Thank you for your assessment @publius.
I don't know what exactly the right term for this.
Still have learn and much reading.
What I'm trying to say is, this 1948 is using 1944 planchet.
I quoted this from Australia site.
In the context of mint practices in the early part of the twentieth century there were four distinct methods whereby a coin may have been struck bearing the impression of an earlier date:
* Re-dating of an existing derivative master die or punch.
* Use of different working punches in the preparation of a die,
* Directly punching a numeral onto a previously prepared (working) die.
Re-dating of an existing derivative master die or punch:
There were two common methods for producing dies for a given date. From 1910 until the early twenties the usual practice was to use partially-dated working punches to press working dies onto which the remaining date numerals were added by hand. As the need for coins grew and annual mintages increased, this became tiresome and it was more expedient to produce a fully-dated derivative master die and make fully-dated working punches from that. We can see the effects of this change from the disappearance of variations in the position of date numerals after about 1922.
Suppose, for example, that in late 1921 the Melbourne Mint staff decided to produce a reverse die for a 1922 threepence. At that time the master tools were all held at The Royal Mint
at Tower Hill in London but the Melbourne branch had a hobbing press which was used to produce working dies for the minting of sovereigns and half-sovereigns so it certainly had the means to accomplish the task. The steps would have been something like this:
* Make a punch from a (fresh) 1921 working die.
* Grind off the last digit, yielding a 192_ punch.
* Make a 192_ die from the partial-date punch.
* Engrave a 2 in the final position of the date.
But in this case, I've found a lot of traces from 1944 half penny was used to struck this 1948 half penny. Although some of them only leaving a small marks.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.