1900 penny

[davidrj 194]

1897 have visiable variations. close 7 and far 7 are miles apart

I was about to respectfully point this out:

I stand corrected !

Here's my wide date 1895

Not in Gouby and seems to be pretty scarce

[scott 129]

oh not seen that one.

its hard to find the 96 wide as well

1897 wide

[scott 129]

incedently the narrowist 1897 i could find is this one

1899 wide

Edited August 31, 2012 by scott

[Accumulator 52]

1897 have visiable variations. close 7 and far 7 are miles apart

I was about to respectfully point this out:

I stand corrected !

Here's my wide date 1895

Not in Gouby and seems to be pretty scarce

Nice one! Not seen this one before either.

[numidan 0]

Thank you for the pictures, I am happy to see that I am not the only one looking at date spacing!

Hocking doesn't shed any light on this listing nothing for 1901 pennies. As a suggestion, it is possible that the entire master design was engraved including date prior to reduction. We know that some matrices in the RM are noted as being without date for the veiled head issue and so this would be rational for the dates where spacing varities occur. A consistent date spacing without varieties would suggest the date was not added as required. Just a thought.

Many of these varieties concern the last numeral which is effectively the last thing to be punched into the die.

Thank you Rob and Red Riley. It is true that it normally concerns the last numeral but when all numerals are affected like 1900, I wonder why. For example, we were finding many rotated dies for a specific year while researching Canadian coin varieties and discovered that during the minting of that year, the mint was on strike and it was the managers operating the press. Therefore, the probability of finding errors (varieties) for that year was higher.

Now if the guy responsible had a truly attrocious hangover, there is a possibility that he may have taken the wrong matrix and a new variety is waiting to be discovered

[declanwmagee 122]

Go on then, I'll chuck mine in too...

Had to keep both of 'em, of course...

Edited August 31, 2012 by declanwmagee

[Coinery 926]

Go on then, I'll chuck mine in too...

Had to keep both of 'em, of course...

Would that be a small 9 on the wide-gap coin?

[declanwmagee 122]

Would that be a small 9 on the wide-gap coin?

Well now, looks like it to me. It's not even the same 9 !

I wonder if that's common - the further right the number is, the smaller it would have to be to squeeze under the exergue. If the accidental theory is to continue to hold water, we can't have them making design changes to allow for wide dates. Doesn't make any sense...

[Accumulator 52]

Would that be a small 9 on the wide-gap coin?

Well now, looks like it to me. It's not even the same 9 !

I wonder if that's common - the further right the number is, the smaller it would have to be to squeeze under the exergue. If the accidental theory is to continue to hold water, we can't have them making design changes to allow for wide dates. Doesn't make any sense...

I think that's just how they are for 1899. Here are mine:

(apologies for the colour of the narrow date, its a CGS photo of my slabbed coin)

Edited August 31, 2012 by Accumulator

[declanwmagee 122]

I think it might be an optical illusion - because the exergue narrows, the 9 looks smaller. Has to be - deliberately smaller to fit further right upsets too many assumptions about why the date is wide...

[scott 129]

shall we start on the Edwards?.... looking at the 9.. it looks smaller.

Edited September 1, 2012 by scott

[numidan 0]

Would that be a small 9 on the wide-gap coin?

Well now, looks like it to me. It's not even the same 9 !

I wonder if that's common - the further right the number is, the smaller it would have to be to squeeze under the exergue. If the accidental theory is to continue to hold water, we can't have them making design changes to allow for wide dates. Doesn't make any sense...

I think that's just how they are for 1899. Here are mine:

(apologies for the colour of the narrow date, its a CGS photo of my slabbed coin)

The new title for this post should be renamed "Date Spacing".

This is a good example of two dies with different date spacing. Now, is there any other differences? Maybe you can help Accumulator, but the robe near the right side of Britannia's belly seems different

[Coinery 926]

I think it might be an optical illusion - because the exergue narrows, the 9 looks smaller. Has to be - deliberately smaller to fit further right upsets too many assumptions about why the date is wide...

You'd have to take a perfectly flat image, get it on your PC and draw some lines...the longer the lines, the more clearly you might see any differences.

[Accumulator 52]

I think it might be an optical illusion - because the exergue narrows, the 9 looks smaller. Has to be - deliberately smaller to fit further right upsets too many assumptions about why the date is wide...

You'd have to take a perfectly flat image, get it on your PC and draw some lines...the longer the lines, the more clearly you might see any differences.

Here you go. Quite clearly the second '9' has a shorter tail:

[Peckris 579]

If the first 3 digits were already on the matrix, then the last digit would be added for each year. As the curvature would mean the second 9 has less space (whether there's a big gap or not), then it stands to reason they would use a slightly smaller '9' punch to fit the space. The large gap between the 9s simply emphasises the difference in size. The two 9s look different sizes on ALL the 1899 pennies shown.

[Accumulator 52]

If the first 3 digits were already on the matrix, then the last digit would be added for each year. As the curvature would mean the second 9 has less space (whether there's a big gap or not), then it stands to reason they would use a slightly smaller '9' punch to fit the space. The large gap between the 9s simply emphasises the difference in size. The two 9s look different sizes on ALL the 1899 pennies shown.

Yes, I agree! They all seem to be like that, regardless of spacing. The pictures in Michael Gouby's book suggest the same.

[numidan 0]

These differences indicated by the red arrows may also be optical illusion

[Coinery 926]

If the first 3 digits were already on the matrix, then the last digit would be added for each year. As the curvature would mean the second 9 has less space (whether there's a big gap or not), then it stands to reason they would use a slightly smaller '9' punch to fit the space. The large gap between the 9s simply emphasises the difference in size. The two 9s look different sizes on ALL the 1899 pennies shown.

Yes, I agree! They all seem to be like that, regardless of spacing. The pictures in Michael Gouby's book suggest the same.

I don't know, on Declan's pictures, the last 9 on his close-date doesn't look like it could be moved another micro-mil to the right without breaching a tooth, preliminary suggesting it might be a larger 9, maybe the punch that was used for the first 9 on the matrix. I agree the last 9 on the others is smaller, and logically so.

I'm going to PM him and see what his images look like when overlapped with some transparency added...just for the fun, of course!

[declanwmagee 122]

I don't know, on Declan's pictures, the last 9 on his close-date doesn't look like it could be moved another micro-mil to the right without breaching a tooth, preliminary suggesting it might be a larger 9, maybe the punch that was used for the first 9 on the matrix. I agree the last 9 on the others is smaller, and logically so.

I'm going to PM him and see what his images look like when overlapped with some transparency added...just for the fun, of course!

The bottom one is a manky scan, Coinery - do you think it'll work?

[Coinery 926]

I don't know, on Declan's pictures, the last 9 on his close-date doesn't look like it could be moved another micro-mil to the right without breaching a tooth, preliminary suggesting it might be a larger 9, maybe the punch that was used for the first 9 on the matrix. I agree the last 9 on the others is smaller, and logically so.

I'm going to PM him and see what his images look like when overlapped with some transparency added...just for the fun, of course!

The bottom one is a manky scan, Coinery - do you think it'll work?

Let's give it a go, nothing to loose if you're up for it? Just PMing you now!

[davidrj 194]

I have 4 widths for 1896

[davidrj 194]

I have 4 widths for 1896

Only 2 widths for 1898, but two different fonts for final 8

[Coinery 926]

I have 4 widths for 1896

Only 2 widths for 1898, but two different fonts for final 8

The variation just goes on and on for these coins, I often wonder how big a work it would be to finally get to the bottom of it? You've obviously got a significant collection, I think you, accumulator, and Declan should get together with numisdan and get the work done!

[Peckris 579]

I have 4 widths for 1896

I'd certainly choose to have the widest and narrowest (top and bottom) pennies in my collection - that's quite a dramatic difference. I don't find the intermediate stages particularly interesting, but it's an interesting exercise and would nicely illustrate a monograph for the BNJ on Old Head penny date spacing.

[scott 129]

never seen an 1896 THAT wide, did find the narrowest one.