1858 over 858 penny

[Peckris 579]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

[rolling 0]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol

[Peckris 579]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol

Ooh yes, you're right - I have CCGB 2009 and didn't even realise I had this variety! (I only recently saw it when looking through a glass - strictly speaking, shouldn't it be described as "small date over large" rather than the other way about?). Mine is AU, much better than the scan shows, a glorious even tone and glistening fields.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Peckris

[rolling 0]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol

Ooh yes, you're right - I have CCGB 2009 and didn't even realise I had this variety! (I only recently saw it when looking through a glass - strictly speaking, shouldn't it be described as "small date over large" rather than the other way about?). Mine is AU, much better than the scan shows, a glorious even tone and glistening fields.

very true, might be worth a mention to Chris Perkins for inclusion in the next CCGB. Possible large over small AND a small over large types ??

[Peckris 579]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol

Ooh yes, you're right - I have CCGB 2009 and didn't even realise I had this variety! (I only recently saw it when looking through a glass - strictly speaking, shouldn't it be described as "small date over large" rather than the other way about?). Mine is AU, much better than the scan shows, a glorious even tone and glistening fields.

very true, might be worth a mention to Chris Perkins for inclusion in the next CCGB. Possible large over small AND a small over large types ??

I'd be quite surprised if there was a "large date over small" variety - how on earth would you tell?

[rolling 0]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol

Ooh yes, you're right - I have CCGB 2009 and didn't even realise I had this variety! (I only recently saw it when looking through a glass - strictly speaking, shouldn't it be described as "small date over large" rather than the other way about?). Mine is AU, much better than the scan shows, a glorious even tone and glistening fields.

very true, might be worth a mention to Chris Perkins for inclusion in the next CCGB. Possible large over small AND a small over large types ??

I'd be quite surprised if there was a "large date over small" variety - how on earth would you tell?

Purely by comparison I suppose, the one thing I have learned from sorting my fathers coins is to expect the unexpected You need more examples first.

[Peckris 579]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol

Ooh yes, you're right - I have CCGB 2009 and didn't even realise I had this variety! (I only recently saw it when looking through a glass - strictly speaking, shouldn't it be described as "small date over large" rather than the other way about?). Mine is AU, much better than the scan shows, a glorious even tone and glistening fields.

very true, might be worth a mention to Chris Perkins for inclusion in the next CCGB. Possible large over small AND a small over large types ??

I'd be quite surprised if there was a "large date over small" variety - how on earth would you tell?

Purely by comparison I suppose, the one thing I have learned from sorting my fathers coins is to expect the unexpected You need more examples first.

No, what I meant was, if a large date is cut over a small date, it would swamp the smaller date completely, wouldn't it?

[rolling 0]

Here's an interesting one. The 8 5 8 in the date look almost as if they are 'doubled', but there is no sign of any other doubling (not even on the '1', and not in the legend, nor the design).

At first glance the 8's look as though they are overcut on 8's below to the left, but at this magnification, I notice the underlying 8 overlaps to the right also. The 5 too appears overcut on another 5. What I'm now thinking, it could be a small date punched over a large date.

What do you think?

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol

Ooh yes, you're right - I have CCGB 2009 and didn't even realise I had this variety! (I only recently saw it when looking through a glass - strictly speaking, shouldn't it be described as "small date over large" rather than the other way about?). Mine is AU, much better than the scan shows, a glorious even tone and glistening fields.

very true, might be worth a mention to Chris Perkins for inclusion in the next CCGB. Possible large over small AND a small over large types ??

I'd be quite surprised if there was a "large date over small" variety - how on earth would you tell?

Purely by comparison I suppose, the one thing I have learned from sorting my fathers coins is to expect the unexpected You need more examples first.

No, what I meant was, if a large date is cut over a small date, it would swamp the smaller date completely, wouldn't it?

there would still be signs wouldnt there? If a coin is AU for instance you should be able to see even the slightest sign. Wouldnt the smaller date show itself inside the larger date?

[Peckris 579]

there would still be signs wouldnt there? If a coin is AU for instance you should be able to see even the slightest sign. Wouldnt the smaller date show itself inside the larger date?

Well no - don't forget that on the die, what you see on the coin as raised surfaces are actually incuse. So just imagine a small incuse date, then imagine a larger date cut into the same die - it would make what is simply a hollow space, a larger hollow space, and therefore it would be impossible for the previous, smaller incuse detail to survive. Enlarge a hole and the previous hole disappears entirely!

[scott 144]

i have this interesting one, its no WW (doesnt appear to be any overstriking) but has a lower colon on reverse, and oddly for a coin of this grade, some lustre O.O

[VickySilver 836]

I am not so certain about a "small over large date". The second set of datals appear to be set slightly to the North-Northeast or toward 1 - 2 o'clock with a bit of counterclockwise rotation. The second set of datals may have spread the imprint of the first set with a bit of metal creep on the die.

[Peckris 579]

I am not so certain about a "small over large date". The second set of datals appear to be set slightly to the North-Northeast or toward 1 - 2 o'clock with a bit of counterclockwise rotation. The second set of datals may have spread the imprint of the first set with a bit of metal creep on the die.

In hand, under magnification, what is very clear is that there is no underlying '1' at all, and the '5' does not creep in the same direction as the '8's (the top horizontal is below, not to the left, and the right hand side of the large loop has virtually no underlying numeral). And the 'creep' is different on each '8' - quite a lot of the underlying showing to the right on the 1st 8, but very little on the second. From this I would have to deduce that this is more than simply metal creep or the underlying numerals would be consistently offset relative to each overlying numeral. No, this looks like a recut date, with possibly the '1' not being recut.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Peckris

[VickySilver 836]

Yes, certainly in hand viewing in the best; for example, it certaily looks like there is "leftover" stigmata of the numeral 1 to the left of upper and lower serifs. As it is generally the case, at least to the best of my understanding, these are not recarvings but rather repunching of the die (or perhaps die matrix) with numerals either grouped or singly and that there is a great deal of variability with these "overdates" (I use the quotation marks because I am not certain that is what they are, or because a term may be rather inexact but is many times used) where somtimes but a single digit appears to be reentered and other times groups of them.

My point really is that the top datal may not necessarily be a smaller type as metal is pushed around by the impacts to die or matrix. Although I know there is great interest in these date punches as evidenced by the earlier discussion on another post about wide and narrow spaced dates, I just can not get personally to excited by them; certainly technology was not then what it is now and a bit of imperfection even as these are milled coins would be expected.

I could cite the many legend corrections in the Maundy series that are unpublished, not to mention in the farthing series. The type I believe have much more significance would be demonstrated by the 1848/7 sixpence or the 1847/6 Britannia groat wherein dies were converted for another date altogether. With the former it would be the only way to get a die for the 1847 sixpence as the single confirmed specimen would be prohibitively rare.

[Peckris 579]

Yes, certainly in hand viewing in the best; for example, it certaily looks like there is "leftover" stigmata of the numeral 1 to the left of upper and lower serifs. As it is generally the case, at least to the best of my understanding, these are not recarvings but rather repunching of the die (or perhaps die matrix) with numerals either grouped or singly and that there is a great deal of variability with these "overdates" (I use the quotation marks because I am not certain that is what they are, or because a term may be rather inexact but is many times used) where somtimes but a single digit appears to be reentered and other times groups of them.

My point really is that the top datal may not necessarily be a smaller type as metal is pushed around by the impacts to die or matrix. Although I know there is great interest in these date punches as evidenced by the earlier discussion on another post about wide and narrow spaced dates, I just can not get personally to excited by them; certainly technology was not then what it is now and a bit of imperfection even as these are milled coins would be expected.

I could cite the many legend corrections in the Maundy series that are unpublished, not to mention in the farthing series. The type I believe have much more significance would be demonstrated by the 1848/7 sixpence or the 1847/6 Britannia groat wherein dies were converted for another date altogether. With the former it would be the only way to get a die for the 1847 sixpence as the single confirmed specimen would be prohibitively rare.

Oh, you meant 'metal creep' due to the repunching, not due to the strike! Ok, I understand what you mean now. I'm still slightly doubtful though - I would have thought (and this is not based on scientific knowledge) that metal creep due to numerals being repunched, would cause a kind of cone-shaped deformity? In other words, the date numeral would taper outwards towards its base? Whereas in these numerals, the overlying numeral has a clean edge, and the underlying numeral does too, as if providing a flat shallow plinth which the numeral sits on. In other words, all the edges look too 'clean' to be deformities, but that is purely a layman's opinion.

[VickySilver 836]

The "5" shows similar spread, if that is what it is, as well as the first "8". Not too good at posting pictures but recall that I may have one of these with date issues, just have to figure out what I did with it...