Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Strange phenomenon on edge of 8 reales - can anyone explain?

I noticed two strange blobs of metal on the edge of an 1840 NG 8 reales. They are not identical but both appear somewhat + shaped. They are directly opposite one another, and the line passing through them is basically perpendicular to the line passing through the two edge overlaps. In the image of the full coin, the edge overlaps pass through the red line, while the two pictured blobs pass through the blue line.

I'm hoping someone can offer an explanation for these. All I can come up with is that in preparing the two edge dies, there was a need to mark the midpoints of each die and this was mistakenly done in such a way as to leave an impression, which was then transferred to the coin. This seems implausible to me but I can't think of anything else that is consistent with the way these coins were edged.

To my knowledge there is only one die pairing for the 1840 NG 8 reales. Can anyone correct me if this is wrong, and would anyone else who has ones mind looking at the edge if possible?





Comments

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Namvet69Namvet69 Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Might it be evidence of the seam in the application of the edge design. That is the third side, where that design is created by a special edge die. IMO. Peace Roy

    BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52

  • jgennjgenn Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How about showing us the edge overlaps, too.

  • EuclidEuclid Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    @jgenn said:
    How about showing us the edge overlaps, too.

    Here they are. Let me know if any more photos would be helpful, I will do my best.



  • EuclidEuclid Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    Also, it occurs to me I've written my post assuming the coin is as struck. It realize it could be a two point mount that was removed. It's straight graded for what that's worth.

  • jgennjgenn Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 21, 2022 9:04PM

    Wow, excellent edge photos through the slab! That is a very hard shot to get in focus.

    So it looks like a die break in the edging die, but to have two breaks on both of the edging dies at the same spot seems very unlikely. That leads me to think that the coin was edged twice with the same half of the edging die or the edging die was copied from a broken die and two copies were made for both halves of the parallel edging mill. Neither of those would be a normal regal process as on earlier issues.

    Still this is from 1840 and I don't know what changes had been made to the minting process in all those years since the colonial times. When were collars introduced?

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jgenn said:
    So it looks like a die break in the edging die, but to have two breaks on both of the edging dies at the same spot seems very unlikely. That leads me to think that the coin was edged twice with the same half of the edging die or the edging die was copied from a broken die and two copies were made for both halves of the parallel edging mill. Neither of those would be a normal regal process as on earlier issues.

    That was my train of thought, as well. One thing I can't explain is the break appears too be sitting on top of the edge die elements.

  • EuclidEuclid Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    The plot thickens as I found another coin exhibiting the same pattern. This one an 1837. Here are the best pics I could take of the strange parts and the edge overlaps.

    Weird parts:

    Overlaps:

    Relative Placement:

    Does it change anyones thoughts that there is another example? I'm still pretty perplexed. Would there be anything to be gained from cracking the coins out and photographing them better or comparing them?

  • SimonWSimonW Posts: 607 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The edges were applied using the same rolling method as earlier (milled coinage) yes? Maybe as the edges were rolled the planchets were too large (slightly) so the dies pushed the additional metal along until it couldn’t push it anymore and dumped it in a small lump.

    I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.

  • SimonWSimonW Posts: 607 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It looks like that’s where the die rolling stopped, at least to my eye

    I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.

  • jgennjgenn Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I see this as confirmation that the edging mill had die breaks that were wide enough that some extra metal was forced into the gaps in the breaks.

  • EuclidEuclid Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    @jgenn said:
    I see this as confirmation that the edging mill had die breaks that were wide enough that some extra metal was forced into the gaps in the breaks.

    At first I thought this couldn't explain the two breaks appearing opposite one another, but I it's possible that stress could be applied to both edge dies at points opposite one another via a planchet or many planchets over time.

    Just thinking out loud here but suppose the edge dies weren't placed perfectly parallel to one another and instead were bent slightly in the middle like this: )(

    Then each planchet milled would apply more pressure to the center points of the edge dies than to anywhere else on them, so they would wear the most and could be the first parts to suffer die chips.

Sign In or Register to comment.