Peru 1/2 Dinero 1900/189x overdate

Started by Thulium, November 13, 2015, 11:06:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Thulium

Here's a high-grade example of an overdate on a small coin series from Peru. 1900/189 is very obvious. Krause assumes this is a 1900/1890. The problem with that theory is this particular type was not struck in 1890. So I think it's more reasonable to assume the last digit on the old die was completely removed on a more recent die, such as 1899 or 1898.



The coin is small (15.5mm), but the high grade retains a lot of details such as numerous die polish lines and re-engraving of some of the letters.


Figleaf

Another possibility is that the last digit of the date was never on the mother die. It would be punched on the working die. The mother die was prepared for the 1890's, but unprepared for the century change. If the second and third digit could not be completely removed, why would it have worked on the fourth digit?

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Thulium

Quote from: Figleaf on November 14, 2015, 10:17:53 AMThe mother die was prepared for the 1890's, but unprepared for the century change.
Peter

That's a very distinct possibility, and in fact it should be the scenario I consider first for this coin series. If I can't see the overdate, I shouldn't assume that a digit was actually there--without evidence. I considered the last digit was completely removed due to the varying depth of the underlying digit from left to right--but that may be an assumption on my part.

I have other overdates in this series, such as one called "1901/1891". But, since this coin series did not begin until 1893, there must be another explanation for the last 1/1 digit. There are a lot of strange overdates for this series such as "1901/801/701", which may suggest mistakes made when dating the dies.

Thanks Peter for the interesting conversation  :)


"1901/1891"

Figleaf

First, there was in principle no reason to redo the first digit. Second, the "foot" sticking out under the fourth digit is much thinner than the overstruck 1. The two together show that the reason to redo the first 1 was not that the date punch covered all four digits.

My scenario would be: the die was prepared for the 1890's, but not used before 1900. The date was re-engraved to 1901 in a thin font (hence the need to redo the first 1), but the engraving job was not satisfactory, e.g. because the old date was showing too clearly or the style of the font was found not to match that of the letters of the legend or of earlier dates. The date was re-engraved a second time, this time with a bolder and more rectangular font. If so, the correct description would be 1901 (thick font) over 1901 (thin font) over 189.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Thulium

#4
Quote from: Figleaf on November 14, 2015, 09:04:21 PM
The date was re-engraved to 1901 in a thin font (hence the need to redo the first 1), but the engraving job was not satisfactory, e.g. because the old date was showing too clearly or the style of the font was found not to match that of the letters of the legend or of earlier dates. The date was re-engraved a second time, this time with a bolder and more rectangular font. If so, the correct description would be 1901 (thick font) over 1901 (thin font) over 189.
Peter

I appreciate your insights...it keeps me thinking. :) Yes, that may partly be the explanation. From my studies, I would just like to add that remaining digits on overdates or repunched dates (such as a 1/1) often appear "thin" due to an incomplete impression or that much of the prior digit has been polished away. What's left on the die are the deepest points of impression by a prior digit, and it very often looks like a thin or incomplete mark. This is supported by the consistent style of digits from the 1890s to the 1900s. Even for overdates from different mints, the principle holds true. Below is a very striking example of how digits can appear when they are partially removed--they take on an odd (or thin) appearance that don't fully represent the original digits. This is 1894/1894.




Globetrotter






[/quote]
Quote from: Thulium on November 14, 2015, 10:32:41 PMI appreciate your insights...it keeps me thinking. :) Yes, that may partly be the explanation. From my studies, I would just like to add that remaining digits on overdates or repunched dates (such as a 1/1) often appear "thin" due to an incomplete impression or that much of the prior digit has been polished away. What's left on the die are the deepest points of impression by a prior digit, and it very often looks like a thin or incomplete mark. This is supported by the consistent style of digits from the 1890s to the 1900s. Even for overdates from different mints, the principle holds true. Below is a very striking example of how digits can appear when they are partially removed--they take on an odd (or thin) appearance that don't fully represent the original digits. This is 1894/1894.





This coin is not from Peru but from the US!

Figleaf

Not to worry, Ole. Thulium did not claim it was Peruvian. He used it as an example to support his argument in the post.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Globetrotter

Peter, I know that, but other members might not have known this: