September LCA Catalogue Now Online

[Sword 1,330]

September LCA catalogue now out for those interested. 

[1949threepence 3,366]

Thanks Sword. There's a very nice, expensive, 1864 plain 4 penny for somebody.

Can't really see anything else of interest from my POV.

I notice there's also another VIP threepence that Guy might want, although I've not seen him around recently.

 

 

[Rob 2,996]

The plain 4 looks like a blocked upper serif 4 to me.

[PWA 1967 1,840]

The 1864 i would sooner have a lower grade one thats problem free.

The cleaning and verd would annoy me  and for that kind of money i would prefer to spend it on something else 

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

The 1864 i would sooner have a lower grade one thats problem free.

The cleaning and verd would annoy me  and for that kind of money i would prefer to spend it on something else 

Of the two, plain and crosslet, plain is definitely the most difficult to get in really high grade. They're both tough to find in that grade, but the plain is the more so. Also, like this specimen, if you do find one, it comes with other issues.

I agree, a tad expensive considering the drawbacks.    

[PWA 1967 1,840]

Yes its one of those Mike were they are rare but i would not want one thats not nice to look at and personally would sooner have a gap 

[Rob 2,996]

A question that needs to be answered as follows.

People use the terms plain 4/upper serif 4 and crosslet 4. The latter is clearly different and unambiguous, but the former requires clarification. Is it a plain 4 with a sharp end that subsequently develops a flaw in the form of an upper serif, or an upper serif 4 that subsequently gets blocked? i.e does anybody have either a perfectly formed upper serif with a sharp cut, or a perfectly formed chisel ended plain 4?

In the nerdy world of varieties, this matters.

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

Yes its one of those Mike were they are rare but i would not want one thats not nice to look at and personally would sooner have a gap 

Funnily enough, Pete, I actually managed to get a GVF/NEF specimen off e bay in 2012, for just £99.00. Quite happy with that as it's problem free. 

 

[1949threepence 3,366]

25 minutes ago, Rob said:

A question that needs to be answered as follows.

People use the terms plain 4/upper serif 4 and crosslet 4. The latter is clearly different and unambiguous, but the former requires clarification. Is it a plain 4 with a sharp end that subsequently develops a flaw in the form of an upper serif, or an upper serif 4 that subsequently gets blocked? i.e does anybody have either a perfectly formed upper serif with a sharp cut, or a perfectly formed chisel ended plain 4?

In the nerdy world of varieties, this matters.

I've never seen one with an absolutely straight horizontal bar, with an abrupt end, as per your typical 4. They all curve slightly upwards.

No idea whether that was the original intention. I'd imagine it was, else surely a completely straight type would have shown u and been separately identified by now.    

 

[Rob 2,996]

37 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I've never seen one with an absolutely straight horizontal bar, with an abrupt end, as per your typical 4. They all curve slightly upwards.

No idea whether that was the original intention. I'd imagine it was, else surely a completely straight type would have shown u and been separately identified by now.    

 

I know what you are saying, as I have seen this too, but there are a few possibilities here. If you enlarge an image of the 'upper serif', it is clearly not a cleanly cut feature, hence the question. We know that the last digit (and sometimes the 3rd) was entered by hand at this time, so we are looking at the profile of the 4 punch used. Was the crossbar on the crosslet 4 entered separately after the 'plain' 4 to create the variety? This should be verifiable if the crossbar appears at various vertical angles or lateral positions. Alternatively, was the 4 punch originally employed equipped with the cross bar, but subsequently broke to produce the 'upper serif' 4?

Looking at the two 4s below, the second has a flaw developing from the 'serif' end, suggesting a plain 4 or broken crosslet 4 punch explanation. I see nothing in the LCA image to change that view. All the upper serifs I have seen are ill-defined and clearly of variable length. Not what you would expect from a punched character.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Rob

[jelida 1,196]

Mine was £50 from the Bay a couple of years ago, from the U.S. Will do, until a lustrous one comes along at a sensible price, I'm prepared to wait!

Jerry

[PWA 1967 1,840]

The two posted above are both nice for the money and good buys......... more importantly not £2K + for a cleaned / verd one 

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

I know what you are saying, as I have seen this too, but there are a few possibilities here. If you enlarge an image of the 'upper serif', it is clearly not a cleanly cut feature, hence the question. We know that the last digit (and sometimes the 3rd) was entered by hand at this time, so we are looking at the profile of the 4 punch used. Was the crossbar on the crosslet 4 entered separately after the 'plain' 4 to create the variety? This should be verifiable if the crossbar appears at various vertical angles or lateral positions. Alternatively, was the 4 punch originally employed equipped with the cross bar, but subsequently broke to produce the 'upper serif' 4?

Looking at the two 4s below, the second has a flaw developing from the 'serif' end, suggesting a plain 4 or broken crosslet 4 punch explanation. I see nothing in the LCA image to change that view. All the upper serifs I have seen are ill-defined and clearly of variable length. Not what you would expect from a punched character.

Interesting points. I don't know, and I suspect it will remain speculation. Also, which came first, the crosslet or the serif? Freeman has the crosslet at No 48, and the serif as 49.

With that said, there could be something in the Royal MInt report for1864, which may cast some light over the issue. Might be worth contacting the RM with a question about it.    

    .

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, jelida said:

Mine was £50 from the Bay a couple of years ago, from the U.S. Will do, until a lustrous one comes along at a sensible price, I'm prepared to wait!

Jerry

Might be a very long wait for such an item.

[Rob 2,996]

6 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Interesting points. I don't know, and I suspect it will remain speculation. Also, which came first, the crosslet or the serif? Freeman has the crosslet at No 48, and the serif as 49.

With that said, there could be something in the Royal MInt report for1864, which may cast some light over the issue. Might be worth contacting the RM with a question about it.

The Freeman/Peck/Gouby etc reference number has no bearing on the chronology unless a clearly identifiable derivative sequence can be established. That is why I raised the possibility of the crossbar being added separately. If it can be shown that the serif is a flawed plain 4, and the crosslet is a plain 4 with the bar added, then it will be possible using the obverse die to place it in the sequence chronologically. There is a real possibility of resolving this given the relatively few dies involved. I don't have many 1864 images at my disposal, but I'm certain there are a few here who do.

I don't think the mint would care whether it had a crossbar or serif, and certainly not if it was the result of wear and tear. That could be wasted time IMO

[PWA 1967 1,840]

I seem to remember alfnail doing a similar excercise with the 1844 penny of which he looked at a lot although i cant find the thread now with the pictures.

The theory was exactly the same though.

[Rob 2,996]

A plus for the 1864 is that there are a lot of coins with one or both dies flawed. That helps with both the chronology and identification. I suspect more people look at 1864s than 1844s, though whether they can be a***d to do any studies is a different matter.

[alfnail 756]

Well remembered Pete, yes I did do a study of 4's on Victorian Copper Pennies, thread starts at bottom of page 61 in the 'More Pennies' thread.

 

[Guest Pies]

6 hours ago, Rob said:

A question that needs to be answered as follows.

People use the terms plain 4/upper serif 4 and crosslet 4. The latter is clearly different and unambiguous, but the former requires clarification. Is it a plain 4 with a sharp end that subsequently develops a flaw in the form of an upper serif, or an upper serif 4 that subsequently gets blocked? i.e does anybody have either a perfectly formed upper serif with a sharp cut, or a perfectly formed chisel ended plain 4?

In the nerdy world of varieties, this matters.

Looks like a perfectly formed upper serif to me

[Guest Pies]

[Rob 2,996]

Certainly a different profile to the two I attached earlier, but given all three show degradation to the area in question, I'm not sure it answers the question. All three coins are high grade.

[alfnail 756]

Attached pictures of Crosslet and Plain both just taken at exact same 140 x mag, maybe aid the discussion. Apart from the tails there certainly seem to be several other 'font' differences to me  e.g. distances from foot to central 'horizontal bar', particularly noticeable at RHS. Have just had quick check at LCA recent sales and that particular 'difference' seems the same on past few examples of both types.

Sorry I have not got higher grade pieces, sold to pay for holidays, shoes and new tops..........not for me!

[secret santa 2,013]

   

Pics of my coins to add to the debate.

[mrbadexample 985]

Go on then, I'll play. You need some low grade examples to add to the mix.

[1949threepence 3,366]

5 hours ago, Rob said:

The Freeman/Peck/Gouby etc reference number has no bearing on the chronology unless a clearly identifiable derivative sequence can be established. That is why I raised the possibility of the crossbar being added separately. If it can be shown that the serif is a flawed plain 4, and the crosslet is a plain 4 with the bar added, then it will be possible using the obverse die to place it in the sequence chronologically. There is a real possibility of resolving this given the relatively few dies involved. I don't have many 1864 images at my disposal, but I'm certain there are a few here who do.

I don't think the mint would care whether it had a crossbar or serif, and certainly not if it was the result of wear and tear. That could be wasted time IMO

I'm not certain I would necessarily agree with that. For example, the chronology seems to logically follow the numbers in both 1860 and 1874. Very possibly 1861 also, as far as he can do. It may not in the case of 1864, although he does say type (i) for the 48 and type (ii) for the 49, so I'd say it's more probable than not that it does, at least in Freeman's mind.

No, the mint wouldn't care, but since you've now raised the question, and piqued my interest in the issue, I've sent off a Freedom of Information Act request to the RM asking them about the plain and crosslet 4's. I'll post the reply when it arrives. It may not be much of a reply, we'll see. But they are, at least, legally obliged to answer it.