Denezhka 1862

[altyn]

Hi Everybody,

 

I am somewhat puzzled by the looks of the digit 2 in the date. It appears that there is an underlying 1. The 6 looks like there may be a 5 underneath. Is this real or just my imagination? My experience with overstrikes is next to nothing.

 

And how come the mintmark is almost invisible? With a small stretch of imagination I am seeing something like EM but this may be so because I know it must be there.

 

So, what do the experts think? Thanks.

 

 

 

[STEVE MOULDING]

Hi Everybody,

 

I am somewhat puzzled by the looks of the digit 2 in the date. It appears that there is an underlying 1. The 6 looks like there may be a 5 underneath. Is this real or just my imagination? My experience with overstrikes is next to nothing.

 

And how come the mintmark is almost invisible? With a small stretch of imagination I am seeing something like EM but this may be so because I know it must be there.

 

So, what do the experts think? Thanks.

 

 

Overdate yes. Overstrike no.

Certainly a 2/1. Don't recall if this is well known. Will look through my image set tomorrow,

 

Steve

[altyn]

Overdate yes. Overstrike no.

Certainly a 2/1. Don't recall if this is well known. Will look through my image set tomorrow,

 

Steve

 

Thank you, intended to mean "overdate", not "overstrike" - sorry.

[STEVE MOULDING]

Certainly a 2/1. Don't recall if this is well known. Will look through my image set tomorrow

 

OK checked, and indeed around 20% of the 1862EM Dengas show a clear 2/1.

 

There was one in Aalborg II (May 2007 Lot 1519) that sold for 236USD.

 

Steve

 

 

(I tried to post an image but I see we're still getting these upload errors "Max. single upload size 2MB". So when I try to upload an 89K image it says "Upload failed 4.15MB used out of 1000K". What does any of that mean? It's been doing this off and on for months. I wish somebody would fix it)

[grivna1726]

(I tried to post an image but I see we're still getting these upload errors "Max. single upload size 2MB". So when I try to upload an 89K image it says "Upload failed 4.15MB used out of 1000K". What does any of that mean? It's been doing this off and on for months. I wish somebody would fix it)

 

I had a problem posting images here a few years ago.

 

I worked around it by uploading the images to imageshack.us and then put the links to them in my posts here (as gxseries very helpfully suggested to me at the time).

[grivna1726]

And how come the mintmark is almost invisible? With a small stretch of imagination I am seeing something like EM but this may be so because I know it must be there.

 

Maybe some grease or dirt filled the mintmark on the die? I think I can see traces of the mintmark as well (and I don't think it is just my imagination).

[altyn]

Thank you very much.

 

Could anything be told about the digit 6? Apart from the obvious damage, there is also a peculiar-looking part shown with the arrow in the attached image below.

 

 

 

Something is definitely visible where the mintmark is supposed to be, especially when the the actual coin is viewed at certain angle. Dirt in the die could certainly explain this.

[grivna1726]

Could anything be told about the digit 6? Apart from the obvious damage, there is also a peculiar-looking part shown with the arrow...

I don't know what that is. I don't think it's a repunched digit, but I could be wrong.

[sigistenz]

Hi Everybody,

I am somewhat puzzled by the looks of the digit 2 in the date. It appears that there is an underlying 1. The 6 looks like there may be a 5 underneath. Is this real or just my imagination? My experience with overstrikes is next to nothing.

And how come the mintmark is almost invisible? With a small stretch of imagination I am seeing something like EM but this may be so because I know it must be there.

So, what do the experts think? Thanks.

Hi, if you show the other side, it can be said whether it is the E.M. or the B.M. mint, as the monogram style differs. Sigi

[RW Julian]

Hi Everybody,

I am somewhat puzzled by the looks of the digit 2 in the date. It appears that there is an underlying 1. The 6 looks like there may be a 5 underneath. Is this real or just my imagination? My experience with overstrikes is next to nothing.

And how come the mintmark is almost invisible? With a small stretch of imagination I am seeing something like EM but this may be so because I know it must be there.

So, what do the experts think? Thanks.

The figure 6 does appear to be over a 5. It may be that the die was originally made

in 1858 but not given a final digit due to uncertainty over whether it would be used in

1858 or 1859. In 1861 the die was made to be 1861 but still not used. In 1862 it was

redated a second time and used for coinage.

 

It is also possible that the die was honed down to make the date change less obvious

and in the process the mintmark was partially erased.

 

RWJ

[altyn]

Thank you for unfolding this interesting story. I wonder how unusual such a multiple redating is. A single 2/1overdate, as pointed out by Steve earlier, is rather common (20%), but here we have at least two.

 

Here is the other side;

 

[STEVE MOULDING]

Thank you for unfolding this interesting story. I wonder how unusual such a multiple redating is. A single 2/1overdate, as pointed out by Steve earlier, is rather common (20%), but here we have at least two.

 

Well, I can't say the 20% are purely single overdates. It's possible that some of the others I've seen are from the same die but this will require a closer examination and in some cases the image resolution may not be good enough. Your image was very nice . I'll see what I can find.

[RW Julian]

Thank you for unfolding this interesting story. I wonder how unusual such a multiple redating is. A single 2/1overdate, as pointed out by Steve earlier, is rather common (20%), but here we have at least two.

Double overdates are relatively rare.

RWJ