1858 Penny Experts - Which overdate ??
MacCrimmon
Posts: 7,058 ✭✭✭
Which overdate is this copper? 
0
MacCrimmon
Posts: 7,058 ✭✭✭
Comments
It looks unlike any of the 3 overdates that I have in my collection (see attached images)...
HOWEVER, if I had to pick one, I would suggest that it is different variation of the 8/3 (or possibly an 8/2)....
That opinion being based on what appears to be visible in the image.... If there is anything else, not captured in the photo, then my opinion would possibly change.....
edited to add: "I ain't no expert", "pervert, yes, expert, no".
eBay Store
DPOTD Jan 2005, Meet the Darksiders
RBC, it seems that Victorian copper seems to lacking any nicely imaged (3" plates or bigger) attribution guide which 'codifies' these different overdates, repunches, etc. I have both the Peck and Freeman, but the old images could use some revisions.
<< <i>Thanks for info. The reason I asked is that is an exact die match to the recently sold 1858/3 1d. in the Heritage NYINC sale last week.
RBC, it seems that Victorian copper seems to lacking any nicely imaged (3" plates or bigger) attribution guide which 'codifies' these different overdates, repunches, etc. I have both the Peck and Freeman, but the old images could use some revisions. >>
True enough...... Apparently though, there were probably more than one die that was corrected.... much as the later 1865/3 has several different variations, there are probably more than one die with the 1858/3
There are also different 8/7's.......
link to auction
This would indicate that your coin is indeed a 1858/3, whereas mine may or may not be one.....
It now gives me something to look for........
Anyway, you are absolutely correct when you say that the hobby needs more definitive information made available to collectors on many levels.....
I think these overdates good fun, but do not get bent up with excitement or bidding fervor for them as they come up so that takes me out as a competitor. The Vicky groat series also has some interesting overdates in the late '40s.
RBC, good work on the pics and thanks for your input and work.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Hmm, I was thinking an "over 7" with die erosion to 1 o'clock so some loss of the top right corner of the 7. I do not see (but must confess to wearing glasses) good evidence of the lower portions of the possible "3" were it the case. I have what was bought as an "over 3" but this coin does not look like it, nor the linky ebay bit RBC shows and think mine might also be an "over 8, broken".
I think these overdates good fun, but do not get bent up with excitement or bidding fervor for them as they come up so that takes me out as a competitor. The Vicky groat series also has some interesting overdates in the late '40s.
RBC, good work on the pics and thanks for your input and work. >>
I was also considering the possibility that it was an 8/7 that was from a die that possibly was polished or otherwise corrected..... Very difficult to base opinions on images.... Nothing like direct examination.......
<< <i>I'll have to specifically have Mike Printz shoot both my 1853, & 1857 1d., and this particular 1858 to scale (extreme macro shots) and then maybe the images can be overlayed for a better study of what went on exactly. >>
<< <i>I'll have to specifically have Mike Printz shoot both my 1853, & 1857 1d., and this particular 1858 to scale (extreme macro shots) and then maybe the images can be overlayed for a better study of what went on exactly. >>
That might help.... if transparencies can be printed and then overlaid upon each other, perhaps some determination can be made......
Of course, it must be remembered that the 7 (or 3) itself has to be laid in varying postions over the 8, to see if any key points match up..... not just lay coin over coin.......
Excellent Reference page of Michael Gouby's
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Wow, that is great stuff. Think I may have to try to get his (Gouby's) book. Thanks, RBC for making this an interesting thread. >>
Unfortunately, Michael Gouby's book, although EXCELLENT, limits itself to just the bronze pennies... It is still an invaluable reference, and one that I heartily recommend....
That being said, as he IS a dealer with a website, and quite knowledgeable and collector oriented, he DOES post, on his website, pertinent information that is of use to the collector, both new and advanced......
There are times that it really lookks like an underlying 7..... I would really like to see what it looks like under a microscope (as some of my images are.... 60x magnification), and see what it looks like then......
With so many options open, it is possible for it to be almost anything that we have considered.....
At any event, I'll make a note to retrieve it for a night the next time I'm at the bank vault.
Without wanting to misquote him, he seems to feel that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that there were any unused 1853 dies laying around in 1858, that were available for repunching as an 1858/3.... The 1858/6 and 1858/7, were made from the more recent 1856 and 1857 dies, which are a more logical item to be available.... He's not ruling it out completely, just that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY....
This coin in question, as well as the one recently sold on Heritage, is more likely to be an 8/7 or possibly another variant of an 8/8 (broken 8???)
I too, would tend to agree with this assessment, not only because of its logical progression, but also because of the nature of its appearance.... I was also vacillating between an 8/3 and an 8/7....
Possibly, if it was submitted to the Royal Mint, some sort of determination could be made, but even that is not definite......
Well, just Love coins, period.
1: The point protruding from the 8 looks somewhat straight.... Possibly the end of a 7 and not a 3????
2: A apparent looping within the inner edge of the upper loop of the 8... Possibly the remnants of a previous 3 or of a broken 8???
3: A line within the upper loop of the 8.... A trick of lighting from the image or possibly part of a 7????
As you can see, more questions are raised than are answered, and all this is based on an image and NOT the coin... If Mr. MacCrimmon can pursue some of these studies under high magnification (microscope), perhaps some conclusions can be reached.... As always, the better the original material to study, the better the probability of a conclusion being reached.... This could be the coin to do that.....
They punched the "3", their supervisor slapped 'em, and they whacked in the corrected "8" over the top of the "3", or "7" or, whatever the numeral du jour may have been.
Now, I s'pose I'll go into an investigation of the die hub usage, master dies, and the rate of carryover from year to year.....fun stuff, eh?
<< <i>I wonder that Mr. Gouby can exclude the usage of older dies, unless he has looked at ALL of the 1853 dies. After all there apparently was a large run of strikes in that year, not to mention 1857. 1856 was a smaller run so may have been some overage in die production. The overdates would have to be scrupulously examined and compared to all specimens of extant '53, '56 and '57 penny strikes/dies. Uggh, that sounds to be a job for someone with more patience than I but deserving of respect most certainly. >>
I don't want to put words in his mouth, nor do I wish to misquote him.... He was merely expressing an opinion, based more on logic than on study.... But I do tend to agree with him.... Looking at the history of overdates in numismatics, there are very few overdates existing, using dies from beyond the previous year or two.... This die would have had to been laying around for 5 years before being brought into service... Certainly not impossible, but unlikely.......
<< <i>My assumption was not re-used dies but simply a mint worker errantly picking up a "3" die punch because of the similarity to the "8".....at least if your eyes are as bad as mine (without my reading peeps, that is).
They punched the "3", their supervisor slapped 'em, and they whacked in the corrected "8" over the top of the "3", or "7" or, whatever the numeral du jour may have been.
Now, I s'pose I'll go into an investigation of the die hub usage, master dies, and the rate of carryover from year to year.....fun stuff, eh? >>
It is highly unlikely that a 3 punch would have been laying around, as there had been no need for one since 1853, 5 years previous...... Again, not impossible, just unlikely......
Also, as I understand it, the overdates were created when existing DATED DIES from previous years, were repunched, in the final digit, to make it accurate for the current year......
It would make more sense to reuse earlier dies with an overpunch than to keep a whole bunch of different numerals around to create confusion. And why would in that particular year (1858) would there be all these overdates? I tend to believe that reuse of earlier dies which we know were around was the method; they may have stored these in some kind of lard, or??? Can't remember but read this somewhere. The Royal Mint to this date has an enormous collection of early dies so a period of five or so years would not then be exclusionary.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Yes, I think of the groat of 1847/6 as an example of time juxtaposed overdate. They do save dies from many years previously as has been established, not just with the glamour pieces such as Una and the Lion and the Gothic Crown, but also with the more mundane bits.
It would make more sense to reuse earlier dies with an overpunch than to keep a whole bunch of different numerals around to create confusion. And why would in that particular year (1858) would there be all these overdates? I tend to believe that reuse of earlier dies which we know were around was the method; they may have stored these in some kind of lard, or??? Can't remember but read this somewhere. The Royal Mint to this date has an enormous collection of early dies so a period of five or so years would not then be exclusionary. >>
Granted, it's NOT impossible, just unlikely based on past practices..... Which I realize is a non-answer and gets nothing resolved....