Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ALJADA

New Date Varieties Discovered 1927 Shilling

Recommended Posts

Gecko Coins
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

 

And so we learn something new everyday..........

 

thanks Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bellcoin

Thank you

 

Point taken - very interesting - as i stated just for knowledge AND i am sure you have provided substantial knowledge for others reading this post.

 

Once again - thank you!

 

So when are you coming to Cape Town? My guest room awaits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50

Thanks Alex for showing the two die varieties of the 1925 Wreath Tickey especially.

 

Peter Bowles and Robert Bakewell drew my attention to this some time ago. Whilst Peter may not be so sharp with the US grading, he certainly has a wealth of other knowledge that we can all learn from as has Brian Hern .

 

The issue is whether these date varieties and strike changes make enough of a difference to the format of the coin to merit a separate variety attribution by NGC? The answer lies I think in the amount of change one sees between the varieties.I do agree with you that an absent dot behind even a small coin such as a 3d deserves a separate variety just as a bigger 1940 Penny without a dot after the date gets that separate variety.

 

For example the 1802 Scheepjesgulden fractions (First coins made for the Cape and East Indies- C.Engelbrecht) exist in two varieties, one with and one without the rope around the value. See pics- sorry my pic of the no rope variety is too big to load. Now NGC is very happy to give that a separate variety attribution but it is a very noticeable difference. I suppose on a world scale , they must have thousands of varieties to deal with.Perhaps you should try again with the 1932 3d no stop behind date and speak to Ken Krah or Mark Baughmann.

 

Geejay

58f5a71b45949_1802NetherlandsEastIndiaBataviaRepublicOneEighthGuldenRev.jpg.d99e5ea60ab248f2357aced1c81819ca.jpg

58f5a71b49e83_1802NetherlandsEastIndiaBataviaRepublicOneEighthGuldenRopearoundvalue_Rev.jpg.6b861e291eabb1002125630cf2e0679e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Hi Georg

 

I must challenge the claim that the Scheepjesguilden fractions were the "First coins made for the Cape and East Indies". The comment (out of context) suggests that they were actually used as an indigenous currency in South Africa.

 

I have Engelbrecht's book (see pg 25 and 26) where he discusses this issue. Like with Parson and the Griquatown claims, firstly there is NO substance to support his comments. Where are his references? There are none.

 

In fact Engelbrecht qualifies his comments (see pg26)

QUOTE: For some reason De Mist never circulated the contents of the seven casks of money that he brought with him to the Cape in 1803 - a total of 85,024 guilders but sent them back to Batavia, where they were declared legal tender and used for many years.

and (later in 1806 when the British occupied the Cape)

The 1-guilder and the copper coins were never apparently circulated at the Cape to any large extent.

So when and where did they become South Africa's first indigenous coinage as you have suggested on this forum at an earlier time?

Source: http://forum.bidorbuy.co.za/coins-notes-numismatist/7362-why-collect-patterns.html

 

The Griquatown coins as made by the London missionaries without approval of the Society should really fall under early South African coinage along with the 1802 Scheepjesgulden group (circulated by the British in 1805 at the Cape- Engelbrecht), the 1797 British Tuppence and the even earlier VOC Gulden , Halfgulden, Silver Stuivers and Copper Duits (1720 - 1791).

 

The amount of wear seen in the 1815 Griquatown coins especially the copper, is far greater than the Lauer group of Patterns of 1880 about. I enclose some pics to illustrate that.

 

Our Coin Catalogue should really have a separate section that caters for these pre-ZAR circulated coins , however varied and scarce they are. They are part of a very colourful History - and as grading defines scarcity and quality of this group, they become more and more noticed by collectors.

 

As pretty and interesting as the Patterns are, they lack a bit of common touch and usefulness that these early coins have.

South African (or indigenous) coinage implies minted for and used solely by the people of South Africa. This is clearly not the case with the Scheepjesgulden. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

 

PS I love the Scheepjesgulden coin I purchased from you a year ago.. ;-) - it is a historic piece and valued!

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50

Hi Scott ,

 

I did not say that the Scheepjesgulden was made exclusively for the Cape, I said for the East Indies as well.

 

The information of Circulation of the Fractions of the Scheepjesgulden at the Cape is found on page 28. to quote Engelbrecht "Major General David Baird..Acting Governor until 1807...one of the first things he did was to issue a proclamation on 23 January 1806 to fix the value of various coins in circulation...In view of the general and acute shortage of small values. Baird then put into circulation foreign coin,the scheepjes coins (1/4 and 1/8 guilders) that De Mist had ordered and stored.The Half Guilder too made an appearance some time later."

 

At the top of Page 26 in small writing, Engelbrecht writes- I quote "It was however the British who brought the 'scheepjesgulden' into circulation."

 

It is true that the One Gulden only circulated in Batavia (Indonesia) taking what you quoted from Pg 26 and not at the Cape but the fractions circulated in the Cape for sure when you read the rest of what Engelbrecht writes.

 

The British were always pragmatic when it came to the origins of money used. The shortage of small currency and the demands of trade left them no option.

 

Australia had a similar Governor's Proclamation for the same reasons at that time to standardise different currencies and prevent confusion in Trade.

 

To come back to the gist of this forum, I have loaded a picture taken from Engelbrecht showing the 1/8 Gulden variety without a rope around the value. This variety is several times scarcer than the one with the rope . It has a separate NGC pop report listing.

 

To be honest , the VOC made the first coins specifically for use at the Cape and beyond wherever they traded along the spice route. Those are scarcer than the scheepjesguldens and go back to the 1700s

 

Regards

 

Georg

1802 Netherlands East India Batavia Republic One EighthGulden No Rope around value.Rev Extract Gelde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Hi Georg

 

That's great. Thanks for the clarification.

 

A coin indigenous to a country (like South Africa) is one minted for use only in that country and one, I would suggest, successfully achieving its aim as circulating coinage. Minting a coin for a country without it being accepted as currency by the people there hardly makes it an indigenous coin!

 

I am sure that you will agree.

 

That is why the ZAR and Union coins are South African coins and that is why so many early token coins are bona-fide South African coins because they were used in times of shortage of sovereign coinage and widely used by the population. In all these scenarios the coins were used to facilitate trade.

 

South African coins are NOT coins also used for trade in other parts of the world - even if that world only included other territories like Batavia. In other words, although VOC and Scheepjesgulden may have been used in South Africa they are NOT South African coinage.

 

If they were then "British (Victorian) coinage" (sovereigns, 2/- etc) used in the early days in the Cape, Natal and elsewhere should also be recognised as South African coinage. Simple logic. Of course they are not and never will be.

 

I have a few VOC and Scheepjesgulden pieces.. love their history.. but that does not make them South African! To say otherwise is, in my opinion, dressing mutton up as lamb!

 

PS I guess there are more varieties when it comes to the earlier coinage as they had a far less advanced minting process in those days and went through more variants because of dies.

 

Alex, with today's modern computerised minting technology are varieties, like the Union examples you have displayed in this thread, becoming more unusual?

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Miss Muffet
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

I have a whole wheelie suitcase full of low denomination coins and have never looked for these varieties.

Another interesting exercise I do not have time for.

I have come across the ear flattened variety among my coins but disgarded them as damaged.

Just goes to show we learn something new all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50

Hi Scott,

 

I have an old wreck diving pal in Cape Town who comes across old coins in strange places. He has come up with two of these small Scheepjesgulden fractions , well worn and of the 1/16 type in different places there.

 

I have no doubt these coins had never left Cape Town since 1805 and were part of the chaotic currency used at the time whatwith the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars causing all sorts of arrivals and departures at the Cape.

 

They were made in Enkhuizen Mint Holland, hence the star at 12 oclock and cannot be called South African, but they were made for use in places away from Holland to further trade.

 

Georg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA
Thanks Alex for showing the two die varieties of the 1925 Wreath Tickey especially.

 

The issue is whether these date varieties and strike changes make enough of a difference to the format of the coin to merit a separate variety attribution by NGC? The answer lies I think in the amount of change one sees between the varieties.I do agree with you that an absent dot behind even a small coin such as a 3d deserves a separate variety just as a bigger 1940 Penny without a dot after the date gets that separate variety.

 

For example the 1802 Scheepjesgulden fractions (First coins made for the Cape and East Indies- C.Engelbrecht) exist in two varieties, one with and one without the rope around the value. See pics- sorry my pic of the no rope variety is too big to load. Now NGC is very happy to give that a separate variety attribution but it is a very noticeable difference. I suppose on a world scale , they must have thousands of varieties to deal with.Perhaps you should try again with the 1932 3d no stop behind date and speak to Ken Krah or Mark Baughmann.

 

Geejay

 

You are welcome Georg.

 

I have approximately 500 Union varieties but only about 375 of these are significant enough to warrant separate attribution. The variety specialists in the USA state that if the variety is not visible with the naked eye then it is not significant. This does not apply to coins the size of a 3 pence where such variety must be visible under 3 to5x magnification. There are several other criteria which apply to the type of variety but generally the aformentioned is sufficient. The NGC gives the 1959 3P NO KG attribution and it is so tiny, difficult to see plus it is not even a proper die variety. I shall explain this some other time but if they attribute this coin they should do the same with 99% of my varieties.

 

At this point I am busy with the classification for each coin and it is not as easy as one might think. It is very time consuming but a necessary task. The complete classification will be published as soon as I finish it. I have included space for any varieties that other collectors might have found which will help make it as complete as possible at such time.

 

I think there should be a separate attribution for the significant varieties and to this end I did try more than once to have several of my varieties attributed at the NGC but each time I was ignored. The coins I sent in were all very significant and easy to see varieties and at first I thought they did not agree with my findings but later I discovered that they just did not really give a damn. Granted my coins are not the SINGLE 9 but as you said if they consider a penny with no stop then surely a 3p is also significant especially a GEOV 3p!? I was however told by Mark that I should submit my varieties list and Ken would have a look at it and decide if it was worthy of taking it further. Unfortunately it was around this time that I had my fill with NGC and I have never spoken to them or sent a coin since then. Nonetheless I am not as stubborn as I might seem and it would be nice to have such coins correctly attributed by either the NGC or PCGS.

 

 

Hi Scott,

 

Yes, you are correct in stating that varieties are becoming unusual with modern coins and minting technology today but some do still occur. Thanks for the question.

 

Cheers all.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gecko Coins

Hi Alex

 

Kindly assist with this error, it is a 1965 20c piece and it has what looks to be a serrated groove running along the bust of Jan van Riebeeck. I do hope the pictures are clear enough. Is this caused by the strike?

 

thanks

 

934489_100521165116_IMG_6674.JPG

 

934489_100521165213_IMG_6674a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA

Hi Gecko,

 

You are quite right when you say that this was caused by the strike. When a blank is struck with such huge pressure the metal is not given any chance to displace itself in any other way but what the dies allow. Such displacement is almost instantaneous but as the dies wear out or if the strike pressure suddendly is reduced, the metal of the blank is slightly less constrained for such displacement, with the result being what you see on your coin.

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALJADA

Two of my favourite varieties

 

The 1931 FARTHING Z has 2 interesting varieties I have on my favourites list:

 

357741_100524052218_vamsnew_001.jpg

357741_100524052522_vamsnew_002.jpg

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MsPlod

How do these errors affect the value?

 

Hi Alex

 

Kindly assist with this error, it is a 1965 20c piece and it has what looks to be a serrated groove running along the bust of Jan van Riebeeck. I do hope the pictures are clear enough. Is this caused by the strike? thanks

 

What are the implications of a strike error such as this? What would this coin with this strike error be worth - compared to a coin of similar state without the strike error? Sorry to butt in... just really curious!:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
inveco

I don't think this coin carry's any significant value unless there is a part of history involved.

I would say what the next person is willing to pay, but then on the other side this is a common date.

 

Just some input!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...