1869 Die break? or V over? Sovereign ***UPDATED confirmed by DNW

Hussulo

I recently purchased this 1864 die no. 40 Sovereign.





At first glance I thought it could be an V over A but then there would be some sign of it to the right hand side of the V. After a slightly closer examination I believe it to be a die break, still a neat find on a Sovereign. I will try and get closer images later.

What are everyone else's opinions?

coinkat

Don't be too quick to give up on the inverted V

EDITED TO ADD... LOOKS MORE LIKE AN 1869

Hussulo

Ooops sorry 1869 it is.

Hussulo

Here's a 60X magnification of the V.

Rickc300

I have absolutely no experience on these but on your high magnification there appears to be a ghost out line of an A on the other side as well as above the V... Would the die have been filled then recut with the V? If so maybe part of the fill had broken out???? just a WAG on my part...

PS-You should edit the thread title unless there were inverted A's on the 64's and 69's... Someone with knowledge may see the date and not even bother looking knowing that it is the wrong date.

MacCrimmon

I happen to also have an 1869 sov., die 28, but there is no evidence of any repunching on the "V" in Victoria. OTOH, ours both show evidence of die clashing on the reverses.

coinkat

It does not look like a die break... but I am not sure what it is... I would consider sending a picture to the folks at Dix Noonan Webb or Colin Cooke and see if they know of this variety.

7Jaguars

I have seen so many Vicky letter/date variants that I stop trying to collect them in that fashion. Many are like this with a "corruption" that is not readily identifiable - many have been (mis)labelled by experts and then not questioned by others subsequent to that. I just try to do the best I can in ID and go on and not worry about it too much. As for my own collection, I pretty much collect in the old Whitman folder style by getting one of each date or type. There is a very interesting leg to the left of the V on this and some metal alteration to the die shown above the V that almost looks like another V as well so it may be that several letters/digits were used on this example.

Another interesting area is with the Maundy coins of the 1850s and 1860s where there are so very many corrupted legends that they seem beyond count.

Hussulo

Thanks for the suggestions guys,

I have seen some overdated and re-punched letters on other British coins but non on Sovereigns. If that indeed is what it is. Even if it is a die break thats still interesting as I would expect Sovereigns and their dies to be more closely inspected at the mint being a more high value coin.

Hussulo

I followed coinkats advice and sent it to DNW for authentication and subseqently put it in their upcoming auction on there 17th of Dec. As far as I can make out its of an unrecorded, there for I believe there estimate is a bit modest, but we'll let the bidders decide.

Sovereign, 1869, die 40, v over a or inverted v in victoria (M 53; S 3853). About very fine, rare (£150-200)
LINK TO DNW SOVEREIGN

I've also put a couple of other coins for sale in the same auction.

Farthing, 1838, an incuse die trial of the obverse, ww raised on truncation [should be incuse], ‘223’ inked on back, edge plain, 4.22g (cf. S 3950). Better than very fine, very rare and unusual, worthy of further research (£100-150)
LINK TO DNW FARTHING

Irish Threepence, 1933 (S 6629; DF 680). Extremely fine or better (£60-80)
LINK TO DNW IRISH THREEPENCE