Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Zo Arms

1897 dot penny. Advice needed.

Recommended Posts

Hi Friends. 

I say friends because you've all become great friends since I discovered the forum some months ago. This is my first posting and I need some advice please. 

I have a BP1897B penny listed on ebay at the moment. It ends on 1st Jan 2018 at 20.17. as an auction. It's only had 46 views and currently has only 1 watcher. ( Apologies for not being able to post links or photos). It's not the best grade and I've started it at £40. I thought a 99p start unwise. 

My question is:

Am I unrealistic with the starting price. If not and it only attracts 1 bid, would I have been better off putting it into an auction house? If so, do I end it early? 

Help, help, help please. What would you do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zo Arms,

I suspect part of the problem is that it doesn’t look like a ‘normal’ O’NE penny, which will put people off, the dot seems too low. Here is a link to the LCA site.

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&searchterm=Penny+1897+O’ne&searchtype=1

Otherwise the price would be about right, they are not all that scarce.

Jerry

Edited by jelida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jerry. 

I see exactly what you mean. Coincidentally I won one on ebay Dec 10th, item 173013222929. listed as a job lot of old copper and bronze coins. It was the opening photo. Far better condition. 

I've just compared the two and the one I've listed has a lower dot, like you say. So not a true dot penny then?

Bob. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zo Arms said:

Thanks Jerry. 

I see exactly what you mean. Coincidentally I won one on ebay Dec 10th, item 173013222929. listed as a job lot of old copper and bronze coins. It was the opening photo. Far better condition. 

I've just compared the two and the one I've listed has a lower dot, like you say. So not a true dot penny then?

Bob. 

It's a penny with a dot between the O and the N due to a small piece of metal flaking off the die compared to a penny with a dot between the O and the N due to a small piece of metal flaking off the die. One sells for a lot of money whilst the other sells for rummage bin price. Vive la difference.

I understand why one sells for lots of money, because it is listed in a reference book with the dot location clearly defined and collectors are obsessed with chasing numbers. What I don't understand is why it made it as a variety in the first place. Surely the only basis for entry would be a design difference, whether deliberate or as an engraving error?

However, one dot should be as good as another if someone wants to write the reference book.You will get more plaudits than complaints for doing so, and the collecting world will find another excuse to spend money. :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dot is a dot in fact logically thinking this would be a rarer type if the dot is situated elsewhere to the listed version. After all I am sure all variety types started with a known variant before others were discovered I don't see why this should be treated any different . If the 1897 One dot penny was deemed a worthy entry to the reference books then no reason for this coin to be treated any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After what I've read on the forum so far, I think that debate will rage on for years.

For me, with a limited knowledge of coins at the time, it was something that I could recognise easily whilst sifting thru a big box of scrap coins. That and the 1946 dot. 

Having read a fair bit of the forum, I dread to think what goodies I may have weighed in as scrap copper. 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as the adage goes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

A dot is a dot in fact logically thinking this would be a rarer type if the dot is situated elsewhere to the listed version. After all I am sure all variety types started with a known variant before others were discovered I don't see why this should be treated any different . If the 1897 One dot penny was deemed a worthy entry to the reference books then no reason for this coin to be treated any different?

But you, or someone else has to write the book first.

The listed dot die is not necessarily rarer than others, just that it was listed in the first place. Someone with a year or two on their hands to carry out a census is required to prove it one way or the other

I personally see no difference between the two dots, considering them equally irrelevant unless someone can prove that they constitute a deliberate design feature - but that's just my take of how to define a variety.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m with you, Rob, on this one, which is why I don’t have one in my collection, and I wouldn’t pay a significant premium for one, though if one did come my way I would probably hold on to it, because of the perceived interest of others. True varieties should be the result of an act of man on the die. The same applies to the ONF penny, and a number of others, which shouldn’t really be in the books as a variety, though they may merit a footnote.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one will be debated for generations to come. 

It all comes down to how deeply someone delves into the type. Clearly you have people who just require an example of a type. At the other end of the spectrum you have those who study as many individual dies as is feasible. Many collectors fall between the two, taking an interest in some dies because they appear on a list, as in this case.

There is nothing wrong with identifying different dies, but an ever increasing number dictates that any premium attached will reduce for the individual die unless it is distinctly different, or particularly important as a variety. Dots, die fill, recut letters etc all have their place in research for the identification of and linking of dies to produce a chronology, but as continuous variables will not make anyone rich. The identification of individual dies requires the undefined generic coins to become progressively scarcer/rarer. Will this increase their value? Unlikely, as the pot of money available to purchase said item is proportionally, reasonably constant. Therefore the price of varieties must fall to suit the spending power available, unless there is a material change in collector habits and focus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Hi Friends. 

I say friends because you've all become great friends since I discovered the forum some months ago. This is my first posting and I need some advice please. 

I have a BP1897B penny listed on ebay at the moment. It ends on 1st Jan 2018 at 20.17. as an auction. It's only had 46 views and currently has only 1 watcher. ( Apologies for not being able to post links or photos). It's not the best grade and I've started it at £40. I thought a 99p start unwise. 

My question is:

Am I unrealistic with the starting price. If not and it only attracts 1 bid, would I have been better off putting it into an auction house? If so, do I end it early? 

Help, help, help please. What would you do? 

I looked at that when it was listed but only because the 8 in the date looked different :)

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Jerry and Rob have said is true, I think the 1897 was included by Freeman because the dot was large, perfectly spherical, and set in a position which looked as though I was  placed there deliberately . I have many dot / Comer pennies all unlisted, but most are of little interest as they do not significantly increase the appeal of the coin.   Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a penny, but if someone wants to be obsessed with random dots, here are few to contemplate while I enjoy myself for the New Year.

I've also seen a coin with the sixth dot in from the left, and 14 from the top missing, (Ok, might be telling a little fib there). Happy New Year everyone.

037 - Copy.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 11:11 AM, Rob said:

But you, or someone else has to write the book first.

The listed dot die is not necessarily rarer than others, just that it was listed in the first place. Someone with a year or two on their hands to carry out a census is required to prove it one way or the other

I personally see no difference between the two dots, considering them equally irrelevant unless someone can prove that they constitute a deliberate design feature - but that's just my take of how to define a variety.

Agreed. Of all the Freeman Victorian currency strike types, this is the only one I would never seek. 

At page 51 of the 1985 edition of "The Bronze coinage of Great Britain", Freeman himself says of the 147:-

"Some specimens of 1897 with reverse B are found with a small circular dot between the 'O' and 'N' of 'ONE'. This feature occurs as a result of damage to the die - a specimen showing only a small crack on this area has been seen" - suggesting that it developed gradually.

In my view, it's not really a type. Although obviously it's popular with some.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31 December 2017 at 11:10 AM, Zo Arms said:

For me, with a limited knowledge of coins at the time, it was something that I could recognise easily whilst sifting thru a big box of scrap coins. That and the 1946 dot. 

It may well be because the 1897 dot and the 1946 die flaw were both mentioned in a Coin Monthly article in 1968, i.e. when both pennies were still current and collectors looked out for them. That interest generated price guide listings though it did take a while for that to happen (in fact, I take personal credit for Spink listing the 1946, which wasn't until around 10 years ago.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interest will be sparked when someone discovers another like yours Zo. At the moment people collect the F147 dot because Freeman (for some reason) decided to formally record it. At the moment, yours is a spurious dot that might even come off when scratched and so will not become "official" until someone comes up with another specimen. Meanwhile, someone may decide to speculate on your coin in the hope that others may appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, secret santa said:

The interest will be sparked when someone discovers another like yours Zo. At the moment people collect the F147 dot because Freeman (for some reason) decided to formally record it. At the moment, yours is a spurious dot that might even come off when scratched and so will not become "official" until someone comes up with another specimen. Meanwhile, someone may decide to speculate on your coin in the hope that others may appear.

I've certainly had a number of lower grade pennies with spurious dots, including in the same area as this, so quite possibly from the same die. I throw them all in the scrap pennies pot as they have little or no chance of selling, being unlisted and hence uncollected examples of otherwise hopelessly common dates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've given it a good scratch and it's still there, so definitely part of the coin. 

It was due to end on ebay this evening at 8 but I withdrew it late last night. As Jerry pointed out, the dot is lower than that of  the recognised position and to attribute names and numbers to it would have been inaccurate. 

As Santa says, at the moment it is just a spurious spot. It's not going to set the coin world on fire. I will hang on to it though. 

Maybe I've been sifting through Rob's scrap box.?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Well, I've given it a good scratch and it's still there, so definitely part of the coin. 

It was due to end on ebay this evening at 8 but I withdrew it late last night. As Jerry pointed out, the dot is lower than that of  the recognised position and to attribute names and numbers to it would have been inaccurate. 

As Santa says, at the moment it is just a spurious spot. It's not going to set the coin world on fire. I will hang on to it though. 

Maybe I've been sifting through Rob's scrap box.?

 

I want my 1864 Half Penny dot not just mentioned I want it in a museum lols (ok that's my new year wish):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×