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

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

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

Sorry - it got sent before I'd written anything.

 I sold a Bramah 25c through Spink last year - nice one, quite lustrous - £440 I think. You don't see many of them around, but not a very exciting coin for me as no-one's worked out the under-figure yet as far as I know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Sorry - it got sent before I'd written anything.

 I sold a Bramah 25c through Spink last year - nice one, quite lustrous - £440 I think. You don't see many of them around, but not a very exciting coin for me as no-one's worked out the under-figure yet as far as I know.

Not bad at all. I've noticed some of the scarce copper varieties don't actually command big sums.

I managed to get one that was aEF from Nathan Smith for £40 last year. Considered it a bit of a bargain as you really don't see too many of them. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours 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.

Please excuse the huge pictures, but I thought necessary to see the detail.

Below is the text from Bramah for his 25c. I have inserted red numbers to align with the features highlighted in the coin pictured left…….which is undoubtedly an example of what he was describing.

Quote

25c. ALTERED DATE. 0.- 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 (1). Higher, inside same loop, are two dots, as the remains of a line (2). But on right side of 8, between its loops, is a shallow vertical stroke (3), irreconcilable with a 3 or a 5.

Something I have noticed, I think mentioned on the forum before, is the additional protrusion top right of the 8. This looks like a 90 degree corner of a numeral which has straight horizontal and vertical lines at that point.

I have also shown a second example with same features 1 to 3, although the protrusion top right is less obvious. This piece shows yet another protrusion within the top loop at bottom right side; a straight line at about 45 degrees. This was not particularly clear on the left hand coin, but is present.

When I stared at that numeral, like I used to stare at those pictures on pub walls where tigers or other things would eventually appear, I thought I could almost see a numeral 4 starting to show itself!!   

 

Combredarrowstextquestionsarrow.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Ridiculous I know!!

Not ridiculous at all Ian. Over a 4 is as plausible a theory as any other number. Others think it's over a 9 (or the other way round) 

I think it will remain a mystery.

KB coins has it as over a three - link

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I’m at it I thought I would also show close up’s of what is now regarded as 1858/2.

I believe this type is the one Bramah has referenced as his 25b, but note that he thought the 8 was over a 3, not 2. I think this has caused some confusion, with different collectors now calling this variety both an 8/3 and 8/2

Quote

25b. ALTERED DATE. 0.- 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 (1), the upper curve of 3 within upper loop of 8 (2). No trace of lower part of 3.

The left coin shows the usual flaws, which are seen running through both the top and bottom of the entire date, and also down from the 8 to the border.

The second example (right) is the earliest strike I have found for this type. On this piece the flaw only runs ‘weakly’ through the bottom of the date. This piece allows the top left of the underlying numeral to be seen more clearly because the flaw, which later develops, has not yet broken through this protrusion i.e. the protrusion clearly has a nice curve on this example.

Additionally, although not entirely convincing, this earlier piece allows better visibility within the bottom loop of the 8, to the point where one can perhaps see other features of an underneath numeral 2; highlighted in Yellow.

A final thing to note on this second early strike example is that less of the ‘upper curve’ of the underlying numeral within the top loop is visible. My guess is that the ‘die fill’, prior to re-cutting with an 8, has broken away after a number of strikes…… thereby revealing an extra portion of the 2.

 

 

combredarrowsnumbersarrowssized.jpg

Share this post


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

Not ridiculous at all Ian. Over a 4 is as plausible a theory as any other number. Others think it's over a 9 (or the other way round) 

I think it will remain a mystery.

KB coins has it as over a three - link

   

Thanks Mike, need to be careful not to confuse with the large numeral overdate, seen paired with the Large Rose reverse. That's a different die again, and the one where the numeral '9' discussions have happened. I am sure Bramah missed that type. See close up below.

1858 Best 8 Close Up.jpg

Share this post


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

Thanks Mike, need to be careful not to confuse with the large numeral overdate, seen paired with the Large Rose reverse. That's a different die again, and the one where the numeral '9' discussions have happened. I am sure Bramah missed that type. See close up below.

 

That's something mentioned in the March 1991 article by A.R.Alexander. I decided to photograph it and show here. It's not a brilliant copy of each page, but it it is readable.

 

alex 1.jpg

alex 2.jpg

alex 3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alex 4.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My old housemaster, Father Andrew Alexander again! I wish I had got to know him better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting but this diagram is a little confusing as it doesn't correspond to his descriptions  of the date numeral 5 on page 2 which agree with my own findings:

748949167_pennyarticle2-Copy.jpg.17fc8649e16d16c32c7f28b9ae9257ab.jpg 

the tops of the 5s are in direct contrast to my findings for dates from 1856-59.

865468494_18585zoomlargedate_edited.jpg.98c7c3e347964cdb6065d1943965a9db.jpg791627277_18585zoomsmalldate2_edited.jpg.12acd7015c704eb6a7f2830aec46a6db.jpg

large date                         small date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly fascinating but boggles my mind after a while, and then I tend to see all sorts of things, for example, has anyone one spotted Vincent van Gogh peering through the hole in the 8? Or is it Our Lord Jesus visiting us via the medium of precious metals now instead of on a piece of toast. Pareidolia? That may be easy to say.

1318595858_1858Best8CloseUp.thumb.jpg.5479ffd577131cb5d3df8571e8207d27.jpg.c159bd56e67aa920a0e362380aa9360d.jpg

Share this post


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

My old housemaster, Father Andrew Alexander again! I wish I had got to know him better.

 

Is it the same chap, Paddy? Seriously?

Is he still alive? I only ask as that article was 30 years ago.

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

Interesting but this diagram is a little confusing as it doesn't correspond to his descriptions  of the date numeral 5 on page 2 which agree with my own findings:

748949167_pennyarticle2-Copy.jpg.17fc8649e16d16c32c7f28b9ae9257ab.jpg 

the tops of the 5s are in direct contrast to my findings for dates from 1856-59.

865468494_18585zoomlargedate_edited.jpg.98c7c3e347964cdb6065d1943965a9db.jpg791627277_18585zoomsmalldate2_edited.jpg.12acd7015c704eb6a7f2830aec46a6db.jpg

large date                         small date

Yes, I noticed that Richard. I think it was a transposition error. 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


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

Is it the same chap, Paddy? Seriously?

Is he still alive? I only ask as that article was 30 years ago.

Sadly he died in the last 5 years. He retired from the school long before that and enjoyed his later years in a house maintained within the grounds for retired clergy. I kept seeing reports on his wellbeing in the Old Boys magazine, and kept thinking I should pay him a visit - and then he died. 

Share this post


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

Yes, I noticed that Richard. I think it was a transposition error. 

Although neither drawing is particularly accurate - the 5  with the pointed top should be noticeably fatter, and the 5 with the bulb top should have the curved part closer to the top bar - unless he was working from completely different versions ?

Share this post


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

Sadly he died in the last 5 years. He retired from the school long before that and enjoyed his later years in a house maintained within the grounds for retired clergy. I kept seeing reports on his wellbeing in the Old Boys magazine, and kept thinking I should pay him a visit - and then he died. 

Sorry to hear that. 

13 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Although neither drawing is particularly accurate - the 5  with the pointed top should be noticeably fatter, and the 5 with the bulb top should have the curved part closer to the top bar - unless he was working from completely different versions ?

Yes.

Looks as though he drew them himself and probably got the proportions wrong.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Managed to get hold of a March 1974 Coin Monthly, which was one I suddenly realised was missing. Lo and behold there is an article in there about the 1858/3 penny, by one L.J.Bamford, who I assume is actually the late Laurie Bamford. Excellent article which I've photographed so it can be read by those possibly interested in it. 

He also mentioned the 1854/3.

  

overrated overdate 1a cropped.jpg

overrated overdate 2 cropped.jpg

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that as well as large and small dates on pennies  towards the end of the copper series , they also exist on half pennies and farthings .

The penny itself is a much more complicated series than the halfpenny or farthing  with 1858 being the most complex

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Managed to get hold of a March 1974 Coin Monthly, which was one I suddenly realised was missing. Lo and behold there is an article in there about the 1858/3 penny, by one L.J.Bamford, who I assume is actually the late Laurie Bamford. Excellent article which I've photographed so it can be read by those possibly interested in it. 

He also mentioned the 1854/3.

  

overrated overdate 1a cropped.jpg

overrated overdate 2 cropped.jpg

I notice from Edward Judson's collection (DNW March 2002), an interesting comment for Lot 519, containing 2 1858 pennies, one the postulated 8/3 overdate:

"The very fine example is sold with Judson's original ticket stating the overdate as 1858 over 2; the wording on the ticket infers that it was acquired with a certification letter to this effect from the Royal Mint [now missing]"

So it sounds like the RM also analysed this variety and came to the same conclusion as Gouby did some time later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/22/2021 at 5:25 PM, 1949threepence said:

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 dated 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.   

 

1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

I notice from Edward Judson's collection (DNW March 2002), an interesting comment for Lot 519, containing 2 1858 pennies, one the postulated 8/3 overdate:

"The very fine example is sold with Judson's original ticket stating the overdate as 1858 over 2; the wording on the ticket infers that it was acquired with a certification letter to this effect from the Royal Mint [now missing]"

So it sounds like the RM also analysed this variety and came to the same conclusion as Gouby did some time later.

 

Indeed so - take a quick look at the post I made on 22.1.21, shown above. There was a letter from the Royal Mint in about April 1970 to a Mr Shirley of Manchester, confirming that in their view, the queried overdate coin was over a 2. Gouby also agrees with this. 

Unfortunately they didn't show the letter, but it presumably still exists as your info above strongly suggests.         

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't address Bamford's point about the low likelihood of a die lying around for six years and not reused. However, it could be explained by my pet thesis about the postponement of bronze from 1858 to 1860 being the reason why there are just so many 1858 varieties - if they'd used up older dies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

This doesn't address Bamford's point about the low likelihood of a die lying around for six years and not reused. However, it could be explained by my pet thesis about the postponement of bronze from 1858 to 1860 being the reason why there are just so many 1858 varieties - if they'd used up older dies.

It's interesting isn't it, that the Royal Mint's view of the overdate being 8/2, predates this article by about 4 years. Given Bamford's scepticism about the 8 being over any figures other than a 3 or a 6, it either suggests complete dismissal of the RM conclusion on his part, or an unawareness of it. My money's on the latter, as surely he would have referred to it in the article, had he known. 

He does indicate that the 3 used in the 1853 dies was the wrong type of 3 for the redundant 1853 dies to have been used for overdating in 1858. So maybe he thought that the 1853 dies would have been already disposed of in 1858, and therefore not available for use anyway. 

As a footnote, since the 1858/6 is always over a small date, the RM must surely have used the 1856 small date die. They obviously kept that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I wouldn't get too tied up about whether the mint had old dies lying around. The answer is yes because there is plenty of evidence for reused dies more than 1 year after they became obsolete, thus eliminating their immediate reuse. 1848/6 and 1858/6 pennies, 1848/7/5 and 1858/6 halfpennies, 1854/1 and 1863/1 shillings, numerous groats etc, not to mention the 1839 proof halfpenny which is also known over 1841 and 1843. The latter is interesting insofar as the proof sets were struck to order long after 1839 and in all probability right up to 1882 when the mint was refurbished. When the 1841 or 1843 halfpenny dies were recycled for the proof sets is uncertain, but it could have been any time within a 40 year window and you had to have a spare die or two lying around to recycle in the first place. Don't forget the inverted die axis 1841 halfpennies all used a common well worn reverse die, so these coins were obviously trials to test out the obverse dies. 

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

×