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.

Sign in to follow this  
DrLarry

why in obverse 6 does the flaw in the last colon FD: persist from 1861 to 1874

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

Jerry if you notice on a lot of the busts although they are all obverse 6 they are not all the same in design. Some are high relief some low relief. The very top picture has the widest rim edges of all which in comparison to the bottom picture where the rim edge is the thinnest. Also position of the bust relative to the toothed border changes as does the teeth. i'll have a count up on the 1860 and see if it differs ;). Scuppered coin has almost all teeth obscured from 10 to 2 on a clock:unsure:

 

I am inclined to think that most of these changes are more in the execution than the design, in that relief is probably a factor of strike depth, whether in preparation of the working dies or the striking of the coins themselves, this is very variable especially on obverse 2.  The rim edge is not technically part of the design, and might be influenced by variations in collar size or wear.  The subtle relationships between bust/teeth etc are certainly the work of man, when making up a new hub from the individual  portrait and letter punches, from which to strike a master die, I suppose dramatic variations from the norm might merit sub-variety status, 

Jerry

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jelida said:

I am inclined to think that most of these changes are more in the execution than the design, in that relief is probably a factor of strike depth, whether in preparation of the working dies or the striking of the coins themselves, this is very variable especially on obverse 2.  The rim edge is not technically part of the design, and might be influenced by variations in collar size or wear.  The subtle relationships between bust/teeth etc are certainly the work of man, when making up a new hub from the individual  portrait and letter punches, from which to strike a master die, I suppose dramatic variations from the norm might merit sub-variety status, 

Jerry

 

Well we do have varieties with narrow and wide rim and I would class those as varieties but only if on the same year as in a coin struck in 1863 with obverse 6 with a wide rim couldn't be directly compared to a coin struck in 1860  obverse 6 with a narrow rim. There would be too many variables involved like metal composition which personally I think was a constant struggle and until decimalisation always was and what was the norm in 1860 wouldn't necessarily follow on in 1863. So logically thinking these are sub varieties of the same obverse because you cannot have the same obverse one with a wide rim and one with a narrow rim one with colons pointing to teeth and one pointing to spaces and just call it obverse 6. It requires more research as to which styles were used in which years. It is the same micro variations that book authors quote. It may well happen on other coins that share the same obverse or reverse but for different years.

 

Richard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

your wish is my command but look at this. all these are obverse 6 from 1860-1863 of mine but notice the bottom coin which is from 1860 no die flaw and the colons are different in make up. all obv 6 colons line up with the gap. the bottom coin 1860 no die flaw lines up with the border tooth :) 

 

obv6df-vert.jpg

did you say that this lowest image is an 1860?  the position fits with a series of what appear to be alterations running up along the portrait.  I find this whole area around the base of the portrait very troubling primarily the cut off.  On some specimens I have you can see a shadow of a continuance of a design past the D in the 1860's and 61's This engraving of the HONI SO is my pet hate it just does not fit somehow and is so poorly engraved as to sometimes seemed to have been an afterthought. other times it is more defined but still it seems very strange to have reference to the Garter insignia without any emblem of the Garter itself.  Although I have a pet theory (as I often do!) about why the full motto is not included.  At the same time the other side of the portrait also appears to have extended to include the bosom line dropping down in the position of the V.  Which of course would mean that the lettering would have to be smaller to then fit into the available space.  In many 1860's I have found as I am sure you all have relics of previous smaller letters with the older curly bases.  Presumably these are repunched. 

On the issue of re-punching I am a little confused.  They used steel letter punches and basically hammered these into the previous space so that when the coin is punched the outline would be the new punch?  does that not put an awful lot of pressure on the metal of the die?  would it not have been easier to re-engrave which seems a much more gentle approach to the problem?  If I had watched the chaos of the attempts to introduce the Bronzes and was the supervisor seeing how problematic the dies were I would have been tempted to suggest a less aggressive method. 

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also seen the bust lines finish to the left of the rose and below this another bust line. Which was the reason for my question in another thread about transitional dies that the canadian coins exhibit and were all struck at the heaton mint and it cannot be a mere coincidence that heaton also struck early pennies of our own. I am trying to find the darn coin lol. I think its on here somewhere . The obverses are the same but one is much lower than the other and the mantle is missing.

Share this post


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

I have also seen the bust lines finish to the left of the rose and below this another bust line. Which was the reason for my question in another thread about transitional dies that the canadian coins exhibit and were all struck at the heaton mint and it cannot be a mere coincidence that heaton also struck early pennies of our own. I am trying to find the darn coin lol. I think its on here somewhere . The obverses are the same but one is much lower than the other and the mantle is missing.

yes well I think Peck  or Freeman refers to an alteration in the left side apparently to reflect a more conservative bust .  My theory is that that by altering the bust line more than just the bust has to be ground down because it throws out the aesthetic balance of the portrait.  There appear to be remnants of a necklace with a large drop jewel which sits in the valley of the bust (now removed) to the right of this on the right bust there is also evidence of something having been removed which to me as I have imaged it hundreds of times is the order of St George.  If the left side has been altered it would make more sense artistically as the shoulder would balance out and there appear to be ribbons which have been removed on this shoulder. 

I know that the Queen was not happy (or the politicians) with the portrait and that Wyon had to return to the palace and Windsor to re-do it.  There are no details of the changes in his diary and there are no serious remarks in Victoria's Diaries so I assume it was not a major problem, although you cannot of course surmise this on so slim evidence.  My theory is that something went wrong and the original portrait was too "German" more akin to the Gothic either the politicians were either unhappy or the royal family unhappy  with the losses or some combination of both.  Why do we not have the patterns?  Good question ! we do not have any records either. If it was part of the "Penny problem" you would hardly want to have reference to it for future consideration.  It is also referenced that when they tried to use the original dies of the reverse the engraving was too deep and complicated and had to be simplified.  As I have said Wyon was not happy with the mint and this could not have helped the relationship. 

It would be remarkable if a set of dies were cut and dramatically altered as Jerry has said to me the work involved is tremendous and if so you may as well start a fresh engraved set.  If however the disasters occurred at such a rate as to make the re-presentation of the lost die designs anything seems possible.  Then the question arises why would elements of a "lost " design continue to be present in subsequent dies?  but if you are willing to allow for flaws to keep being reproduced like the colon and the C flaw and the E  of REGINA on the halfpenny  over and over again ....I remain confused sadly .  Please correct me if I have misquoted any literature.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

Well we do have varieties with narrow and wide rim and I would class those as varieties but only if on the same year as in a coin struck in 1863 with obverse 6 with a wide rim couldn't be directly compared to a coin struck in 1860  obverse 6 with a narrow rim. There would be too many variables involved like metal composition which personally I think was a constant struggle and until decimalisation always was and what was the norm in 1860 wouldn't necessarily follow on in 1863. So logically thinking these are sub varieties of the same obverse because you cannot have the same obverse one with a wide rim and one with a narrow rim one with colons pointing to teeth and one pointing to spaces and just call it obverse 6. It requires more research as to which styles were used in which years. It is the same micro variations that book authors quote. It may well happen on other coins that share the same obverse or reverse but for different years.

 

Richard 

My point about rim width variation is that it may be determined by the collar in which the coin is struck rather than the die, and the collar inner diameter may vary fractionally due to wear.  Where the breadth of the die varies- ie maximum diameter across the coin teeth - varietal status might be more justified.  I do not believe a particular die should be considered to have two varieties merely because for part of its life it was used in a slack collar.

Teeth alignment issues may be isolated, in that a letter or number on one die was entered slightly differently to another die, or more general due to a different number of border teeth, changes in font or legend spacing for example. I would be more likely to call the latter a variety than the former; we have to be realistic, in the early years one might declare almost as many varieties as there are dies on date alignment alone.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very hard to find the kind of books that introduce the knowledge about die making, collars, machinery used to create dies, engraving verses punching, anything that seems to touch on it is either over technical or over simplistic.  I have to admit I am still not 100% even 50% of the way there to understand it my favourite is a link on UTube showing the Royal MInt in Canada in the 30's I think it is an old black and white film its wonderful to see the coining in practice.  I have tried to understand it in the soho book but the plans dont really seem to come alive like the description by S Pepys on a rare visit to the mint in the 17th C.  I wish Newton had written more but of course that would have given all the secrets away.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a coin was struck outside the collar the blank would be larger . I thought the whole point of it being in the collar was to restrict the metal from spreading out further than the set parameters?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If a coin was struck outside the collar the blank would be larger . I thought the whole point of it being in the collar was to restrict the metal from spreading out further than the set parameters?

As I pointed out above, a worn collar will constrain the coin less and allow a fractionally greater rim size. At no point was a strike ‘outside the collar’, mentioned. Perhaps you mean ‘without a collar’ , when the struck coin (not blank) may well be broader and thinner, with an ill-defined rim.  The only other way that rim size can vary is if the design on the die excluding the rim is smaller, allowing a larger rim on a standard size coin. I really thought I had made my logic clear above, if the size of the design on the die can be shown to be smaller (narrower teeth, reduced size of lettering, spacing, portrait could all influence this) then a wider rim could occur within a normal size collar. If the design on the die is  normal, then a broader rim could only occur if there was less constraint from the collar, for example if it was worn, which will have occurred over time.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jelida said:

As I pointed out above, a worn collar will constrain the coin less and allow a fractionally greater rim size. At no point was a strike ‘outside the collar’, mentioned. Perhaps you mean ‘without a collar’ , when the struck coin (not blank) may well be broader and thinner, with an ill-defined rim.  The only other way that rim size can vary is if the design on the die excluding the rim is smaller, allowing a larger rim on a standard size coin. I really thought I had made my logic clear above, if the size of the design on the die can be shown to be smaller (narrower teeth, reduced size of lettering, spacing, portrait could all influence this) then a wider rim could occur within a normal size collar. If the design on the die is  normal, then a broader rim could only occur if there was less constraint from the collar, for example if it was worn, which will have occurred over time.

Jerry

is the collar a steel cylinder that rises up once the planchet is in place ready to be struck then sinks back down to allow the next one in ?  I can see how in time the sinking of the die top and bottom would eventually loosen the "fit" .  Technically when a coin was struck the metal would thin slightly kept in place by the collar ? they would compensate for that? presumably so if not the reeding on the edge of a silver or gold would end up compressed?  I am truly a novice on these matters.....the reeding on the edge is that applied during a separate process?  Teeth and raised borders on the edge are they also separate from the die pressing?  I understand the process in a modern context but not the older ones.  In the Moore patterns you can often see the impression of a series of separate unit "collars" but I presume that is an alternative process and needed for bimetallic coining.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reeding is part of the collar and denticles are part of the design.

The rim may or may not be part of the striking process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr T said:

The reeding is part of the collar and denticles are part of the design.

The rim may or may not be part of the striking process.

thanks for that , so is there any way of telling whether a coin has the rim as part of the design or not?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2018 at 11:15 AM, Mr T said:

I'm not sure - I think you just need to know (you might see rimmed planchets with no design for sale - see https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/474989091923239723/ for example - there are Australian 10c and 20c planchets with rims but no design).

yes as part of the crazy research I am doing these blank planchets or partially blank planchets are invaluable but it is rare that they can be verified authentic. I have these two victorian ones which have helped me a lot piece together some of the story both show that the teeth are part of the design and that the raised rim is set before which is I think what we have discussed. 

DSC_1530 (169x200).jpg

DSC_1531 (166x200).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 11:01 PM, jelida said:

As I pointed out above, a worn collar will constrain the coin less and allow a fractionally greater rim size. At no point was a strike ‘outside the collar’, mentioned. Perhaps you mean ‘without a collar’ , when the struck coin (not blank) may well be broader and thinner, with an ill-defined rim.  The only other way that rim size can vary is if the design on the die excluding the rim is smaller, allowing a larger rim on a standard size coin. I really thought I had made my logic clear above, if the size of the design on the die can be shown to be smaller (narrower teeth, reduced size of lettering, spacing, portrait could all influence this) then a wider rim could occur within a normal size collar. If the design on the die is  normal, then a broader rim could only occur if there was less constraint from the collar, for example if it was worn, which will have occurred over time.

Jerry

i aM NOT SURE I CAN UPLOAD THE OTHER WACKO PENNY 

DSC_1534 (200x198).jpg

DSC_1535 (200x193).jpg

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

teeth 

DSC_1536 (153x200).jpg

DSC_1533 (177x200).jpg

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
Sign in to follow this  

×