3 thoughts on “A 1658/7/6 Commonwealth Shilling – Gary Oddie”
Published sources note the sun mintmark in use up to 1657. The anchor mintmark on this coin is very clear, does not seem to have been recut and surely should not appear on an original die of 1656.
Hi Peter,
Thanks, yes this does make it a bit of an odd overdate. Whilst the initial mark is on the obverse die, the date is on the reverse die. I suspect the mint workers found the old reverse dies at the back of a cupboard . As some 1657 dies show no overdate that means the mint was not using the dies in the order they were made and while this die was first made in 1656, and it was overstamped with a 7 it didn’t actually get used until 1658 after it had been overstamped with an 8.
Other 1658/7 dies are known that also span the transition from i.m. sun to i.m. anchor.
I have not yet seen an obverse die where the Anchor has been overstruck on a sun, and it would be a very obvious overstrike.
BNS Research Blog 
Published sources note the sun mintmark in use up to 1657. The anchor mintmark on this coin is very clear, does not seem to have been recut and surely should not appear on an original die of 1656.
Hi Peter,
Thanks, yes this does make it a bit of an odd overdate. Whilst the initial mark is on the obverse die, the date is on the reverse die. I suspect the mint workers found the old reverse dies at the back of a cupboard . As some 1657 dies show no overdate that means the mint was not using the dies in the order they were made and while this die was first made in 1656, and it was overstamped with a 7 it didn’t actually get used until 1658 after it had been overstamped with an 8.
Other 1658/7 dies are known that also span the transition from i.m. sun to i.m. anchor.
I have not yet seen an obverse die where the Anchor has been overstruck on a sun, and it would be a very obvious overstrike.
Hi Gary,
Yes of course. Brain is in gear now. An old reverse die used with a new obverse is obviously the reason for this.