| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 2,024 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
123 Posts |
Recently bought my first GB coin in PCGS MS65 holder. Couldn't resist the beautiful toning.
Can anyone help me understand if the first 5 in date (1855) is a double die error or re-engraved or something else? Possibly an over-date?
Not sure if this has been documented or is something rather common with this series.
Here is another example from PCGS website: https://www.PCGS.com/pop/valueview.aspx?s=201354
Any help will be highly appreciated.   Edited by Director
02/16/2018 04:58 am
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Nice patina and luster together, a rare combination.  I think re engraved first '5' in date. Edited by sel_69l
02/16/2018 06:02 am
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
190 Posts |
Its a double struck 5.
Can I ask why you have taken it out of the plastic please ?.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
Beautiful coin. Superb, would be pleased to have a coin like this in my collection.
I don't call this double struck, that would require the entire coin being double struck, not just one digit. It's a die cutting error.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
190 Posts |
The No 5 is ,the digits were struck onto the die from a single punch.
Very few coins will be double struck from a bounce in the die and the numbers not just punched over.
So the die maker can strike a single digit twice as can be seen with numerous date variations.
The dies were in constant use and valuable so if a strike with a punch was not clean enough it would be struck again.
Some parts / letters letters may be recut as they start to wear or become damaged but on the 5 of the particular coin pictured the other five although partly hidden is definately there.
Only my opinion and happy to be wrong it does not take anything away from a nice coin.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
190 Posts |
To explain a bit better the die was double sruck not the blank.
Sorry I dont know how to edit the above post.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Beautiful coin, I certainly agree.  to the CCF! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
That's it exactly pwa! I love those errors, I have a few, show up a lot on early UK coinage. It's part of the fun of the series.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
190 Posts |
Its just like the error made on the 1831 penny die on the other thread EF.
IMO its not a flaw on the die but a one that has then been resruck again with a six......although I will let you make your own decision.
Its definately not a flaw on the blank as I have and have seen a few.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
190 Posts |
Sorry typing and looking after my grandaughter at the same time 1826 LOL.
This also shows on different varities ,were the reverse has been changed.
So not just on the standard shield variety.
Edited by pwa 1967
02/16/2018 11:40 am
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
123 Posts |
No pwa 1967. The pictures are from before the coin was sent to grading. She is comfortably residing in a PCGS MS65 holder! Has asked me to give you her regards.
Edited by Director
02/17/2018 06:54 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
123 Posts |
Thank you all for the help and appreciation.
Does anyone know how common this is?
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
190 Posts |
The 1855 is one of the more common years although like most of the coppers harder to find in high grade ,the thistle is really well struck and a nice coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
1351 Posts |
Detached Shamrock.  Like it. |
|
Valued Member
United States
123 Posts |
Hi Peter1234, what is a detached shamrock?
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 2,024 |
|
Posted 02/16/2018 07:22 am
