Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

What do you think is going on with this date?

This is a 1795 Mexico 8 Reales in NGC AU58 that I recently picked up. Thoughts on that last digit in the date? I will share mine after folks had a chance to chime in.


Comments

  • AngryDragonAngryDragon Posts: 65 ✭✭✭
    edited June 19, 2023 7:46PM

    It's not a die clash. Maybe an overdate of some sort,

  • AngryDragonAngryDragon Posts: 65 ✭✭✭

    @TwoKopeiki said:
    This is a 1795 Mexico 8 Reales in NGC AU58 that I recently picked up. Thoughts on that last digit in the date? I will share mine after folks had a chance to chime in.

    Can you provide an orthogonal image of both sides or did you shoot on angle because it doesn't show up straight on? I feel like I'm only seeing part of the picture

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here are the photos from the dealer, if it helps. It will be about a week until I have it in-hand. This anomaly is not hard to see and i noticed it by looking at these inventory photos.


  • AngryDragonAngryDragon Posts: 65 ✭✭✭

    Please post better images when you are able. After some cursory searches I have not found another like it. Have you shown it to Brad Yonaka?

  • OriginalDanOriginalDan Posts: 3,707 ✭✭✭✭✭

    With many overdates in the series, it's likely this is what is seen here. Or possibly a die chip in an interesting spot.

    My first thought was 1795/6 but this makes no sense. Typically overdates from this series are current year over previous year, but this doesn't look at all like a 5/4. The other numerals that could make sense are 5/2 or 5/3, since both have the curve in the right place, but it would be odd that the curve just stops abruptly like it would for a 6.

  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 338 ✭✭✭

    Makes no sense, but it certainly looks like 5 over 6... would be a really coincidental die chip.

    Only issue is I don't see much/any remnant at the lower left.

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Kent threw an idea out that I think is starting to be the leading theory - 5 was first punched in upside-down and re-worked back to the correct position. So, theory to beat is 5 over inverted 5. Something that we do see in this series sometimes.

  • bosoxbosox Posts: 1,500 ✭✭✭✭

    Or 5 over the letter "S".

    Numismatic author & owner of the Uncommon Cents collections. 2011 Fred Bowman award winner, 2020 J. Douglas Ferguson award winner, & 2022 Paul Fiocca award winner.

    http://www.victoriancent.com
  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 338 ✭✭✭

    Yep, upside-down 5 makes sense visually and conceptually.

  • OriginalDanOriginalDan Posts: 3,707 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TwoKopeiki said:
    Kent threw an idea out that I think is starting to be the leading theory - 5 was first punched in upside-down and re-worked back to the correct position. So, theory to beat is 5 over inverted 5. Something that we do see in this series sometimes.

    Hadn't thought of that. I like it!

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks JC! This is a great set of overlays! I like how there's a straight line at the bottom of the 5 that looks random until you overlay the inverted image and realize that lines up with the top of the 5.

  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 338 ✭✭✭

    @TwoKopeiki, have you done an auction archive search for any other examples??

    I could see some grandpa-visioned eBay sellers calling that "1796" if searching WorthPoint...

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @realeswatcher said:
    @TwoKopeiki, have you done an auction archive search for any other examples??

    I could see some grandpa-visioned eBay sellers calling that "1796" if searching WorthPoint...

    I've done a bit of searching, but couldn't find another example of this obverse. Tried the various combinations of the overdates, as well, just in case.

  • AbueloAbuelo Posts: 1,754 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JohnnyCache well shown!

  • AngryDragonAngryDragon Posts: 65 ✭✭✭
    edited June 25, 2023 6:25PM

    @TwoKopeiki said:

    @realeswatcher said:
    @TwoKopeiki, have you done an auction archive search for any other examples??

    I could see some grandpa-visioned eBay sellers calling that "1796" if searching WorthPoint...

    I've done a bit of searching, but couldn't find another example of this obverse. Tried the various combinations of the overdates, as well, just in case.

    Two considerations..
    1. If the tail on the head of the 5 is of mint origin we should obverse other examples. However, the lack of a second sample doesn't mean that the effect didn't occur at the mint although it would help.
    2. The hanging tail of the five does not match the lower loop of an inverted 5. If the inverted 5 theory is to stand, this discrepancy will have to be addressed.

  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 338 ✭✭✭

    @AngryDragon said:
    The hanging tail of the five does not match the lower loop of an inverted 5.

    Incomplete erasure, perhaps.

  • AngryDragonAngryDragon Posts: 65 ✭✭✭

    @realeswatcher said:

    @AngryDragon said:
    The hanging tail of the five does not match the lower loop of an inverted 5.

    Incomplete erasure, perhaps.

    Please elaborate. Also there are exposed portions of an inverted 5 that are missing on the coin.

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @AngryDragon said:

    @realeswatcher said:

    @AngryDragon said:
    The hanging tail of the five does not match the lower loop of an inverted 5.

    Incomplete erasure, perhaps.

    Please elaborate. Also there are exposed portions of an inverted 5 that are missing on the coin.

    When an error was made on a steel die by a die sinker, it would have been filled with metal, the spot polished, and a corrected punch applied over the repair. When the die is then put into production, striking thousands upon thousands of coins, the repaired metal would start to compress and over time start showing the outline of the repair. The rate of compression, how much shows up at which point in the life of a die - all of these things depended on a lot of factors. All of that to say that you rarely see the complete repair re-appear.

    Take a look at some examples. You'll notice that even for the same die the visibility of the undertype can be different.





  • AngryDragonAngryDragon Posts: 65 ✭✭✭

    @TwoKopeiki said:
    When an error was made on a steel die by a die sinker, it would have been filled with metal, the spot polished, and a corrected punch applied over the repair. When the die is then put into production, striking thousands upon thousands of coins, the repaired metal would start to compress and over time start showing the outline of the repair. The rate of compression, how much shows up at which point in the life of a die - all of these things depended on a lot of factors. All of that to say that you rarely see the complete repair re-appear.

    Take a look at some examples. You'll notice that even for the same die the visibility of the undertype can be different.

    Very helpful explanation. Still seems unlikely that only one such specimen has survived. I guess the search continues.

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @AngryDragon said:

    @TwoKopeiki said:
    When an error was made on a steel die by a die sinker, it would have been filled with metal, the spot polished, and a corrected punch applied over the repair. When the die is then put into production, striking thousands upon thousands of coins, the repaired metal would start to compress and over time start showing the outline of the repair. The rate of compression, how much shows up at which point in the life of a die - all of these things depended on a lot of factors. All of that to say that you rarely see the complete repair re-appear.

    Take a look at some examples. You'll notice that even for the same die the visibility of the undertype can be different.

    Very helpful explanation. Still seems unlikely that only one such specimen has survived. I guess the search continues.

    I don't believe that only one example survived. There were hundreds of dies for the portrait series and because of the various minting practices of the time, there are likely a lot of other varieties that are yet to be discovered. As internet archives grow larger and more people get interested in the varieties, you will see others come to light in the coming years.

    For example, until last year the belief was that the only assayer progression in 1809 was HJ to TH resulting in a very tough to find HJ/TH variety. As an example, in the last 5 years I've only encountered 5 or so coins with that variety. Last year I found an example of a TH/HJ for 1809. The over-assayer is pretty clear, as you can see the bases of the H on each side of the T. This went against what specialized collectors believed to be possible, however by discovering one example, i was able to go back and find another one (now that I knew what i was looking for).


    I look at dozens of 8 Reales images a day. Always with the mindset of looking for things that are not suppose to be there. We know of plenty overdates and over-assayers, but I don't rule out that every year could have an overdate. Why wouldn't they re-work previous year's dies when die steel was at a premium and cutting new dies took time? And this is not to mention the various "oops" errors during die sinking where incorrect punches were used, letters punched in incorrect location / order, etc...

Sign In or Register to comment.