1858 5/5?

[CDNMace]

Hi All,

2014 Charlton doesn't have this one listed, but this site does. Wondering if someone could help me dismiss or confirm this one as a 5/5. *Additional: There are several die cracks... C in Victoria, A in Gratia, d/c through several leaves, and several incomplete leaf stems.

Thanks,

Steve

[Bill in Burl]

Nearly all of the 1858's have a repunched 5 of some sort, so there is really nothing novel about the 5 being redone. From Rob Turner's book, you have Reverse RC3, which was used on approx 2.67% of all the 1858's. Don't believe the 600K minted .. there were more like 1.5 or 1.6 million minted. At that, you then have one of about 40,000 examples. It has been paired with Obverse die OA3(used with 4 different Revs), which was used on 4.67% of all the 1858's. That Obv should have a D/C through the I in Regina, the right side of the C in Victoria, and across the I in Victoria. A later one developed through the first A in Gratia.

For the 58's pay attention to the vine breaks. "Full Vine" 58's will not have a vine break at leaf 13 .. there were 3-4 of those Reverse dies, after which the hub broke that makes the working dies. About half way through the mintage year (actually only about 3 months), the vine on the hub broke at leaf 7 (yours has a small clean break there). That break at 7 gradually got bigger going into the 1859 mintages, becoming pretty wide by the end of the 1859's ... All 59's have a vine break at 7, from small to large .. the hub breaking away gradually as the year went on.... the latest of the 59's also developed the same hub vine break(s) at leaf 2 at the end of the year. By looking at the vine breaks, starting at leaf 13, then 7, then 2, you can see approx when in the die-making year that the specific working die was made. Useless knowledge to some, but something that you should keep in the back of your mind.

[CDNMace]

Nearly all of the 1858's have a repunched 5 of some sort, so there is really nothing novel about the 5 being redone. From Rob Turner's book, you have Reverse RC3, which was used on approx 2.67% of all the 1858's. Don't believe the 600K minted .. there were more like 1.5 or 1.6 million minted. At that, you then have one of about 40,000 examples. It has been paired with Obverse die OA3(used with 4 different Revs), which was used on 4.67% of all the 1858's That Obv should have a D/C through the I in Regina, the right side of the C in Victoria, and across the I in Victoria. A later one developed throught the first A in Gratia.

For the 58's pay attention to the vine breaks. "Full Vine" 58's will not have a vine break at leaf 13 .. there were 3-4 of those Reverse dies, after which the hub broke that makes the working dies. About half way through the mintage year (actually only about 3 months), the vine on the hub broke at leaf 7 (yours has a small clean break there). That break at 7 gradually got bigger going into the 1859 mintages, becoming pretty wide by the end of the 1859's ... All 59's have a vine break at 7, from small to large .. the hub breaking away gradually as the year went on.... the latest of the 59's also developed the same hub vine break(s) at leaf 2 at the end of the year. By looking at the vine breaks, starting at leaf 13, then 7, then 2, you can see approx when in the die-making year that the specific working die was made. Useless knowledge to some, but something that you should keep in the back of your mind.

Bill... how on God's green earth do you not have your own, individual, cover-to-cover published work? I'm being serious here? How?

Thank you, yet again.

Steve

[CDNMace]

Bingo, as it were...

So, to play Antiques Road Show for a moment, all things/factors considered, what would be the estimated value range for this coin, in your opinion?

[Bill in Burl]

I've been collecting Victoria varieties for well over 25 years and do lots of study/research. I help others write/vett books and have no desire to do it myself. I'm just an H&H .. help and hoard. I'd guess that I have close to 10,000 Vickies, so there's not much I've never seen, nor studied.

Your coin is VG and cleaned. It Trends for $70; you should be able to buy it for $35-40 shopping around, and a dealer would probably give you about $25-30 if he needed it.

[CDNMace]

I've been collecting Victoria varieties for well over 25 years and do lots of study/research. I help others write/vett books and have no desire to do it myself. I'm just an H&H .. help and hoard. I'd guess that I have close to 10,000 Vickies, so there's not much I've never seen, nor studied.

Your coin is VG and cleaned. It Trends for $70; you should be able to buy it for $35-40 shopping around, and a dealer would probably give you about $25-30 if he needed it.

I understand that. And that is a very impressive collection!

There's only one thing which perplexes me here... cleaned? There are no signs of cleaning that I see under the loupe? No scratches, no wipey-ness (my personal term), nothing that indicated to me that this has been cleaned/dipped/wiped. Strange? With my collection of US coins, TRUST me, cleaning (pre-1900) is almost epidemic here. What is/are your indicators? (Sufficed to say, the thought of it being cleaned disappoints me, a lot -- for a lack of better terms).

[Bill in Burl]

The coin is 150 years old and has seen considerable circulation. Coins like that have the 'Vicky crud' in every nook and cranny and yours doesn't. It's been cleaned, probably boiled to some extent to release the dirt and grime. You would have dirt inside evry one of the letters and digits, plus evrything with the leaves and vine. You don't need scratches and and ploished surfaces .. if it doesn't look 'natural' then it's been cleaned.

[CDNMace]

The coin is 150 years old and has seen considerable circulation. Coins like that have the 'Vicky crud' in every nook and cranny and yours doesn't. It's been cleaned, probably boiled to some extent to release the dirt and grime. You would have dirt inside evry one of the letters and digits, plus evrything with the leaves and vine. You don't need scratches and and ploished surfaces .. if it doesn't look 'natural' then it's been cleaned.

Ah, I see what you mean. I think the modern American/Canadian nomenclature stood in the way there. 'Cleaned' is a very, very, bad word here. Generalized term, but devalues a US coin considerably (I realize I'm likely preaching to the choir, it's simply for others). Here, it is usually indicative of a coin having scrape marks, looking 'Brillo'ed' under the loupe, dipped, polished with a substance etc... Ergo, damaged. Value harmed greatly. While cleaned is a generic term here, it generally means enjoy your now value-less coin.

There is still some Vicky-dirt on this coin, but not very much.