Belgium centime 1902

[mrbadexample]

Evening all.

I recently picked up this 1902 centime. I think it's probably 1902/1801, as listed in SCWC. The overdate on the 1 is clear, but over the 8 not quite so much, so I'm just after a second opinion really.
Cheers,
MBE

[Figleaf]

I have no doubt that your id is correct. Nice find! TFP.

Peter

[mrbadexample]

Thanks Peter. Unusual to see that many possible overdates in a single year - I wonder what they were playing at? 

[Figleaf]

I guess they expected to be minting this type in 1899, so they prepared dies with 18 and relied on punches for the 99. Pretty much standard procedure at this time and it explains the eights and zeroes.

My scenario for the "near" and "far" variants is that the last two digits were put in by hand, without the guidance the 9 punch had with the place of the eight. That made for small variations, because a 1 is narrower than the other numbers in the date. One mint worker decided that all figures should have the same space. Another spaced them by width - this is known as kerning. That still doesn't explain why the fourth digit was overstruck and why there is a "far" two variant. Chaos and confusion, maybe? Also, I am not sure KM got it right. Maybe our member Aernout can advise.

Peter

[Aernout]

Over de 9 over de 8:

Het antwoord is te wijten aan het gebruik van de stempels. We zien dat de 18 (begin van het jaartal) stabieler is. de cijfers erachter hebben dit minder. Vermoedelijk werden er moederstempels gemaakt met de cijfers 18 al op, later werden de laatste cijfers er aan toegevoegd bv. 69 om 1869 te hebben. Ik vermoed ook dat men niet dacht (in 1869)dat dit munt type zolang ging mee gaan. Wanneer men dan in 1900 (31 jaar later) kwam zat men nog steeds met de stempels met 18.. op. Het goedkoopste is dan 9 over de 8 te slaan of de stempel te hergebruiken. Dit verklaar waarom (bijna alle ?) jaartallen zo'n overslag kennen 1901, 1902...1907. Voor alle duidelijk dit is geen misslag, maar moedwillige aanpassingen. Hopelijk is de korte uitleg wat duidelijk ?


De stand van de cijfer, hier bv. 2

De cijfers werden per stempel aangeslagen. Vandaar er veel datum varianten bestaan met betrekking tot de positie van de cijfers...

mvg,
Aernout

--------------------------
(google translate)

Over the 9 over the 8:

The answer is due to the use of the dies. We see that the 18 (beginning of the year) is more stable. the chiffres behind this have this less. Presumably, mother die were created with the numbers 18 already on, later the last numbers were added eg 69 to have 1869. I also suspect that they did not think (in 1869) that this coin type would last as long. When they arrived in 1900 (31 years later) they still sat with the dies with 18 .. on. The cheapest way is to restruck 9 over the 8 or reuse the die. This explains why (almost all?) Years have such a overdate 1901, 1902 ... 1907. For all clearty this is no misstruck, but willful adjustments. Hopefully the short explanation is clear?


The position of the number, here eg 2

The numbers were stamped per stamp. Hence there are many date variants with regard to the position of the numbers ...

Best regards,
Aernout