Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ALJADA

New Date Varieties Discovered 1927 Shilling

Recommended Posts

ALJADA    10
ALJADA

I recently discovered a set of date varieties for the 1927 Shilling. The coin itself is ultra rare in grades above AU55 but with a mintage of 488,455 coins it is not surprising that these varieties exist. Unfortunately due to the huge smeltings that occurred from 1951 onwards, we can never be sure how many varieties actually existed and finding this set of 4 varieties for an exceedingly rare coin is quite fortunate. Here they are enjoy:

 

357741_100514100128_1927_shilling_vam_full.jpg

 

357741_100514100238_1927_SHILLING_VAM_CL_UP.jpg

 

From the top of the close up picture we can see:

 

Large "7" correctly flowing with the digits preceding it.

 

Smaller "7" placed slightly higher compared to the above example.

 

The third picture shows a similar "7" as in the top example but the downstroke is thinner at the top & the stop after it is slightly further away. This example will not be catalogued because the differences are far too small to be considered significant.

 

The last pic shows a large "7" placed low and much closer to the "2" than in any of the other examples.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

Alex.. you are the man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

Nice Alex...... Please explain what happened here with this 1932 Half Crown.... The 2 in the date is miss placed.

 

108025_100514150725_1932.jpg

 

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Wow Anthony this is one I do not have. I have 4 1932 Half CROWN date varieties and they all involve the positioning of the 2 in the date. Simply put the hubbing dies from 1931 were used to make the 1932 production dies and this was done by removing the one in the date and then the production dies were hubbed without the last digit of the year. The problem then was to punch a 2 into the production dies by hand which of course resulted in all these various positions of the 2.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

More homework for you Alex........

 

What happened here to this 3d..... Portion of the neck is missing

 

108025_100514235840_1.jpg

108025_100514235926_3.jpg108025_100514235956_2.jpg

 

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Nicely struck obverse. The recess around the ear of GEOV seen on this particular coin are purely the result of a very solid & perhaps higher pressure strike with the added possibility of a strike made with fresh dies. This particular recess around GEOV's ear is probably the deepest of the entire design which would mean that on the production die it would be the highest part of the design and therefore any higher pressure strike would make a deeper recess on the coin which if deep enough would create the result we see here on this coin.

 

I have some homework for you too given that your relationship with the SA Mint & its personnel is very strong.

 

2 SETS OF COINS AS FOLLOWS

 

1968 ONE RAND

2003 TWO RAND

 

The first has been my driving force with regards to die varieties and it is the year in which I was born I am told. I discovered the varieties a good 5 years ago.

 

Hern's catalogue lists this coin as having the same reverse as the years preceding it, in both business strikes & proof strikes. The reverse design was made by Jan van Zyl & the obverse by Tommy Sasseen. I had the good fortune to meet Mr Sasseen a few years ago and I asked him if he recalls different dies been created by Jan van Zyl for the reverse of the Silver One Rand and he was not certain. As you will see below there are several different designs for the Silver One Rand from 1965 to 1968 and onwards.

Unfortunately all my efforts to have these die varieties recognised has fallen on deaf ears but perhaps the SA Mint could verify my findings and finally the varieties could be listed as they should be.

 

In 1968 the reverse design for the proofs was altered to exhibit the frosted look or in USA terminology Cameo Appearance and the design remain the same, or so everyone thinks because this is not so.

 

357741_100515033133_DSC04997.JPG

1965 & 1966 springbok head proof

 

 

357741_100515033549_1967_prf_60s_ms.jpg

 

1967 springbok head proof & 1966,67,68 springbok head business strike

 

357741_100515033745_DSC05005.JPG

1968 springbok head proof die 1 note no frosting

 

357741_100515033916_DSC05009.JPG

1968 springbok head proof die 2 note frosting

 

Do I need glasses or are these quite clearly different designs?

 

Next up the 2003 Two Rand Nickel coin. Two designs exist here, one which is the same as all years preceding this and years after this one, the next which is strangely different than all the years and it is the most predominant design used for 2003. The proper design is actually very scarce and is only found in quantity in the proof strikes.

The SA Mint offered an explanation saying they mistakenly used a matrix die with a previous design which was shelved back in 1989 and it somehow crept in and most of the coins struck in 2003 bear this shelved design until they discovered their mistake. I accept this explanantion but I would like to know how many were struck in each design and furthermore I would like this odd design recognised as being what it is , a variety existent only in 2003. Your help would be most appreciated. I call the odd design the KUDU HUNCHBACK & it was discovered by my wife Jacqui not me!

 

357741_100515034544_2rand_vams.jpg

Note the hump on the second KUDU just under the R for 'RAND'. Not seen in any other year and quite distinct!

 

 

Awesome varieties I think!!

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

Alex, firstly thanks for that explaination on the 3d. Secondly, I will be meeting with the Mint at the end of the month at the show and I will certainly raise this issue. Indeed, the varieties you show are awesome and quite clearly, even to a blind man, they are different dies. Thirdly, have you sent in any of the varieties you have discovered for grading. What description did NGC/PCGS give them, and what do you think NGC would do with this 3d coin I have shown here in terms of grading..

 

Thanks once again for your input............

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cold Sea    0
Cold Sea

Hi Alex,

 

If you look at the cover photo of the pattern pieces that was released for this series, you will notice that the R2 coin also shows a bump on the Kudu's back. Strange then that this die was used only for the one year.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Hi Anthony,

 

The coins were sent to the NGC 3 years ago for variety attribution and I specifically requested that they be noted as varieties. The coins came back with no attribution and when I asked the NGC why they ignored my requests I was told they never saw my requests. That was the last time I sent any of my varieties for attribution. As for your threepence I think they would do exactly the same. I sent in the following 1932 threepence for variety attribution and it too was ignored. It is clearly a significant variety yet the NGC failed again to correctly grade and assign it. It is a 1932 3P no stop after the date:

 

357741_100515102400_DSC04985.JPG

 

357741_100515102458_DSC04985a.jpg

 

Very frustrating working with imbeciles clearly not interested in our SA coins but very happy to take our money.

 

Dear Cold Sea

 

Thank you for the information it proves that the 'hunchback' design was the original one .

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gecko Coins    10
Gecko Coins

Hi Gents

 

Thank you for this post, it is a very interesting subject. I find the varieties fascinating and have many of my own. Attached is another coin that is a bit confusing, it is a 1976 5c coin RSA. I only just got hold of these two coins but have never seen this type of "error" or variety before. If it is an error, what could have caused it?

 

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

 

Much appreciated

 

934489_100515115743_IMG_6603.JPG

 

934489_100515120317_IMG_6605a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Interesting coin and it is definitely an error coin. The extra detail visible on the coin is more than likely due to some foreign pieces of metal perhaps in the form of wire present between the hubbing die and the production die during hubbing. The result would be extra indentations on the production die and therefore on the coin. This is the most probable scenario although I have not ruled out some other possibilities yet and which I will post if I conclude that they are plausible.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gecko Coins    10
Gecko Coins

Hi Alex

 

I have attached some more pitures below, here are both coins, they have exactly the same impression in the same places, this is what is confusing. I have also thought of perhaps wire being the culprit, but having two coins exactly the same is a mystery unless foreign material damaged the dies and some of these errors slipped through,

 

best regards

 

934489_100515164637_IMG_6606a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

The existence of 2 or more of these coins proves that the production die was created with these errors. This makes my initial theory more plausible. The process of hubbing is where the hubbing die (made from a matrix die which is made from a master die) is pressed slowly against a blank production die resulting in the die that strikes the blanks making coins. Any foreign material, which has a higher level of hardness than the production die, caught between the hubbing die and the production die will create an impression into the production die that will remain permanently in such die and will transfer such impression onto blanks as we see on your coins, for as long as such die is usable. The foreign material could also be shavings from the hubbing dies which would be quite varied in size & shape. There quite possibly were thousands of these particular coins minted and they are termed die error varieties. How many survived in the condition of your 2 varieties is unknown.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

1931 Penny Obverse Die Error Variety - Clashed Dies

 

The following post was posted in my sticky some time ago and has puzzled numismatists for many years:

 

The reason I cut my previous post short is it just struck me how the variety found on the 1931 penny discussed in an earlier post was created! The specimen is probably the only one I have seen to date that clearly shows its variety creation!!

 

The variety is undoubtedly caused by die clashing which means that this is better classified as an error coin not a variety. The occurence of this error/variety in other years as stated in my previous post is therefore not necessarily due to the same die being utilised but rather that die clashing occured in all of these years. It is more probable that this is the reason for such error/variety existing although the possibility that the same die was used cannot be ruled out because the clashing may have occured in a particular year and such die(s) were utilised in subsequent years.

 

The following pictures have reverses superimposed on the obverse and also reverses in mirror image in order to help understand what occured:

 

 

 

357741_1931_1d_rev.jpg

 

357741_1931_1d_rev_full.jpg

 

357741_1931_flipped_red.jpg

 

357741_1931_1d_obv_full_red_rings.jpg

 

357741_1931_aii_sp_red_rings.jpg

 

See part 2 in my next post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

1931 PENNY OBVERSE DIE ERROR VARIETY - CLASHED DIES part 2

 

Any recessed design element on the reverse die will create a incuse design in mirror image on the obverse of the coin after die clashing. Any raised design element on the reverse die will create a raised design element on the obverse of the coin after die clashing.

I could never figure out how these crescent shapes were made so raised on the obverse and it struck me tonight that the areas in between the upper sails and the lower sails were crescent shaped and on the reverse dies this small area would be a high raised design element which would show itself in this form after die clashing. Amazing and another variety mystery solved!!! What gave it away was the small area showing the incuse design of the lower bunched up sail just underneath GEOV's ear. This was never seen by myself on other specimens because they were never as clearly struck as this coin. The die clashing must have been at full force to have created such heavy detail!

 

357741_geov_close_up_1931_vam.jpg

 

Quite a numismatic discovery in terms of the origins of such die error variety and clearly not just me spewing numismatic knowledge acquired from some book!!

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Here are some clearer close up pictures of the 2003 2 RAND variety with the correct design beside it from a 2004 specimen.

 

357741_100516025533_R2_VAM.JPG

 

Another interesting set of varieties are the 1962 20 cents 'LARGE 2' & 'SMALL 2'. Here I have an extra 2 such varieties to add, making 4 in total for this date:

 

357741_100516030140_TRIPLE_VIEW_plus_1.jpg

 

From the top we have the SMALL 2 then the LARGE 2 followed by another different LARGE 2 and finally a SMALL 2 placed at a different angle to the first one. 4 varieties of the same coin but 2 of which are as yet unrecognised by the 'pezza novante' of SA Numismatics. I have a plethora more to show so watch this space!

 

Cheers

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4kids    10
4kids

Hi Alex,

 

About a 18 months ago, I discovered the very same type variety on a 1930 Penny whilst sorting through coins in my dinning room with another fellow collector. In fact I have two of them, both graded. One one the ropework on the middle mast extends into the neck of George.

 

532225_100516122532_1930.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

These are not varieties they are die error varieties known specifically as die clashes and they can be found on the PENNY in all years from 1924 to 1936. The only differences between each example is the degree of detail. Some are very clear and prominent whilst others are very faint. It is important to not classify them as standard die varieties because they were not created during the manufacturing of the dies, they were created whilst in the mint press minting coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

The following coin variety set took me a while to actually believe what I was seeing given the rarity of this coin. Whilst the condition of these coins may not be as high as I would like, one cannot expect to find such varieties easily in the first place and then on top of this, find them in top grades. The variety set is of the 1925 3P WREATH!! Unbelievably rare!!

 

357741_100518151200_1925_vam_3p.jpg

 

Note the spacing between the 2 & 5 on each specimen. Then note the doubled die 2 in specimen number 2.

 

Amazing die variety of a very rare coin.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Miss Muffet    20
Little Miss Muffet

Are these coins with die varieties valuable??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bellcoin    10
Bellcoin

My fiftycents worth

 

Yes they are ever so slightly different.

 

BUT do they really justify a seperate place numismatices? I am not that well equiped in knowledge to understand the REAL difference but could this not be simple metal physics.

 

I am aware that I am entering a discussion well beyond my scope, but I have a passion for knowledge!

 

So not trying to upset - just asking - would like to broaden my knowlegde.

 

And heck I would like to meet one day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Hi Geewhizz,

 

At the moment varieties in general do not command very high premiums to their common counterpart in terms of SA Coins, save for certain well documented ones. The variety market in the USA is a huge business and there are societies specifically dedicated to this sector of numismatics. We generally follow USA trends and therefore I believe that this sector will become just as popular here is SA. This means that certain varieties will be valuable and others not, pretty much in the same way that coins in general are valued.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Hi Bellcoin,

 

Thank you for your post. I shall endeavour to help you understand why your comments are way off the mark and perhaps convert you into a collector of varieties in the future.

 

Firstly metal physics does not have anything to do with the creation of such varieties. When one considers that each blank is struck with a strike pressure of between 20 to 50 tons it follows that each blank (which effectively is a piece of metal) will, provided it is of a softer material than the dies which have the design engraved onto them, be pressed into each and every design element of such dies and where there is no design elements the blank will remain flat and smooth, similar to moulding clay putty into moulds that have different designs and shapes and then removing such to have an exact replica of what is depicted within such mould. The difference here is that this requires very little pressure as the clay is soft but the concept is very much the same. Metal physics does not allow a piece of metal to decide for itself what shape or form it is going to take on whether in molten form or solid form under pressure. I do not know how else to further explain this and I hope you grasp my explanation.

 

 

Now taking the specific 1925 3P varieties I have pictured, the only way the spacing between the 2 & the 5 could have been created differently on each coin is by the use of 2 reverse dies which are almost exactly the same except that the one die had the 5 spaced further away from the 2 as compared to the other die. Now how could this occur? When the production dies are created they are created from hubbing dies which are created from a matrix die which is created from a master die. Now each master die would be used to create one matrix die and such matrix die would have all the design elements on it save for the complete year/date i.e. the digits "1" & "9" would be included since at least 75 years would have to pass before such digits would need to be changed. The matrix die would then be used to create several hubbing dies also without the complete year/date as stated before. Then each of the hubbing dies would be used to make several production dies and once these were made the balance of the year/date would need to be inserted. This was achieved by the use of punches engraved with specific digits and punched in by hand. Unfortunately such a procedure could never be duplicated exactly on each and every production die and based on the die register for this particular year and denomination, I can tell you that 9 reverse dies bearing the wreath design were made but only 4 were used to mint coins. This means that there is a possibility that 4 date varieties could exist. We have two here so there could be another 2 & whether the missing 2 are significant enough to be classified as varieties is still a mystery!

 

You state that the varieties I have pictured are "ever so slightly different" and I wonder what you expect from a variety? The differences are astronomic from where I sit. Remember we are talking about threepences and half a millimeter difference on a coin which has a diameter of 16.30mm is comparable to approximately 1cm on a 30cm standard ruler or about the thickness of 5 NGC SLABS out of a pile of 100 or 30 meters out of a kilometer. It is fairly significant I would say. Ask the Comrades athletes who dont make the line before the gun by 2,9 kilometres which is about the same proportional difference over the marathon distance to what we see on these coins? No one really cares about them but those who dont make it by a few metres we consider this as significant, which would equate to something like 0.0001 of a millimeter on these coins and impossible to see even under 90x magnification?!! Furthermore we have evidence of doubling on the 2 on one coin which is the result of a slight change in angle of the punch between a particular strike and successive ones creating the little extra "tail" on the 2!! Huge significance given that very few of these coins were struck!!

 

The existence of these die varieties tells us what happened 85 years ago in the SA MINT. These coins tell us a little bit about the history of how our coins were manufactured all those years ago. No documentation could tell you this because it was never written! It was however pressed into these little pieces of metal for us to discover so many years later!!

 

Do they justify a place in numismatics? You tell me!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nickel and Dime    10
Nickel and Dime

Hi Gecko Coins,

 

I've also seen this variety. I have 3x 1976 5c with the same variety. I think the Americans call it a "cud error", but not completely sure.

 

Kind Regards

Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA    10
ALJADA

Hi EP Coins

 

These are not examples of a cud error. A cud error is where a piece of the die has fallen out resulting in a missing design element being present on the coin and a lump of sorts shown in its place. These 5 c have complete designs and no missing design elements. The error in these cases are called STRUCK FRAGMENTS.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×