy but look after yourself and distribute charity as you seem fit.

[Sylvester 15]

Sylvester

At your age it must be difficult...(I'm only 20 years older)

Decent company schemes will soon disappear or are disappearing.

Look after nr 1 because future goverments can't afford to or won't look after you.

Maybe I'm greedy but look after yourself and distribute charity as you seem fit.

I haven't even thought about a pension, i see no point. My parent's had pensions, they lost some of theirs when the government started mucking about with them.

Some companies make you have a private pension though as part of the job package. Of course companies come and go and get taken over, then you're pension goes up the spout.

Plus the retirement age is forever going up, by the time i get there it'll be about 75, and once you hit 75 to be honest how much of a pension are you gonna need? Most of my family seem to pop their clogs at 72.

If you have to finish work prior to the retirement due to ill health, then you might as well claim sickness and mobility benefits like everyone else does these days. At least that way you'll get something back from all the money you've put into the system through income taxes over the years.

[ken46 0]

I'm glad you told me that! I've put 'collecting sovereigns by die number' on the backburner for a few years now. I guess i'll just leave it there, although i did have my doubts as to how good an approach that was.

Although to be honest i got pulled in by hammered before i managed to get back collecting sovereigns and once the hammered bug gets you milled becomes a bit of a bore. So maybe i'm safe? Yeah safe in the realms of the 12th century! That's safe?

Well I haven"t become bored yet with sovs. Yet I guess I am boring as I have really stayed too focused

on one denomination. Never venturing out into other areas. I just continue on looking for the

oddities and die numbers.

Speaking of, I'm amazed there are so many oddities in the Victorian sov. series. You would certainly

think that the best engravers would work on the more valuable currency pieces. Yet I do know

Pistrucci did work on many of the recoinage denominations after 1816. The recent St. James

auction certainly highlights just how many odd things were being done to dies.

There are certain years that appear to present to many variations. I wonder if this occurs

across the denomination spectrum?

[Sylvester 15]

Speaking of, I'm amazed there are so many oddities in the Victorian sov. series. You would certainly

think that the best engravers would work on the more valuable currency pieces. Yet I do know

Pistrucci did work on many of the recoinage denominations after 1816. The recent St. James

auction certainly highlights just how many odd things were being done to dies.

You'd be naive to think that!

From what i've seen not only is the Victorian series (any denomination this is) a complete minefield of varieties but it seems the sovereigns were a field of particular interest to them. I have no doubts you've come across the Ansell sovereign. Not only were they playing around with different dies (presumably minting coins at different pressures, with dies of different alloy compositions, but they were also altering the relief &/or alloys as well.

The question i've always pondered though (and since you've dabbled in die numbers you may or may not have noticed this), is as the date is on the obverse and the die number is on the reverse. Is say Die 65 on an 1860 coins the same die as Die 65 on an 1861 coin?

I presume at some point in the Die number era there were several Die 65s or 66s or whatever, the question is though was there one of a certain number each year. So Die 14 in 1862 and Die 14 in 1863 were DIFFERENT dies, or was the 1862 Die 14 the 1861 Die being run over into the next date year, or perhaps there was half a dozen Die 14s in any one year? (All the dies being of the same alloy composition?)

It raises many interesting questions.

[ken46 0]

Needless to say, there are no easy answers as to the multi year or multi dies for the

die numbered series of sovs. Michael Marsh first published a book on sovs. in 1980.

He had other editions up to 2001, I think. The basic frame work was laid out for

known die numbers on a year to year basis. I have to compliment him on getting

a lot of it right before the internet, computers, etc.

I now have been in this game long enough to see some patterns on die use.

I believe that when a reverse die was made it was used until it wore out and then

another was made. I think you can see a progression beginning in 1863 with a

few low die numbers to having more than a 100 in 1864, a big mintage year.

The years 1865, 1866, 1868 and 1869 all used die numbers less than #80. Then

in 1870 I have found NO die number from #2 thru #79. Even though Marsh

listed them I belive at this time he was wrong. I think these dies wore out and were

made new. 1871 and 1872 were large mintage years and we see the die

numbers below #100 pretty much back in play. 1873 rolled around and

Marsh listed 102 pieces but I have only found 27 pieces with most being

below die # 36. I believe alot had worn out again in 1871 and 1872 leaving

them to only use serviceable dies. 1874 was such a low production year, I

think perhaps only good dies were picked.

Anyway these are just some observations that may or may not be completely true.

If anyone out there could show me an 1870 with a die number from 2 thru 79

it would certainly help me to try and understand what was going on better.

[Sylvester 15]

I did have an 1870 sovereign (slabbed) i sold it to Chris. I don't recall the die number off hand, can you remember it Chris?

[Chris Perkins 228]

Wasn't it 1871? I have a picture somewhere....Yes, 1871 and die no. 28. I also had a No.101 1871 sov.

[ken46 0]

Wasn't it 1871? I have a picture somewhere....Yes, 1871 and die no. 28. I also had a No.101 1871 sov.

Thank you both for thinking about it. Unfortunately I have both but please keep me in mind

whenever you see something.

[Sylvester 15]

I knew it was 1870 something, couldn't remember if it was 1870 or 1871. Once i've sold them i delete them from my records.