1857 sovereign, Is there an overdate listed anywhere?

gummibear

Hello,

I have an 1857 sovereign and saw on EBAY someone selling one as an overdate 7/5. Is this a known variety? I have one that looks the same on the date. It definitely looks like something going on under the 7. Not sure it is 5 or what.

Thanks,
Richard

RobP

As far as the 7 is concerned, the curve just above the top bar would suggest a possible 6 which would be logical for a changed date die. From the picture it looks more like there is something under the 5, not the 7. 5 over 7 if line joining top right of the 5 to the ball is an underlying character?

giorgio11

I consulted both Marsh (The Gold Sovereign, Golden Jubilee Edition, 2002) and the Spink catalog, 2009. Neither lists an 1857/5, although Spink lists an 1858/7. Nonetheless there appears to be "something there" under both the 5 and 7 on your 1857.

giorgio11

Ah, curiouser and curioser. There is an 1857/5 half sovereign known from the Sydney (Australia) mint, first described by Spink in the 1980s Moran Collection. This increases the chance of there being a sovereign known of the same variety, IMHO.

Link to 1857/5 half sovereign story

RobP

The existence on an 1857/5 half sovereign has no bearing on the greater or lesser likelihood of a changed sovereign die of the same date. They may or may not exist depending on the Mint's die stocks relative to demand at the time. Until the late 1800's, any die from a previous year that still had life left in it was liable to be recut with the current date, or if blocked had the legend reinforced leading to many examples of double cutting. I suspect it may have been the norm rather than the exception as examples can be seen on all dated British coins since 1551, and prior to that there were regular occurences of overcut privy or initial marks. If there were no dies prepared at the time a production run was required, it was quicker and cheaper to fill a die and recut it. You also had the possibility of the wrong character being sunk into the die at the time it was made as typically only the first two digits were on the matrix post the 1816 recoinage. This is why you frequently see the last two datal digits misaligned. There is a relevant footnote concerning this in ESC on p.135.