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.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Why do you say C over G ? I'm more inclined to say a repunched C as it appears to be an underlying C.

I asked the question of the forum if there might be out there somewhere the same error that we have seen on the 62 penny .  Of course the easy answer is that it is a re-punched C except there are a few aspects of it that seem to suggest that it there may be another possibility.  There is a scar that seems to extend the top of the doubled up serif which also seems flatter and broader.  I have found a few specimens of 61 and 62 half pennies which seems to show alteration.  My main interest in the C of VICTORIA is in the penny and that small piece of metal which presents itself floating between the two ends.  I know it is of no interest to most and is simply one of those ticks (of which there seem to be so many) that crop up which illustrate to me approaches and processes at the mint in the early years of the 1860's.  Of course they are speculation but I like to ask questions. 

So the question was is it possible that a C over a G might exist?  I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with the forum.  I thought it was a place that one could find anomalies and ask members to search around through their own examples to see if we can piece together some history (lost to us ) on the die types and use , alterations and errors .  i feel that repunched letters or alterations i looked at systematically might help us understand a little more about each die used. When someone posts something I enjoy going to my own collection and looking at what others have noticed in their own studies  I suppose I imagine others do the same.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrLarry said:

So the question was is it possible that a C over a G might exist?  I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with the forum.  I thought it was a place that one could find anomalies and ask members to search around through their own examples to see if we can piece together some history (lost to us ) on the die types and use , alterations and errors .  i feel that repunched letters or alterations i looked at systematically might help us understand a little more about each die used. When someone posts something I enjoy going to my own collection and looking at what others have noticed in their own studies  I suppose I imagine others do the same.  

You can have anything over anything. An error is just that - something wrong. In this case I think it is a C over a C. There is nothing anomalous about a slightly different shaped letter, as this will vary from punch to punch, after all, they weren't made using a CNC machine. Yes, I do think that specific engravers made the same mistake on different occasions because humans are creatures of habit. You also have to bear in mind that when repairing dies, it will have been hardened, so the metal becomes brittle leading to the likelihood of flaws extending from the immediate area of the repair. That is what I think you have in this case.

Most people will not have examples to compare unless they hoard piles of low grade material, which leads to the inevitable feeling of ploughing a lone furrow. We've all been there and are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rob said:

You can have anything over anything. An error is just that - something wrong. In this case I think it is a C over a C. There is nothing anomalous about a slightly different shaped letter, as this will vary from punch to punch, after all, they weren't made using a CNC machine. Yes, I do think that specific engravers made the same mistake on different occasions because humans are creatures of habit. You also have to bear in mind that when repairing dies, it will have been hardened, so the metal becomes brittle leading to the likelihood of flaws extending from the immediate area of the repair. That is what I think you have in this case.

Most people will not have examples to compare unless they hoard piles of low grade material, which leads to the inevitable feeling of ploughing a lone furrow. We've all been there and are there.

Yes I think that just about sums it up 

it's a numbers game really and simply illustrates differences in approaches to collecting, in the lone furrow ploughing group myself and prefer the activity of ploughing , planting  seed and seeing what grows , rather than taking the perfect ear of wheat and pressing it in a book to be admired.  A lot seems to get missed under lustre but I am happy to have both.  When something is so bright and perfect it is easy to be blinded by the beauty.  I imagine this is why in more recent years varieties have been found as  access to microscopes is now much easier and hence more opportunities arise to look more carefully  and discover things.  There is nothing wrong with the brightest and the best and of course the most expensive, but likewise I find nowt wrong with the mud of the ploughing types. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The coin I posted in the copper thread is a good example of this. In hand in the slab, it was clearly a 1675/3, but I only discovered it was also over 2 when I had removed it and looked carefully in high resolution. In that instance it was only possible because the coin was high grade, as the trace of the 2 would have easily been hidden from dirt or the slightest wear. However, by comparison, a correction such as the 1738 halfpenny with V/S in GEORGIVS is clear to the naked eye in all grades, but I still don't know of more than 7 examples despite the clarity, and the A/R in CAROLVS on the 1673 I have listed on my site remains the only one I know of, again despite regularly checking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rob said:

The coin I posted in the copper thread is a good example of this. In hand in the slab, it was clearly a 1675/3, but I only discovered it was also over 2 when I had removed it and looked carefully in high resolution. In that instance it was only possible because the coin was high grade, as the trace of the 2 would have easily been hidden from dirt or the slightest wear. However, by comparison, a correction such as the 1738 halfpenny with V/S in GEORGIVS is clear to the naked eye in all grades, but I still don't know of more than 7 examples despite the clarity, and the A/R in CAROLVS on the 1673 I have listed on my site remains the only one I know of, again despite regularly checking for it.

However I tend to find the opposite happens under the mud especially within letters I seem to uncover some lovely additions (although most just seem to call them overpunching) I think they don't get seen because they are hidden behind muck or it is assumed that they are just damage , I would imagine that this strange shuttle in the 1879 is a case example that must have been noticed for years until someone made a reference to it somewhere and then others are found.  and hence we end up with a new variety (by whoever is the gatekeeper of this word).  I will now go and check my examples of the 1673 to check so thanks for that.  I think it is nice to keep re-asking such questions and pointing out discoveries so that the "lone plougher" can be part of a shared experience.  Perhaps it would be useful to have a topic specifically listing examples such as the ones mentioned which can be added to and easily accessed.  I am not sure what we would call such a topic ....or if it can remain an open minded topic  , searching for possibility rather than closing discussion down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these have been added in the new varieties section. In the case of the 1675/3/2, I was looking at the incidence of the 5/3, which appears to have been made on a number of dies. I posted a drawing elsewhere showing the various forms of 5 over 3. See attached.

post-44-1142081019.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I have noticed in the Charles II coppers there seems to be some very ambiguous number types in the last number ...thank you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rob said:

Most of these have been added in the new varieties section. In the case of the 1675/3/2, I was looking at the incidence of the 5/3, which appears to have been made on a number of dies. I posted a drawing elsewhere showing the various forms of 5 over 3. See attached.

post-44-1142081019.jpg

yes the new varieties post makes sense except that the question over what constitutes a variety keeps cropping up ( and I dont want another list of what someone thinks is the definition of variety again please) .  I might go through the posts and try filter out all the debate closing down possibilities and make a separate list which is just "possibility and discovery" rather than the endless debates that torpedo things before they even set sail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to your question is that they are all varieties. The moot point is where an individual draws the line in his interests. Barring unlimited time, there is a finite level to which someone can dig. Funds are not the issue as money is potentially unlimited for all practical purposes. Time is not. So you either collect as widely as possible, or you specialise to ever more concentrated areas. It's a pyramid, with the ultra-specialists sitting at the top, but mostly talking to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True ...but I suppose in most cases discoveries are made looking in the wrong place  for different answers and daring to look 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2018 at 10:05 AM, Paddy said:

Any chance I could have a copy of the Dracott article too? I have tried searching through old posts on the forum and Dracott is mentioned all over the place but the downloads seem to have been tidied away. 

Cheers

Paddy - you can get them in back copies of Coin News. I believe the articles concerned are in the April, May and July 2004 editions. £3.50 each.

link

(assuming you haven't already got them in the meantime)

 

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Paddy - you can get them in back copies of Coin News. I believe the articles concerned are in the April, May and July 2004 editions. £3.50 each.

link

(assuming you haven't already got them in the meantime)

 

 

Thanks very much for that - I have bookmarked the link for now and will return to read the articles later.

 

Share this post


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

You can have anything over anything. An error is just that - something wrong. In this case I think it is a C over a C. There is nothing anomalous about a slightly different shaped letter, as this will vary from punch to punch, after all, they weren't made using a CNC machine. Yes, I do think that specific engravers made the same mistake on different occasions because humans are creatures of habit. You also have to bear in mind that when repairing dies, it will have been hardened, so the metal becomes brittle leading to the likelihood of flaws extending from the immediate area of the repair. That is what I think you have in this case.

Most people will not have examples to compare unless they hoard piles of low grade material, which leads to the inevitable feeling of ploughing a lone furrow. We've all been there and are there.

The other issue here is that the artist/engraver in the case of the Bronze series was contracted to make the stamps for the legend initially if I understand his diaries correctly.  It would seem however that he made some kind of error and miscalculated which meant that corrections had to be done and the dies altered.  It has always been in the ambiguity in the references to the process that for the life of me I cannot settle on. It says quite clearly in the statements in the house and explanations given at the time and after that the "original design could not be completed in the process because the engraver (L C Wyon) ha made the relief too deep and the new metal made the original design unmanageable.  It suggests that the engraver was sent away to recut or remodel the design to a simplified form which we see now .  The Pattern Bronzes pretty much seem to follow the extant version we are used to , but some suggestion is made to a die with alternatives (perhaps)  standing Britannia , a more complex design (altogether more beautiful than the one we have)  that suffered because of the technical difficulties.  THe engraver had to make alterations.  Ok so we do not have much to go on but certainly it would seem, reading between the lines , that this Britannia was not what he really wanted or originally cut, possibly with a number of now lost characters in the design.  It seems more that the politicians and the more conservatives were insisting on a seated Britannia (as had been the way ince 1672.)  

Of course I know it is most unlikely that we will ever know but if the page remains open that one day we may discover what these designs might be , perhaps in some archive that was sent along with the image of the "standing Britannia " with the family to New Zealand or in some other archive.  One day in some dusty old place some of the workings of the Royal Mint at this time may be discovered.  This approach seems to be of no interest at all even to the ardent of penny collectors.  It was for this reason ad this reason alone that I pointed out the artistic anomalies , the artistic errors that are such rudimentary school boy errors in the design that it surprised me that no one seemed to find such criticism of the "holy grail" or the strange story that must be part of this regarding the signature.  I shall read again all the diaries of L C Wyon ( not that they are of great use) or perhaps the problem is that I am only reading the diaries as presented to us in the the book by Mr Attwood.  

 

any ways the point I am making is that there seem to be radical alterations of the lettering from the older curly style in some dies to a more "solid" lettering style and on many specimens you can clearly see the overstamping which is a style change  so yes they can any one be over-punched, but Wyon cut the punches originally for the farthing, half penny and the penny. I believe that the original style was the more slender , "fancy" lettering you see altered and this may have been due to a second set of punches he had to prepare (less elegant or more robust).  By saying that the artist cut the punches for the lettering , whilst I respect that you can use any old C or G lying around a set of a particular style were made by him for purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite likely the mint retained a range of letter punch styles, irrespective of what was adopted. Check out the decimal patterns of the late 1850s and you will see a range of styles. It is also apparent that at least some of the legend was cut and inserted as a block. e.g. the F710 (P2002) undated decimal pattern halfpenny and the F689 (P-) share the same HALF DECIMAL PENNY in three lines punch. The undulations and relative positions of the letters are indentical on the two reverses, but the inner circles are not the same. With such a large device, it is logical to keep a set of punches for the occasional repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that variety of 1861 Halfpenny with the boatymcboatface reverse

Edited by copper123
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, copper123 said:

Don't forget that variety of 1861 Halfpenny with the boatymcboatface reverse

I am glad someone has a sense of humour on here I was starting to wonder 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one of those for sale the other day I nearly bought it 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rob said:

 

I am surprised that you cannot buy them from china it would be a much better sale than a fake penny and a lot less straining on their side , but obviously not any easier on Victoria's 

Edited by DrLarry
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1874. I think this is F317: obverse 9 reverse K. I've not much to go on, but Freeman notes that "Usually the date numerals are widely spaced and low in the exergue". Is that what I'm seeing here?

 

1874 ½d F317 (5).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see anything about the obverse to discount 9.

1874 ½d F317 (4).jpg

1874 ½d F317 (3).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud your enthusiasm and diligence, but to paraphrase one or two others on here - all I'm seeing is either 'rang tang' or 'a thrower' 😋

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stuntman said:

I applaud your enthusiasm and diligence, but to paraphrase one or two others on here - all I'm seeing is either 'rang tang' or 'a thrower' 😋

Yeah, I know but I like a challenge. :lol: Thing is, if it is F317 then it's R16. If it was a penny that rare someone would still want it even in that state. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for a decent picture of Freeman ½d obverse 12, I searched for F322 as the only one to have this obverse. 

Can someone confirm my suspicion that this is actually F321? Or at least, not the F322 it purports to be?

Cheers,

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F321. It's reverse J and the rose isn't sharp as on obv. 13. At £50 hammer, clearly nobody was convinced.

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

×