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

Is this a 1858/3 Penny?

Doesn't look like it. The 1858/3 normally has a characteristic flaw running through the bottom of the date and it doesn't show too much of the 3 either. Not very good grade example attached.

post-381-1158002172_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a 1858/3 Penny?

Doesn't look like it. The 1858/3 normally has a characteristic flaw running through the bottom of the date and it doesn't show too much of the 3 either. Not very good grade example attached.

Thanks Rob. What do you think is the cause of the shape of this 8 a die flaw perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like it. The 1858/3 normally has a characteristic flaw running through the bottom of the date and it doesn't show too much of the 3 either. Not very good grade example attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have me looking at my specimen now, and wondering if this is really an 8/3, or a new variation maybe.... I might have to go and get a better clearer specimen......

Mine has what I think is the lower end of the bottom curl of the 3 visible on the left of the lower loop of the 8... see scans....

post-443-1158102915_thumb.jpgpost-443-1158102935_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years on it is worth resurrecting this post. I've just acquired what I think is a fairly definitive example of the 1858/3. It has the flaw through the bottom of the date and just a trace of the top flaw showing, though not fully developed. It is a 58 over a small date 57.

post-381-020513900 1349982434_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years on it is worth resurrecting this post. I've just acquired what I think is a fairly definitive example of the 1858/3. It has the flaw through the bottom of the date and just a trace of the top flaw showing, though not fully developed. It is a 58 over a small date 57.

The coin I have as 1858/3 has been discussed in the past, and I now believe it is something else altogether. I really haven't studied the copper overdates, certainly not to the extent of someone like John (Chingford) but I'm keen to get a better knowledge.

Anyway, for comparison, here's my (probably not) 8/3:

Penny1858:3%20OBV%20500x500.jpgPenny1858:3%20detail%20OBV.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years on it is worth resurrecting this post. I've just acquired what I think is a fairly definitive example of the 1858/3. It has the flaw through the bottom of the date and just a trace of the top flaw showing, though not fully developed. It is a 58 over a small date 57.

The coin I have as 1858/3 has been discussed in the past, and I now believe it is something else altogether. I really haven't studied the copper overdates, certainly not to the extent of someone like John (Chingford) but I'm keen to get a better knowledge.

Anyway, for comparison, here's my (probably not) 8/3:

Penny1858:3%20OBV%20500x500.jpgPenny1858:3%20detail%20OBV.jpg

That looks like a lower and higher 8.

The debate over the 1858/3 has gone on for years and Michael Gouby has spent a considerable amount of time on it. However, this coin has the crossbar of the 7 showing on top of the 8 whereas this is not seen on others and there is also the remains of the downstrike crossing the base of the 8. It also has the top left angle of the small 5 superimposed on the large 5 in quite high relief. It's always a good thing when they don't fill the old digits in perfectly. :). I can feel a short note in the Circular coming on and that's one less entry in Peck unless someone can come up with a suitable alternative.

It's a great shame that Peck's notes have gone walkabout as it would have been useful to see what he noted against each variety and in particular this one given its ambiguity. Unfortunately I've only got his notes for the first ten years of the bronze coinage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years on it is worth resurrecting this post. I've just acquired what I think is a fairly definitive example of the 1858/3. It has the flaw through the bottom of the date and just a trace of the top flaw showing, though not fully developed. It is a 58 over a small date 57.

The coin I have as 1858/3 has been discussed in the past, and I now believe it is something else altogether. I really haven't studied the copper overdates, certainly not to the extent of someone like John (Chingford) but I'm keen to get a better knowledge.

Anyway, for comparison, here's my (probably not) 8/3:

That looks like a lower and higher 8.

The debate over the 1858/3 has gone on for years and Michael Gouby has spent a considerable amount of time on it. However, this coin has the crossbar of the 7 showing on top of the 8 whereas this is not seen on others and there is also the remains of the downstrike crossing the base of the 8. It also has the top left angle of the small 5 superimposed on the large 5 in quite high relief. It's always a good thing when they don't fill the old digits in perfectly. :). I can feel a short note in the Circular coming on and that's one less entry in Peck unless someone can come up with a suitable alternative.

It's a great shame that Peck's notes have gone walkabout as it would have been useful to see what he noted against each variety and in particular this one given its ambiguity. Unfortunately I've only got his notes for the first ten years of the bronze coinage.

You may be right about my coin, though it does exhibit a portion of what is potentially a '3' to the lower right of the '8' (the 3's do protrude more) and there's no evidence of the lower part of a 'higher' 8 anywhere at the bottom.

Have you got a small date '57 to compare with your coin? I only have a poor photo, but comparing to this the serif on the 7 of your coin is way too short. I'm not convinced its a 58/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years on it is worth resurrecting this post. I've just acquired what I think is a fairly definitive example of the 1858/3. It has the flaw through the bottom of the date and just a trace of the top flaw showing, though not fully developed. It is a 58 over a small date 57.

The coin I have as 1858/3 has been discussed in the past, and I now believe it is something else altogether. I really haven't studied the copper overdates, certainly not to the extent of someone like John (Chingford) but I'm keen to get a better knowledge.

Anyway, for comparison, here's my (probably not) 8/3:

That looks like a lower and higher 8.

The debate over the 1858/3 has gone on for years and Michael Gouby has spent a considerable amount of time on it. However, this coin has the crossbar of the 7 showing on top of the 8 whereas this is not seen on others and there is also the remains of the downstrike crossing the base of the 8. It also has the top left angle of the small 5 superimposed on the large 5 in quite high relief. It's always a good thing when they don't fill the old digits in perfectly. :). I can feel a short note in the Circular coming on and that's one less entry in Peck unless someone can come up with a suitable alternative.

It's a great shame that Peck's notes have gone walkabout as it would have been useful to see what he noted against each variety and in particular this one given its ambiguity. Unfortunately I've only got his notes for the first ten years of the bronze coinage.

You may be right about my coin, though it does exhibit a portion of what is potentially a '3' to the lower right of the '8' (the 3's do protrude more) and there's no evidence of the lower part of a 'higher' 8 anywhere at the bottom.

Have you got a small date '57 to compare with your coin? I only have a poor photo, but comparing to this the serif on the 7 of your coin is way too short. I'm not convinced its a 58/7.

The amount of the previous digit remaining depends on how well the die was filled before the replacement digit was added. If the new character was only subtly different from the original then you may find that the die was not filled at all before recutting. 8 over 6 would be a good candidate for this sort of thing as would 8 over 3. When the shape of the new character is completely different then they would fill the old character in on the die. How, I'm not sure. It could sheet metal, annealed chips or wire hammered into the space - whatever. Depending on the amount of metal crammed into the old space, you may or may not see the shape of the previous character superimposed on the top of the new one. In the case of detail showing on top of the new character, this would be where the void wasn't completely filled prior to recutting. That was how I identified the 1807 proof halfpenny die's origins (see confirmed unlisted section for images and BNJ 2007 for the article). In the case of the serifs, they would be visible on the die in the field and so it would be possible to check that the hole has been completely filled at this point, something which cannot be done deep down in the die. The minute you fill a die you are on a hiding to nothing trying to match fine detail such as serifs, but the overall outline of the previous character is frequently seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years on it is worth resurrecting this post. I've just acquired what I think is a fairly definitive example of the 1858/3. It has the flaw through the bottom of the date and just a trace of the top flaw showing, though not fully developed. It is a 58 over a small date 57.

The coin I have as 1858/3 has been discussed in the past, and I now believe it is something else altogether. I really haven't studied the copper overdates, certainly not to the extent of someone like John (Chingford) but I'm keen to get a better knowledge.

Anyway, for comparison, here's my (probably not) 8/3:

That looks like a lower and higher 8.

The debate over the 1858/3 has gone on for years and Michael Gouby has spent a considerable amount of time on it. However, this coin has the crossbar of the 7 showing on top of the 8 whereas this is not seen on others and there is also the remains of the downstrike crossing the base of the 8. It also has the top left angle of the small 5 superimposed on the large 5 in quite high relief. It's always a good thing when they don't fill the old digits in perfectly. :). I can feel a short note in the Circular coming on and that's one less entry in Peck unless someone can come up with a suitable alternative.

It's a great shame that Peck's notes have gone walkabout as it would have been useful to see what he noted against each variety and in particular this one given its ambiguity. Unfortunately I've only got his notes for the first ten years of the bronze coinage.

You may be right about my coin, though it does exhibit a portion of what is potentially a '3' to the lower right of the '8' (the 3's do protrude more) and there's no evidence of the lower part of a 'higher' 8 anywhere at the bottom.

Have you got a small date '57 to compare with your coin? I only have a poor photo, but comparing to this the serif on the 7 of your coin is way too short. I'm not convinced its a 58/7.

I have added the descriptions from Braham that Peck relates to in his notes regarding 1858 overdates

1858

25. O.—As type. w. w. on truncation.

B.—As type.

25a. ALTERED DATE. O.—As the obv. of No. 25 but the die has been altered from 1857. At least five dies have been altered in this way, the varieties being perceptible by the slightly differing positions of the 8 in relation to the 7 below it. JR.—As type.

25b. ALTERED DATE. O.—As the obv. of No. 25 but the die has been altered from 1853. The upper terminal of 3 shows to left of upper loop of 8, the upper curve of 3 within upper loop of 8. No trace of lower part of 3. B.—As type.

25c. ALTERED DATE. O.—As the obv. of No. 25 but the last figure of date has been altered though it is not obvious from what. At left base of 8 is a knob, like the lower terminal of a 3 or a 5, pro¬truding slightly inside the loop. Higher, inside same loop, are two dots, as the remains of a line. But on right side of 8, between its loops, is a shallow vertical stroke, irreconcilable with a 3 or a 5. B.—As type.

26. O.—As type. No initials on truncation.

B.—As type.

26a. MISCELLANEOUS. O.—As the obv. of No. 26. B.—The first i is without serifs.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1858Penny8over3.jpg

I do love these. Here's my 8/3 and I can see how it could be the same as Robs, only muckier. Will I take a toothbrush to it? Will I heck as like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25c. ALTERED DATE. O.—As the obv. of No. 25 but the last figure of date has been altered though it is not obvious from what. At left base of 8 is a knob, like the lower terminal of a 3 or a 5, pro¬truding slightly inside the loop. Higher, inside same loop, are two dots, as the remains of a line. But on right side of 8, between its loops, is a shallow vertical stroke, irreconcilable with a 3 or a 5.

Ah, and thanks John for a new description of this:

035.jpg

Bramah 25c, clearly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1858Penny8over3.jpg

I do love these. Here's my 8/3 and I can see how it could be the same as Robs, only muckier. Will I take a toothbrush to it? Will I heck as like.

It is the flaw in this image that is characteristic of the usually attributed 8/3. Later strikings have a similar flaw along the top of the date. The image I posted earlier has a trace of this flaw, but it isn't fully developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mindful that different screens give different colours and contrast. Here is one with the bits that match a 7 highlighted followed by one with different colours and contrast. Compare with the initial image.

post-381-014901800 1349998265_thumb.jpg

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And under the microscope from a different angle

post-381-083976900 1349998481_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And under the microscope from a different angle

Bramahs points out, there are several varieties of 57, Michael Gouubys site show all the different types of 7 and spacings,

As Rob has pointed out most 58/3 could be attributed in some way to overdates over 7 because of this enormous variety.

Personally I haven't seen a coin that I would say 100% is a 8/3,

The 58/2 theory only came to about when I acquired Jessops coin, there was record of a Royal Mint letter saying that they

believed it to be 58/2, I showed it to Michael Gouby, around the same time a similar coin with the paperwork sold on Ebay,

but I was the underbidder.

It was when Michael was writing up an Auction Catalogue a couple of years later, he came across the same coin type and

rightly recorded it in the catalogue as 58/2 detailing why and at the same time published his Spink article to coincide with

the auction.

Unfortunately I am having problems with Photoshop and will try to add a close up image of the Jessops Coin this evening

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have examples of 8/3(2), 8/6, 8/7 and an 8/8 and will retake and upload any pictures of the various re-cuts you want Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And under the microscope from a different angle

Bramahs points out, there are several varieties of 57, Michael Gouubys site show all the different types of 7 and spacings,

As Rob has pointed out most 58/3 could be attributed in some way to overdates over 7 because of this enormous variety.

Personally I haven't seen a coin that I would say 100% is a 8/3,

The 58/2 theory only came to about when I acquired Jessops coin, there was record of a Royal Mint letter saying that they

believed it to be 58/2, I showed it to Michael Gouby, around the same time a similar coin with the paperwork sold on Ebay,

but I was the underbidder.

It was when Michael was writing up an Auction Catalogue a couple of years later, he came across the same coin type and

rightly recorded it in the catalogue as 58/2 detailing why and at the same time published his Spink article to coincide with

the auction.

Unfortunately I am having problems with Photoshop and will try to add a close up image of the Jessops Coin this evening

John

scacre8over2_zpse0aed623.jpg

8OVER2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have examples of 8/3(2), 8/6, 8/7 and an 8/8 and will retake and upload any pictures of the various re-cuts you want Rob.

Thanks John. May as well and stick it all in the mix.

I think the main point to be taken from this so far is that the flawed die where the line runs through the base of the digits is unambiguously the same on quite a few coins, all of which have been previously considered 8/3, but based on my example would not appear to be. The varying states of the last digit also show that you can get the impression to a greater or lesser extent that there could be an underlying 3. On the two images posted above by John, the line flaw clearly links the die, but the inside loops of the 8 show curves which would be compatible with a 3(?)!. My coin, which doesn't show any sign of what could be a 3 is presumably a different state of disintegration of the filled digit. The problem is compounded by a choice of methods whereby the die can degenerate. You can have detail that can be progressively blocked with time, but you could also have a filled die where the material used gradually comes away. You could also have subsequent infilling of the areas where bits have fallen off the filler - ad infinitum! It beggars beleif that the die could be filled with a piece of metal that was exactly the same shape as that of the digit on the die and so we must consider the possibility that the die was filled using material that was probably the best achievable fit, but that this may have been repeated a few times until no more material could be added. A variation on this theme would be to force a soft piece of metal that was slightly larger than the hole into it using a vice or similar, polish it down level with the field and then reharden the die. All options considered, that could potentially result in any apparent shape you care to mention at any point in time depending on the integrity of the material used as filler.

The angled lump superimposed on top of the 5 on my coin is consistent with a smaller digit and ties in with the top of the 7 as regards alignment. I've not seen this elsewhere, but reinforces the argument that what appears to be the top of a smaller 7 is correct. It is also a logical and well documented overdate known from a few dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These were the two coins decided as 8/2 by the Royal Mint,

the three pointers are the same as found on the 53/2 Halfpenny,

Top of the 2 showing top left hand, diagonal of 2 within the bottom loop from right to left and point protruding bottom left

post-709-004262300 1350043744_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

In the case of 1848 there was a lot of concern regarding die longevity which was documented in the mint records. Whatever the reason for this may have been, it is the most likely reason for the 1848 overdates.

In the case of 1858 the reason may well have been a delay in the bronze coinage. Quite a lot of the 1857 and 1859 patterns display laminating flans, suggesting they were struggling to get conditions right for the new thinner flans. A further consideration may be that they were using up old dies before being forced to cut a new obverse. It is in 1858 that the no WW bust is introduced. WW died in 1851, so obviously couldn't have produced a new bust punch in 1858, but without any initials on it, do we know whether the no WW bust punch is the old one refurbished or a new one that is practically identical to the WW below? Anyone?

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

×