error coin or vandalised (EDIT: possible overdate on the coin)

is this ‘10 centimes - léopold II’ with an extra hole a printing error of sorts of just a coin someone put a hole in?

Clearly PMD, someone drilled a hole in it.

How typically Belgian to drill a hole in a coin … that already has a hole in it 😄

(being Dutch, I couldn't let the opportunity pass to make a classic Belgians joke, sorry)

ArnoV

How typically Belgian to drill a hole in a coin … that already has a hole in it 😄

 

(being Dutch, I couldn't let the opportunity pass to make a classic Belgians joke, sorry)

Ja, lachen man🤣

🤭ArnoV

How typically Belgian to drill a hole in a coin … that already has a hole in it 😄

 

(being Dutch, I couldn't let the opportunity pass to make a classic Belgians joke, sorry)

ArnoV

How typically Belgian to drill a hole in a coin … that already has a hole in it 😄

You've made a mistake. It's a Belgian coin all right but it wasn't a Belgian who drilled the hole, it was “nen Hollander” who thought he could make some money by drilling holes in coins and bringing the scrapings to the rag-and-bone man.

Is that a 4 over a 3. 

It looks like it….. but that variant is not known by numista, neither by SCWC!

Your eyes are still very, very good.

It looks like it….. but that variant is not known by numista, neither by SCWC!

Your eyes are still very, very good.

Maybe we can get a sharper image to verify this new eventual variant of km53? @mbs

N#289

It looks that way Daryl:

Unfortunately, that overdate is not known!

I know this is another coin. It's just an illustration to show how advanced this catalog is, concerning variants. But there's nothing there about a 1904 overdate. Also in the other major Belgian catalog there's no mentioning about an 1904 overdate for the 5 or 10 centimes:

ill get a better image when im home today! shame if its rare if someone vandalised it 

Until we get a hi-res image

I've sent a message to the author of the Belgian catalog with the variants, he's a member here on Numista too.

And next week, I'll meet the author of that other Belgian catalog, I'll ask him too.

 Wow was just taking a quick look at the forum before going to work. I looked will fast at catalog and did not see anything. 

Imo the horizontal line in the four is to low to be a part of a three.

and here to show, that it's completely possible!

So I think, we have an overdate?

got some better closer images. not sure how exactly to get better quality on the images my phone camera isn't great. 

if this is an overdate, how rare is this?

Since it's not described anywhere, as far as we know today, it's obviously very rare, it has not been found during the last 120 years. That doesn't mean it's worth anything, with the hole (not the one in the middle😄) but the one at 11:00, the value of your coin is not high. You would have to find a variant collector to sell or exchange it.

mbs

got some better closer images. not sure how exactly to get better quality on the images my phone camera isn't great. 

if this is an overdate, how rare is this? 

these new pictures cast doubt in my mind that it is an overdate and not just lucky damage. 

rsirian1

 

these new pictures cast doubt in my mind that it is an overdate and not just lucky damage. 

I'm sorry, but I have the same opinion. Your first picture certainly looked like an overdate. Which for me is very strange, since Belgium really is a land of coin collectors, with also a lot of interest in variants. Yet nobody ever talked about a 10 centimes 1904 overdate. Look how long this list is, with only discussions about possible variants for only 10 centimes coins (all types). Just a few about the 1904, like a double 4, but never about a 1904 overdate: https://www.cbnu.be/forum/index.php?topic=5298.0

Just to show how coin collecting is in our blood; here's the agenda for the coming months, every week 7 to 10 coin fairs/auctions within a 1,5 hours drive: https://www.numismatica-herentals.be/agenda.html

I think a lot of members envie us.

And here's why I now think it's NOT an overdate: your last picture is a sharp one and now it doesn't look as an overdate anymore:

Iam not sure anymore with the new image.  Would have to agree with Essor Prof.  The new image look like dots not a line, like the first image. Maybe try again in the sun. 

I still think it's a possibility. The 3 is quite small, on the other hand, 1904 zero is NOT divided…….

 I think we need better images. Anything is possible.

Sjoelund

 

 

I still think it's a possibility. The 3 is quite small, on the other hand, 1904 zero is NOT divided…….

Isn’t the 1903 coin you’re using a small date one?

ALLRED1950

 I think we need better images. Anything is possible.

No, the whole story is nothing more than wishfull thinking.

 yes yvon i think you are right. Iam 99% sure it is not an over date, just want to put in bed so to speak.

rsirian1

Sjoelund

 

 

I still think it's a possibility. The 3 is quite small, on the other hand, 1904 zero is NOT divided…….

Isn’t the 1903 coin you’re using a small date one?

KM53 is supposed to have a large date, but I haven't seen any images of one? So I used a km49, without really thinking about it, but since it would fit with a smaller 3 under the 4, I think it's OK?

ALLRED1950

 I think we need better images. Anything is possible.

The last picture is more than sharp enough. I'm convinced now it's NOT an overdate. Look at the right side of the 4, there's nothing left anymore of a possible 3. It's just dirt, like all around the date (and the rest of the coin).

Yeah, I think you're right, so I'll stop my research.

I have changed direction in my research: I want to see an image of a 1903, km53, with a large date! See what NGC shows

here from MA-Shops

To me, it looks like a km49?

Sjoelund

 

To me, it looks like a km49?

Hahaha, I've changed my search too to a 1903 large date, KM# 53 or KM# 52. But so far no luck, plenty of small dates (FR + VL) but not a single large date.

And yes, to me that's a small date too, despite Numismaster says KM# 53. The right coin is the KM# 49 from our catalog:

 I took a look at the beginning, blew up this coin, and didn't comment as others were chiming in. It seems this thread has taken on a life of it's own now so I will say that I didn't see this as an overdate from the start and still don't. Sometimes if you want to see something bad enough you will justify it in your mind regardless. Not an overdate as far as I am concerned. A new discovery after 100+ years of circulating and deteriorating environmental damage? No, sorry. The new claims I have not spent  time on nor will.

I thought we all had agreed, that there's no overdate on that coin. Thanks for thinking the same.

  All i did was ask a question. Yes you can see it not an over date.  But everyone's time and work to answer the question was good to see. Numista still as a cutting edge.  Happy coin hunting. And thank you all for all the question you answer.