This is odd.
There appears to be an overdate/repunch - 8 over 8.
Recuts are common but this is different.
What do you reckon ?
But wait theres more.
The R in VICTORIA is over what looks like another R.
Keep in mind that the letter underneath is not really subject to wear and will appear sharper.
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/joseywales10/v62sh_zps0b2e3f8d.jpg)
Very interesting and great pics.!!
double strike
That is a curious coin? Can you do a closeup of NIAR too?
Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='22912' dateline='1374806359'That is a curious coin? Can you do a closeup of NIAR too?
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/joseywales10/nair_zps19952cb0.jpg)
cant see anything unusual under a glass.
Thanks for that Echidna, thought I could see some more there, but it must have just been some of the bumps on the letters. Gee the under 8 and R are so far out of alignment with the overstamp, can't work out why more overstamping isn't obvious.
It still has me puzzled. Very nice!
The 8 over probable 8 & R over probable R would have been done on the die. Re-cut or re-punched, this would not effect any other part of the design, and not a double strike.
I had a quick look on ebay at other 1858s and noticed a wide and narrow date. Counting the border teeth, your coin appears to be the wider dated coin.
Quote from: 'Cobwebs' pid='23378' dateline='1375177257'The 8 over probable 8 & R over probable R would have been done on the die. Re-cut or re-punched, this would not effect any other part of the design, and not a double strike.
I had a quick look on ebay at other 1858s and noticed a wide and narrow date. Counting the border teeth, your coin appears to be the wider dated coin.
I agree.
The double strike idea is incorrect.
I believe it is technically a "repunched date"
Also the first double error half sov.
Re-cut lettering was common on Sydney mint half sovs, the dies needed to be shipped from London so they needed to take whatever steps they could to lengthen the working life of the dies.
Quote from: 'wwwww' pid='23490' dateline='1375265216'Re-cut lettering was common on Sydney mint half sovs, the dies needed to be shipped from London so they needed to take whatever steps they could to lengthen the working life of the dies.
Yes recuts are common whereas a repunch would be something new.
The issue I want to clarify is whether it is repunched or recut.
Given the localised nature of the errors and due to the existing minting techniques at the time, it is reasonable to assume that this was re-cut?
Wouldn't a repunch that resulted in two features being off centre show more features of being off centre?
Interesting coin nevertheless. Will have to go a re-examine my half-sovs a little more closely.
It's possible that both methods were used, depending on the severity of the character to be re-worked. The period the dies were made would also play a part. I think we could go round in circles with this one.
In most cases where there is a clear over numeral or letter, I tend to favour the punch. Larger numerals or letters I favour the re-cut.
During the hubbing process of dies in the early 19th century, if the central design was distorted they would re-engrave by hand.
I was going to go along the lines of repunched, purely as the R underneath seems so much lower than the letters either side, hence the repunch might have been to correct that. But then you look at the 8 and the one underneath looks aligned whereas the top looks high.
Perhaps you're correct cobwebs ....... circles it is.
I think the key is that parts of the 8 and R have been erased.
This would suggest repunched rather than recut.
Also I agree with previous comments that the displacement is far too great for a recut.
Generally repunched dates in Aussie coins are an overlooked area.
I've seen other pre-decimal repunched dates which don't rate a mention anywhere.
Very collectable now as they can be picked up at no cost over the regular versions...
Rather than using the word "erased", worn away would be more appropriate. On the die, the 8 and R are incuse. It wouldn't be the engraver that has removed them. The 2 inside loops of the 8 and the 1 loop in the R would be raised/in relief, these points would be more prone to wear.
It is curious that in the main it is the last digit that is repaired
The other possibility which I believe would favour the punch is, the overdate occurred before the die was put into service.
Thanks to everyone who gave feedback.
In order to get an unequivocal decision I will have to send it to NGC I guess.