1861 Half Sovereign

[gnome]

Out of my normal comfort zone with half sovs/sovs and need some help, please.
Reading the 22nd edition of Maccas, there is mention of a 61/0 overdate.
Recent pickup for my typeset, pretty worn, average condition.






Would this be the overdate version of the 61/0 half sov. My eyes are not what they were a few years ago. Seeing things aren't always the clearest now

[gnome]

The only other mentions I could find were in the pop report with some pictures
http://www.pcgs.com/pop/valueview.aspx?s=519377

[echidna]

[attachment=3671]

With some half sovs its easier to ID a coin using the obverse legends especially the placement of the colons.
The placement is different depending on the date or variety.
Eg the top colon after D:G is different compared to an overdate so I'd say its probably the regular version.

[gnome]

Thanks, that's what I was looking for, some sort of markers or identification.
Just noticed a bit of a difference on the pcgs pictures, on the reverse sides.
The VG10 example has one berry/Large blob above the V in SOV, while it looks like the VF 25 example has 2 berries/Large blobs above the SOV ,.
Damaged Ribbons perhaps.

[Basil]

Not related but i came across this on the W/end. whilst wasting time looking for 1930 penny articles.
Looks like he was correct as its in Macca's now.

 

[gnome]

Cheers for that Basil, working on some better pics at the moment. Hope to have some clearer images shortly,
Testing some new images, tried a new camera setup.

   

Think the pics are getting better, some more minor adjustments, should be good as gold

[wwwww]

It's not an overdate, the 1861/0 is a pretty clear overdate. We had one here:
https://numisbid.com.au/Browse/NumisBid_Auction_@64/Gold_Coins/Australia_Sydney_Mint_Type_II_186160_Overdate_Half_Sovereign_40939

[gnome]

Ok thanks.

[gnome61]

I have updated some more images, this is the same coin I was asking about, previously. I have viewed these images on a large tv as well, and I am still unsure. A majority have said it isn't, but these newer images suggest there may be something there. The 8 definitely shows signs , and assuming then the 6 would also have an underlying 6 below it, then the chances are there is probably either another 1 or a 0 underneath the last number as well. Just my logic, could another modified die have been used as well.                                                                                                                                                      

[gnome61]

There are more images in my gallery.

[echidna]

" />

The placement of the colons must be the same.
The top dot after D:G looks a bit low.
Also the colon after REG looks slightly different to me.

[gnome61]

Thanks Echi,  it doesn't match the die markers for the 1861/0 known examples.