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

Despite it being such a common date, the sheer number of 1858 varieties rather points towards the introduction of bronze being delayed for a couple of years? It's almost as if they said, "Oh well, we're not going to meet the deadline, but there's still a demand for pennies, let's see what's lying around that can be over-dated." And having firmly decided to postpone, they would then have been ready for 1859 in good time, a date for which there are not a large number of varieties. (The 1859 penny is, I think, possible evidence that the 1858 effort wasn't simply using up older dies to save on cutting new dies before 1860.) The 1860 copper is invariably an overdate and rare, suggesting that the production of bronze coins for 1860 was either not quite on time, or didn't meet full demand. I think the former is more likely when you look at the comparatively modest mintage of 1860 bronze pennies compared with the massive mintages for 1861,62,63.

I think you are on the right line, coincidentally the only other year that saw this number of overdates/reuse of dies was 1848, and the same numbers were in use as well 3, 6 and 7

Both Peck and Freeman assume that the bronze changeover was planned for 1860, but original Mint records relating to it may not have been available to either. Certainly the French had changed over by 1852. But it is significant that there was a massive mintage of pennies (compared to previous years) in 1854 and 1855. Was that to satisfy demand during the period of changeover? It's interesting that - compared with, say, 1971 bronzes - the first year's mintage of the new coinage (1860) was modest compared to the following 3 years. Scope for study, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1858/3(2), 1858/6, 1858/7 and 1858/8 shown below in 2 separate posts

1858var001.jpg

1858var002.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1858var003.jpg

1858var004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read Michael Gouby's interesting article in the May 2010 edition of the Numismatic Circular, regarding the 1858/3, actually being an 1858/2, I'm intrigued to find that it's not necessarily an "either/or" here, as I'd previously thought, but possibly both, given that at least one dealer has both an 1858/2 and an 1858/3 on offer.

The two (apparent) types can be seen, one underneath the other, in  this link from KB Coins. Magnification of each is available. I'm not going to try and describe them, but suffice it to say I'm not sure either fit the classic description. 

Gouby's compelling argument is that an 1852 die was struck but never used for circulation (dated)1852 pennies. There is no dispute as to the fact that 236,424 pennies were struck in 1852, but none bearing that date were ever found. However, 236,424 is very much along the lines of average mintages in the 1840's and early 50's. So why wouldn't they have used the 1852 die for such a comparatively large mintage, if such a die existed?   

Is the jury still out, or has it already returned a definitive, or even unanimous verdict?    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably help if it is possible to get an approximate number of dies used per annum for the period in question.

1825 halfpennies for example had a mintage of 200K ish with 4 identifiable die pairs (though could be more if identical dies were produced). Whatever, 40-50K struck per die pair is a reasonable guess under normal circumstances. However, we do know that things went awry at the mint in the late 1840s when die life plunged dramatically. According to Linton's article on the 1848 halfcrown in the BNJ vol.29, in 1847 a total of 367K halfcrowns were struck from 22 obverse dies, implying only 16 or 17K per die i.e. roughly half. This accounts for the relatively large number of overcut dates in the second half of the decade, when existing dies were reused, presumably to maximise die use when the supply of new dies was uncertain. The same bar stock was almost certainly used for pennies as for halfcrowns, given they are about the same diameter and so presumably experienced the same problems if it was a metal problem, or if a metal treatment problem then it would apply to all dies. It is unhelpful that the mint records for 1848 to 1852 inclusive are missing according to Linton.

A mintage of 236K would suggest between 5 and 13 obverse dies were used in 1852 depending on whether they had sorted the die life problem. My gut instinct is that it was only a temporary blip given the output of 'Godless' florins in 1849 and so we would be looking at somewhere between 30 and 50K per die - i.e. 5-8 dies.

Wikipedia gives a mintage of 432,224 for 1851. Does this include 1852 for which none are given? Where does the figure of 236K come from or any quoted figures for the other years in the period 1848-52?

How many discrete 1851 dies can be identified? If we are looking at a number well in excess of what you would expect based on expected output per die, then clearly much of the 1852 output was likely struck from 1851 dies, though you couldn't exclude the use of other existing dies, after all, 1849 was a relatively scarce year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It would probably help if it is possible to get an approximate number of dies used per annum for the period in question.

1825 halfpennies for example had a mintage of 200K ish with 4 identifiable die pairs (though could be more if identical dies were produced). Whatever, 40-50K struck per die pair is a reasonable guess under normal circumstances. However, we do know that things went awry at the mint in the late 1840s when die life plunged dramatically. According to Linton's article on the 1848 halfcrown in the BNJ vol.29, in 1847 a total of 367K halfcrowns were struck from 22 obverse dies, implying only 16 or 17K per die i.e. roughly half. This accounts for the relatively large number of overcut dates in the second half of the decade, when existing dies were reused, presumably to maximise die use when the supply of new dies was uncertain. The same bar stock was almost certainly used for pennies as for halfcrowns, given they are about the same diameter and so presumably experienced the same problems if it was a metal problem, or if a metal treatment problem then it would apply to all dies. It is unhelpful that the mint records for 1848 to 1852 inclusive are missing according to Linton.

A mintage of 236K would suggest between 5 and 13 obverse dies were used in 1852 depending on whether they had sorted the die life problem. My gut instinct is that it was only a temporary blip given the output of 'Godless' florins in 1849 and so we would be looking at somewhere between 30 and 50K per die - i.e. 5-8 dies.

Wikipedia gives a mintage of 432,224 for 1851. Does this include 1852 for which none are given? Where does the figure of 236K come from or any quoted figures for the other years in the period 1848-52?

How many discrete 1851 dies can be identified? If we are looking at a number well in excess of what you would expect based on expected output per die, then clearly much of the 1852 output was likely struck from 1851 dies, though you couldn't exclude the use of other existing dies, after all, 1849 was a relatively scarce year.

The 236k comes from Montagu (1885) who states:-

Quote

"The penny of 1852 has been said to occur, but as I have hitherto failed to see or hear of one for that date, its existence is doubtful. This is the more peculiar, as, according to the Parliamentary Return of the Mint for that year it would appear that 263,424 (quoted as 236,424 by Bramah, but shown as 263, 424 in Montagu's book) (value £1097- 12s) were struck. The Mint authorities can only conjecture that they were all brought in again to be melted. But were they ever issued?"    

Well yes, but the overwhelming consensus is that they bore the date 1851, from 1851 dies. For me that kind of throws into doubt the 1852 die having ever been produced, else why wouldn't it have been used for these additional 263k pennies? Although there may be some other convincing logic which lends stronger support, other than the apparent 1858/2 penny, to the suggestion that an 1852 die was produced. Incidentally 263,424 appears to be the correct mintage as it equates exactly with the quoted value of £1097-12-0.

As far as the mintage for 1851 is concerned, not sure where Wikipedia's figure of 432,224 is from, but the mintage I have is 268,800 (co-incidentally exactly the same as the figure for 1849). If you add together the official 1851 mintage and the presumed additional 1851 mintage produced in 1852, you get 532,224 - 100k more than the Wikipedia total you quote. Maybe a calculation error on the author's part.

Neither Montagu nor Bramah speculate on the existence of an 1852 die. 

 

     

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too enthusiastic about the mint bringing them all back to be melted. I would have thought given the problems with dies in the past few years, that any coins made would be retained for release, even if not required at that moment. The previous few years had seen a lot of coins made with the wrong date for the year of manufacture, so why would they melt something they were guaranteed to need in the near future. The world wasn't predicted to end in 1852, and 1853, 1854 and 1855 are hardly rare years. But, crazier things have been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Actually, are there any known instances of a mass melting with no surviving specimens (obviously difficult to prove) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dorian & Magens shillings came close, but the nearest an official strike came to complete melting was probably the 1945 silver 3d. However, that was related to the need to pay off debts and [presumably] the cessation of silver coinage was proposed by the time they were struck. Any wholesale withdrawal of coinage is usually politically motivated or for financial reasons. A copper penny doesn't fall into either camp.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it highly doubtful that any pennies dated 1852 were ever struck. They surely wouldn't strike 263k and then melt them all down again?

The evidence points to the pennies struck in 1852, all being dated 1851. Given that the official figures show the same mintage in 1849 as in 1851, and the fact that the 1851 is actually nowhere near as scarce as 1849, it tends to suggest that the combined figure of 532,224 is nearer the mark for 1851 dated pennies, and that many of the "268,800" pennies struck in 1849, were actually dated 1848 - kind of ties in with the relative scarcities of all three years.    

With all that said, of course, many of the mintage figures for that period seem meaningless given the comparative scarcity now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Although there may be some other convincing logic which lends stronger support, other than the apparent 1858/2 penny, to the suggestion that an 1852 die was produced.

It's possible that perhaps one was produced but never used at the time? Remember that in 1858, having unexpectedly found they needed to continue copper for a while longer than previously thought, they must have been scrabbling around for old dies to use up which would explain the huge number of varieties for the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

It's possible that perhaps one was produced but never used at the time? Remember that in 1858, having unexpectedly found they needed to continue copper for a while longer than previously thought, they must have been scrabbling around for old dies to use up which would explain the huge number of varieties for the year.

It is possible. Truth is we just don't know for sure. But it does seem somewhat improbable that they had an 1852 die, but never utilised it for 263k pennies minted in that calendar year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read a very interesting article in the March 1991 Coin Monthly about varieties of British Copper pennies and the author speculates, quite intelligently I thought, about the possibility of both an 1858/2 and and 1858/3 existing in parallel. The conventional thinking is that the overstrikes in question are either one or the other, not both - or as far as I can see, not both.

Whilst accepting that the 1858/3 exists, the author also refers to a photograph in the May 1970 Coin Monthly, which I have to admit, I completely overlooked when first reading the 1970 mags. Looking at the May 1970 article in question, which is under "Reader's Rarities" at page 139, a Mr Shirley from Chorlton, Manchester, states: "I have recently acquired an 1858 overstrike penny. The penny is in extremely fine condition with faint traces of lustre and appears to be an unrecorded variety ie: an 1858 over 2 penny.

The article continues - "The Royal Mint verified that this coin is an 1858 penny with the last figure of the date struck over a 2 and in a further letter to T. Shirley, (The Royal Mint) stated:-

"It is true that no copper pennies dated 1852 are known, and numismatists have deduced, reasonably enough, that all the pennies struck in 1852 bore the date 1851. It does not, however, follow from this that dies dates 1852 were never made, and if such unused dies existed it would have been natural to use them up by altering the date. It is also quite possible that an engraver who had punched a 2 by mistake proceeded to punch an 8 on top of it.

Either explanation would fit your coin and one or two similar pieces which we have examined"          

The above tends to vindicate Michael Gouby's theory, but the additional existence of an 8/3 is a definite strong possibility.

Unfortunately there wasn't an actual copy of the Royal Mint's letter, as there often is in the old Coin Monthlies.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very little about copper pennies, in fact, what I do know about them could be written in 48-point type on Donald Trump's brain,

but you've all managed to make this a damn good read.

 

Thanks Guys, and well done!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know very little about copper pennies, in fact, what I do know about them could be written in 48-point type on Donald Trump's brain,

I thought that was full of ways to cheat at golf !

 

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

I know very little about copper pennies, in fact, what I do know about them could be written in 48-point type on Donald Trump's brain,

but you've all managed to make this a damn good read.

 

Thanks Guys, and well done!

I didn't know much about copper pennies until I started collecting them last year. 

You should learn, you don't know what you're missing. Very enjoyable and fulfilling experience for me, which lightened the whole miserable covid situation considerably.

In its own way, completely different from collecting bronze pennies. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like copper pennies, but i did not start collecting them until about 3 or 4 years ago. I have some bronze pennies, but i don't collect them as much as the coppers.

Edited by Iannich48

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Iannich48 said:

I like copper pennies, but i did not start collecting them until about 3 or 4 years ago. I have some bronze pennies, but i don't collect them as much as the coppers.

The question for me now, is that if there are both 58/2 and 58/3 separate varieties, and it seems likely there are, then how do you tell them apart?

It won't be an easy 10 second job under the magnifier. The fact we've been agonising for so long over what was (possibly) once accepted as 58/3, may actually be 58/2, speaks volumes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

The question for me now, is that if there are both 58/2 and 58/3 separate varieties, and it seems likely there are, then how do you tell them apart?

It won't be an easy 10 second job under the magnifier. The fact we've been agonising for so long over what was (possibly) once accepted as 58/3, may actually be 58/2, speaks volumes. 

They are both open to opinion but both varieties completely different and can be spotted by a glance.

Gouby says the 1858/2 is the one with a die crack through the date.

The 1858/3 is (i dont think it is ) open to opinion.

However yes there are two varieties that are both different but often attributed as the same variety.

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Iannich48 said:

I like copper pennies, but i did not start collecting them until about 3 or 4 years ago. I have some bronze pennies, but i don't collect them as much as the coppers.

I only really started looking at them with lockdown, so early days. Between us we should ramp up the prices!

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

They are both open to opinion but both varieties completely different and can be spotted by a glance.

Gouby says the 1858/2 is the one with a die crack through the date.

The 1858/3 is (i dont think it is ) open to opinion.

However yes there are two varieties that are both different but often attributed as the same variety.

Right, agreed. So cutting to the chase then, do you have an example pic of what you consider to be an 8/3? Or does anybody.

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Right, agreed. So cutting to the chase then, do you have an example pic of what you consider to be an 8/3? Or does anybody.

Thanks in advance.

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/cp_1858.htm

I dont have a picture but Michael Gouby has them on his site CP1858G ,its the one with the bit within the bottom loop.

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean this one Pete? It certainly has a bit within the loop.

21 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/cp_1858.htm

I dont have a picture but Michael Gouby has them on his site CP1858G ,its the one with the bit within the bottom loop.

 If so, it doubles with the Bramah 25c 8 over ?.

MG himself still seems very doubtful that the 8/3 exists, whereas with Royal Mint 1970 endorsement and MG's subsequent Numismatic Circular conclusions, I think we can be confident that the 8/2 is a fact in being. 

     

eight over three take two.PNG

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

×