1934/3 Overdate Shilling

[echidna]

" />

" />


This is a shilling.
I reckon that if it was a threepence it would be accepted as an overdate without question.
What do you think ?

[Mister T]

It certainly looks right.

[nealeffendi]

If it is an overdate then what year was the original die? There was evidence in CAB by Peter Andrews a few years ago to show how it doesn't match the '33 shilling but then everyone assumes the incomplete die was a '33. Could it be another unused year where the top half of the numbers are similar to 33? So 1922, 1923 or 1932 are all theoretically the underdate. Then again as there are a number of years with 2 hubs (including the 1934 shilling with the 4 in 2 positions) could a second unused 1933 hub (possibly a hub that was never finished with the low demand in 1933 and then finished in 1934) be the source?
I think there is more than one die with this "overdate" so it does suggest a 33/34 hub was used.

[Basil]

I don't know either way but as i posted in the US Forum there was guy faking the OD 3d back in the 1990's(80's),he may have had a go at the Shilling as well.Local dealer said he was a Dental Technician and was into Stamps and god knows what else as well.
All that's needed to test is heat to the end of the top loop of the 3 to see if the silver amalgam runs.

[echidna]

From memory Peter's article stated that the last 3 "overdate" did not line up with the regular 1933 strike.
And the explanation was just a simple "die scratch".
I don't dispute the first point.
However I cant believe its a die scratch, based on the images.
Die scratches are basically straight lines from what I've seen.

There are other possibilities, as mentioned by Neal.
Perhaps an unused 1932 die ?
I have an idea that more investigation will reveal what's going on.
More to follow...

[Basil]

From memory Peter's article stated that the last 3 "overdate" did not line up with the regular 1933 strike.
And the explanation was just a simple "die scratch".
I don't dispute the first point.
However I cant believe its a die scratch, based on the images.
Die scratches are basically straight lines from what I've seen.

There are other possibilities, as mentioned by Neal.
Perhaps an unused 1932 die ?
I have an idea that more investigation will reveal what's going on.
More to follow...

Its not a Die Scratch,geez,some of these Coin experts should get out more.The guy on the US Coin Forum from the Gold Coast also has one of these and was seeking Info.
This coin was discussed on a Stamp Forum back in the late 1990's or early 2000's,as usual i can't find a link despite cranking up my old Win. 98 Computer and wasting time on Google.
A couple of points raised were,as mentioned,the 3 OD is in the wrong place and more importantly the chance of the remnants of the top loop of the 3 being exactly the same as the 3d is highly unlikely.

Interesting to see if it is a bonafide OD,a simple Xray should determine if the '3' has been added post Mint.

[Mister T]

Oh I remember that article - seemed well-written etc but the shape does seem very coincidental.

[fred lever]

Hi Guys, the work on hubs and dies to shift dates is very evident in the Shilling series. There was some absolute butchery carried out by the toolroom to hub or punch in new dates while trying to use existing tools. I was fascinated by this and did a fair bit of research covering the dates  from 1920 to 1933 on Shillings and wrote an article on this for CAB published August 16 vol 19-07. In that you will see pix of all the butchery that went on. I wish I had carried on to the 1934 date where more of the same is obvious. In Echidna's pix you can see signs of where a 3 punch was driven over the first 3 and  the 4 punch driven over the renmants of a 3. That means they were reclaiming a piece of 1933 tooling. They probably produced a 1933 relief hub, ground off the last 3 (but not completely) then pressed a incuse hub and punched in a deeper 3 and punched in the last 4 thus giving them a 1934 hub to produce 1934 coining dies.  If the definition of an "overdate" is that a hub series was modified by grinding and then repunching a new date, then there  are "overdates" all through our coins. Most of them were carried out where no trace exists of the previous date and then some like Echidnas pix show were not so clever for a toolroom. In the "1924 overdate shilling" article above I mused about the definition of "overdate" and what that means.  Have a re-read of the article and you will start to see why many coins have strange positions of the last digit and why areas of a coin are damaged such as the tre-foils next to the dates on the silvers.  These aspects is why it is so important to understand how coins are made and how toolroom antics on hubs and dies then reflect back onto the coins, but you have to stand back and look at the whole process not just look at one coin and give it a label. No they are not "overdates" they are a result of changes to tools in a system and when you start to think that way you see our coin series in a new light and advance the hobby forward not sit still and learn nothing. I'm still learning and finding new things by observation of the coins just like Echidna has. Cheers, Fred.

[Basil]

Off to PCGS with it,it will take them a couple of Minutes to determine if the remnants of the top loop is genuine or not.
That was what was supposed to happen with the Stamp Forum Coin 20 years ago but i haven't seen it listed anywhere.
My Brother reminded me that someone transposed the top loop of the 3 over the last 3 of the 1933 and apparently the 34 3 loop was too acute for the 3 of that year.
Not conclusive either way but probably worth doing again to check.

[nealeffendi]

Off to PCGS with it,it will take them a couple of Minutes to determine if the remnants of the top loop is genuine or not.
That was what was supposed to happen with the Stamp Forum Coin 20 years ago but i haven't seen it listed anywhere.
My Brother reminded me that someone transposed the top loop of the 3 over the last 3 of the 1933 and apparently the 34 3 loop was too acute for the 3 of that year.
Not conclusive either way but probably worth doing again to check.

No they won't
As the '34 overdate shilling has not been conclusively confirmed they will not put anything but 1934 Shilling on the slab. For one thing, can anyone confirm that the underdate is 1933?. Plus even if the loop is determined to be genuine that doesn't prove what caused it (a guy in the mint workshop might just have bumped the die with a grinder or other tool to leave a curved groove). Even if you get it slabbed and down the track it is confirmed that the overdate exists it doesn't necessarily follow that PCGS will slab them as overdates and even if they do they will not retrospectively change your coin to overdate without you paying them to re-evaluate the coin and reholder it (and pay for the privilege).

[nealeffendi]

If you want to get the overdate recognised then prove it exists with absolute conclusiveness you need.
-Mint records 
-Multiple examples in decent grade
-Examples from multiple dies to show it is not just some random damage to a working die.
Then get the evidence published in a coin magazine (CAB) or journal (JNAA or similar). Then get some backing from a respected dealer (preferably one PCGS has a relationship with such as Eric).
Considering how long it took them to recognise English/Indian or the '55 and '56 mules or the '53 big denticle florin you might have a bugger of a job.

[fred lever]

Hi All, strictly speaking there is only ONE "overdate" coin in the pre-decimal series, the 2/1 threepence. Here a 2 punch has clearly been driven over a 1 on a singular die.
An organisation like PCGS would have no trouble calling the 22/21 3d an "overdate". Then there is a long list of coins where you can clearly see evidence of incomplete removal of a previous date on a tool and much has been written over the years in the JNNA and CAB about these coins. In those both over punching and over hubbing techniques were used with varying  degrees of success. Like I said before when they got it right then there is no trace of an "overdate", when they got it a bit wrong then you have coins like the 33/34 three pence, 33/34 shilling 33/32 penny, 25/23 shilling and so on.  The argument is whether you call that sort of toolroom fudgery an "overdate"? I don't think you really can. If its degrees of how the underdate shows then the 22/21 3d wins hands down and ticks all the boxes. The rest have little bits of the under date surviving and are not really overdates? Even the 33/32 pennies where the new 33 hub was clearly pressed over a 32 tool but did not remove all the 2 not really an overdate. Or, is it?  Some may argue that some of those 1952 date varieties are overdates and where a same number has clearly been overpunched  or over hubbed to repair a working die or transfer hub (like the double 9's you see on pennies) do you call those overdates?
I'm thinking PCGS shouldl limit them selves to labelling ONLY the 22/21 3d as a true overdate. The rest are hubbing errors. Food for thought.

Fred.

[echidna]

Thanks everyone for your comments.
Fred's comments make it clear to me as to what exactly went on.

Based on what I've seen there were similar issues with the 1934 threepence, sixpence and shilling.
Some show evidence of a 3 under the 4.
The shilling and sixpence can be found with a small "whispy" bit.
The threepence shows varying amounts from "whispy" to a full 3.

Might put up some more pics when I get a better example...

[nealeffendi]

Thanks everyone for your comments.
Fred's comments make it clear to me as to what exactly went on.

Based on what I've seen there were similar issues with the 1934 threepence, sixpence and shilling.
Some show evidence of a 3 under the 4.
The shilling and sixpence can be found with a small "whispy" bit.
The threepence shows varying amounts from "whispy" to a full 3.

Might put up some more pics when I get a another example...

Food for thought. If the 34 threepence or sixpence shows traces of an underlying 3 then what happened to the 1933 threepence or sixpence such that dies were created but not used and then overdated? Much like the 1923 shilling overdated to 1925.

[interest]

Maybe that during 1932, 1933, 1934 there was an engineer employed at the Mint who was not quite up to their job.