1922 Penny with rev of 1927

[Accumulator 52]

The pictured 1922 F192A is brilliant!

As far as I am aware (from the reverse picture) this is the second best known of this variety, the best is only marginally better.(need to see a picture of the obverse)

Value could be anything between £2000-£5000 depending who bids for it!

The dies used on this variety, Freeman Cat. obverse 3 with pattern reverse C* The other even rarer, so far unique, is definately real, the coin has the obverse Modified effigy obverse 4 with reverse die C, the exact die design used for the 1927 pennies.

A third die pair exists but was only used as far as is known to produce two proof pennies. the dies used were obverse 3 with reverse C.

Other sub varieties of 1922 pennies exist, versions of the more common Fr192, one struck in a ferrous metal, possibly nickel, another version with a raised dot in the centre prong of the trident.

Thank you. As I say, the value is academic as it's part of my collection, but relative rarity is of always great interest.

Below is a scan of the obverse. I've tried overlaying it on a standard reverse(3) just to check and it's a perfect match.

[azda 973]

I wonder if Peck has now bought into it lol

[Accumulator 52]

....Other sub varieties of 1922 pennies exist, versions of the more common Fr192, one struck in a ferrous metal, possibly nickel, another version with a raised dot in the centre prong of the trident.

Another interesting 1922 I have is a clear die flaw. Like most, I keep rather than actually collect die flaws. I'm always a little confused as to why Freeman regards some die flaws (e.g. F147) as varieties? I've always understood a variety to be the result of intentional human intervention, rather than mechanical failure.

[Accumulator 52]

I frequently find that I don't notice the verdigris until the coin has been photographed, and that is simply because the act of correcting the colour (toned copper/bronze is a nightmare to photograph) makes even the slightest speck of verdigris stand out bright green. At that point I have to do something about it...

My last post is another example of this. I've never scanned a coin until this past few weeks and it's amazing how much more detail you see! Using a traditional loupe, the field of vision is so narrow that one tends not to take in the whole coin and see all the minor imperfections. My olive oil bath is going to be busy!

[Rob 3,002]

I'm always a little confused as to why Freeman regards some die flaws (e.g. F147) as varieties? I've always understood a variety to be the result of intentional human intervention, rather than mechanical failure.

Amen

Edited February 19, 2011 by Rob

[scott 129]

look at american stuff, every repunch, slight misalignment and flaw is a variety...

i have never understood why some bun head pennys are listed as wide and narrow date, and some not

[VickySilver 775]

Questioning Freeman? How could you?

Seriously though, he reminds me a bit (though hopefully without the social proclivities) of Walter Breen over in the USA. Brilliant but flawed. I think the collection that LCA dispersed over the last year or two spoke for that, or at least some of his rationale. I also wonder about the even worse - IMO - notion of collecting by die state. Dies wear and there will be changes, and so what?

Interesting commentary as to the legitimacy of the 1922 so-called ME specimen. I think it possibly should be scanned with electron microscopy...I have an 1882 that will get such once I figure out how to get somebody to watch my son AND take off during a workday.

[davidrj 194]

look at american stuff, every repunch, slight misalignment and flaw is a variety...

The Australians are even worse when it comes to flaws in their pennies

i have never understood why some bun head pennys are listed as wide and narrow date, and some not

A lot of the confusion caused by the terms wide and narrow

Most Bun penny dies have a "wide", or I would prefer a "large" date

Some of the dies used in 1874,1874H, 1875, 1976H, 1877 & 1879 have the "narrow" or "small" date. These are distinct dies and have other design differences to the large date types

The confusion arises with variable date spacing within each of the types, which then get described as wide and narrow dates

David

Edited February 19, 2011 by davidrj

[Peckris 579]

I wonder if Peck has now bought into it lol

Bought into what? The only pictures I've seen here are of the (undisputed) 1922 with 1927 reverse. Of the supposed 1922ME, there has been no trace. I'd still like some answers to my questions about the whole reason behind it. UNLESS it was a test strike of the 1926 ME obverse using the only reverse die they had around, which would be the 1922 as the last date struck? Now THAT would begin to make SOME sense, and would date the penny to around 1925. So if it's genuine, that's my theory - a test strike made in 1925 before the 1926 reverse dies had been prepared, and somehow escaping captivity in the way that a 1952 halfcrown and 1954 penny did.

Questioning Freeman? How could you?

Seriously though, he reminds me a bit (though hopefully without the social proclivities) of Walter Breen over in the USA. Brilliant but flawed. I think the collection that LCA dispersed over the last year or two spoke for that, or at least some of his rationale. I also wonder about the even worse - IMO - notion of collecting by die state. Dies wear and there will be changes, and so what?

Interesting commentary as to the legitimacy of the 1922 so-called ME specimen. I think it possibly should be scanned with electron microscopy...I have an 1882 that will get such once I figure out how to get somebody to watch my son AND take off during a workday.

Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near.

[Bernie 188]

I wonder if Peck has now bought into it lol

Bought into what? The only pictures I've seen here are of the (undisputed) 1922 with 1927 reverse. Of the supposed 1922ME, there has been no trace. I'd still like some answers to my questions about the whole reason behind it. UNLESS it was a test strike of the 1926 ME obverse using the only reverse die they had around, which would be the 1922 as the last date struck? Now THAT would begin to make SOME sense, and would date the penny to around 1925. So if it's genuine, that's my theory - a test strike made in 1925 before the 1926 reverse dies had been prepared, and somehow escaping captivity in the way that a 1952 halfcrown and 1954 penny did.

Questioning Freeman? How could you?

Seriously though, he reminds me a bit (though hopefully without the social proclivities) of Walter Breen over in the USA. Brilliant but flawed. I think the collection that LCA dispersed over the last year or two spoke for that, or at least some of his rationale. I also wonder about the even worse - IMO - notion of collecting by die state. Dies wear and there will be changes, and so what?

Interesting commentary as to the legitimacy of the 1922 so-called ME specimen. I think it possibly should be scanned with electron microscopy...I have an 1882 that will get such once I figure out how to get somebody to watch my son AND take off during a workday.

Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near.

Here is a picture of the 1922 with the 1927 type obverse and reverse. I have seen and handled this coin. examined it closely with a microscope and cannot fault it. The reverse of which is Freeman reverse C is identical and almost certainly the same die that produced the 1922 proof pennies.

[Bernie 188]

I wonder if Peck has now bought into it lol

Bought into what? The only pictures I've seen here are of the (undisputed) 1922 with 1927 reverse. Of the supposed 1922ME, there has been no trace. I'd still like some answers to my questions about the whole reason behind it. UNLESS it was a test strike of the 1926 ME obverse using the only reverse die they had around, which would be the 1922 as the last date struck? Now THAT would begin to make SOME sense, and would date the penny to around 1925. So if it's genuine, that's my theory - a test strike made in 1925 before the 1926 reverse dies had been prepared, and somehow escaping captivity in the way that a 1952 halfcrown and 1954 penny did.

Questioning Freeman? How could you?

Seriously though, he reminds me a bit (though hopefully without the social proclivities) of Walter Breen over in the USA. Brilliant but flawed. I think the collection that LCA dispersed over the last year or two spoke for that, or at least some of his rationale. I also wonder about the even worse - IMO - notion of collecting by die state. Dies wear and there will be changes, and so what?

Interesting commentary as to the legitimacy of the 1922 so-called ME specimen. I think it possibly should be scanned with electron microscopy...I have an 1882 that will get such once I figure out how to get somebody to watch my son AND take off during a workday.

Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near.

Here is a picture of the 1922 proof penny, Freeman dies obverse 3 with reverse C

[Peckris 579]

Bought into what? The only pictures I've seen here are of the (undisputed) 1922 with 1927 reverse. Of the supposed 1922ME, there has been no trace. I'd still like some answers to my questions about the whole reason behind it. UNLESS it was a test strike of the 1926 ME obverse using the only reverse die they had around, which would be the 1922 as the last date struck? Now THAT would begin to make SOME sense, and would date the penny to around 1925. So if it's genuine, that's my theory - a test strike made in 1925 before the 1926 reverse dies had been prepared, and somehow escaping captivity in the way that a 1952 halfcrown and 1954 penny did.

Questioning Freeman? How could you?

Seriously though, he reminds me a bit (though hopefully without the social proclivities) of Walter Breen over in the USA. Brilliant but flawed. I think the collection that LCA dispersed over the last year or two spoke for that, or at least some of his rationale. I also wonder about the even worse - IMO - notion of collecting by die state. Dies wear and there will be changes, and so what?

Interesting commentary as to the legitimacy of the 1922 so-called ME specimen. I think it possibly should be scanned with electron microscopy...I have an 1882 that will get such once I figure out how to get somebody to watch my son AND take off during a workday.

Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near.

Here is a picture of the 1922 with the 1927 type obverse and reverse. I have seen and handled this coin. examined it closely with a microscope and cannot fault it. The reverse of which is Freeman reverse C is identical and almost certainly the same die that produced the 1922 proof pennies.

That is fascinating - now I'm beginning to buy into its authenticity, but not to 1922 as its date of striking. Revised theory : the 1922/27 reverse was clearly experimental and therefore an ideal candidate to use to test out the ME penny effigy, e.g. in 1925. But, it's not absolutely identical to the one used in 1927 - the sea seems barely engraved and the rim is wider. So, assuming they decided they still hadn't got it 'quite right', they went ahead with striking 1926 pennies using the old dies (which might have been part of the plan anyway), then switched to the ME to finish off the issue, and getting the reverse die finalised for 1927. Pure speculation of course, in the absence of documntation, but there has to be a reason for that 1922, and a strike in 1922 makes absolutely no sense whatever.

[Accumulator 52]

That is fascinating - now I'm beginning to buy into its authenticity, but not to 1922 as its date of striking. Revised theory : the 1922/27 reverse was clearly experimental and therefore an ideal candidate to use to test out the ME penny effigy, e.g. in 1925. But, it's not absolutely identical to the one used in 1927 - the sea seems barely engraved and the rim is wider. So, assuming they decided they still hadn't got it 'quite right', they went ahead with striking 1926 pennies using the old dies (which might have been part of the plan anyway), then switched to the ME to finish off the issue, and getting the reverse die finalised for 1927. Pure speculation of course, in the absence of documntation, but there has to be a reason for that 1922, and a strike in 1922 makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Indeed it is fascinating, and the evidence for the 1922 coin is hard to refute. According to Spink though, there's another piece to the puzzle. They list an identical coin dated 1926, i.e. a penny with ME obverse and 1927 reverse. Does this exist too?

If it does, then why experiment with both dates? Unless, as you say, tests were done in 1925 before the 1926 dies were produced, and then repeated with 1926 dies before 'going live' in 1927. We'll probably never know.

[Bernie 188]

That is fascinating - now I'm beginning to buy into its authenticity, but not to 1922 as its date of striking. Revised theory : the 1922/27 reverse was clearly experimental and therefore an ideal candidate to use to test out the ME penny effigy, e.g. in 1925. But, it's not absolutely identical to the one used in 1927 - the sea seems barely engraved and the rim is wider. So, assuming they decided they still hadn't got it 'quite right', they went ahead with striking 1926 pennies using the old dies (which might have been part of the plan anyway), then switched to the ME to finish off the issue, and getting the reverse die finalised for 1927. Pure speculation of course, in the absence of documntation, but there has to be a reason for that 1922, and a strike in 1922 makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Indeed it is fascinating, and the evidence for the 1922 coin is hard to refute. According to Spink though, there's another piece to the puzzle. They list an identical coin dated 1926, i.e. a penny with ME obverse and 1927 reverse. Does this exist too?

If it does, then why experiment with both dates? Unless, as you say, tests were done in 1925 before the 1926 dies were produced, and then repeated with 1926 dies before 'going live' in 1927. We'll probably never know.

The 1922 proof pennies were placed in Proof sets, the rest of the coins in the sets were dated 1924!

These sets were produced and given to the South African government. I presume the idea of this gift was to show the quality of the coins. The Royal Mint produced coins for many other countries, they may have been touting for business. I don't know if the royal mint were producing coinage for South Africa at this time.

The Story of 1926 dated pennies is another story! Until recently there were only two different varieties known, this has doubled to four!! in the last two years.

[Accumulator 52]

The 1922 proof pennies were placed in Proof sets, the rest of the coins in the sets were dated 1924!

These sets were produced and given to the South African government. I presume the idea of this gift was to show the quality of the coins. The Royal Mint produced coins for many other countries, they may have been touting for business. I don't know if the royal mint were producing coinage for South Africa at this time.

The Story of 1926 dated pennies is another story! Until recently there were only two different varieties known, this has doubled to four!! in the last two years.

So excessively rare pennies probably lay for years, completely unrecognised in the back of departmental cupboards along with all the other old tat government officials tend to get given by visiting foreign dignitaries!

You can't get away with mentioning four varieties for 1926 and not telling more! Apart from Spink, I can find no reference to the third variety. And what is the fourth? The low mintage figures for 1926 mean I don't have that many pennies to look through What am I looking for?

[Peckris 579]

Indeed it is fascinating, and the evidence for the 1922 coin is hard to refute. According to Spink though, there's another piece to the puzzle. They list an identical coin dated 1926, i.e. a penny with ME obverse and 1927 reverse. Does this exist too?

If it does, then why experiment with both dates? Unless, as you say, tests were done in 1925 before the 1926 dies were produced, and then repeated with 1926 dies before 'going live' in 1927. We'll probably never know.

Yes - if the 1926-reverse-1927 is EXACTLY the reverse used for 1927, rather than the 1922 ALMOST reverse, that would make sense.

The Story of 1926 dated pennies is another story! Until recently there were only two different varieties known, this has doubled to four!! in the last two years.

You can't get away with mentioning four varieties for 1926 and not telling more! Apart from Spink, I can find no reference to the third variety. And what is the fourth? The low mintage figures for 1926 mean I don't have that many pennies to look through What am I looking for?

perhaps Bernie meant 4 dies? Unless, there's a non-ME obverse with a 1927-style reverse but dated 1926? Another experimental die?

[Accumulator 52]

...another version with a raised dot in the centre prong of the trident.

Bernie, I noticed this 'raised dot' version in your son's sale. It made a good price too!

What I struggle with, though, is why this is any more desirable than, say, my very obvious 1922 die flaw pictured above? I'm not trying to add value to my coin (I only keep it as a curiosity), just trying to understand the rationale from a collector's perspective?

Sorry, I know I'm getting slightly off-topic!

[VickySilver 775]

Staying off topic - and Bernie, put a value on that proof! Please...

[davidrj 194]

Think we now need a Gouby volume II for pennies 1902 to 1970, or as suggested elsewhere a Wiki to list all these varieties

David

[Gary D 76]

...another version with a raised dot in the centre prong of the trident.

Bernie, I noticed this 'raised dot' version in your son's sale. It made a good price too!

What I struggle with, though, is why this is any more desirable than, say, my very obvious 1922 die flaw pictured above? I'm not trying to add value to my coin (I only keep it as a curiosity), just trying to understand the rationale from a collector's perspective?

Sorry, I know I'm getting slightly off-topic!

It would appear that dot die cracks are more desirable than linear die cracks, perhaps because a dot doesn't look so broken die as a crack does.

[Bernie 188]

Indeed it is fascinating, and the evidence for the 1922 coin is hard to refute. According to Spink though, there's another piece to the puzzle. They list an identical coin dated 1926, i.e. a penny with ME obverse and 1927 reverse. Does this exist too?

If it does, then why experiment with both dates? Unless, as you say, tests were done in 1925 before the 1926 dies were produced, and then repeated with 1926 dies before 'going live' in 1927. We'll probably never know.

Yes - if the 1926-reverse-1927 is EXACTLY the reverse used for 1927, rather than the 1922 ALMOST reverse, that would make sense.

The Story of 1926 dated pennies is another story! Until recently there were only two different varieties known, this has doubled to four!! in the last two years.

You can't get away with mentioning four varieties for 1926 and not telling more! Apart from Spink, I can find no reference to the third variety. And what is the fourth? The low mintage figures for 1926 mean I don't have that many pennies to look through What am I looking for?

perhaps Bernie meant 4 dies? Unless, there's a non-ME obverse with a 1927-style reverse but dated 1926? Another experimental die?

The two new 1926 varieties are Freeman obverse 4 with reverse D, same dies as for 1927 pennies, the second is Freeman 4 with completely different reverse, similar to reverse C but with much longer border teeth. I have pictures of these coins but when given them was asked not to share them.

Placing value on these coins, including the 1922 rarities is almost impossible, so again, £2000-£5000 ???

When the 1863 die 5 in VG sold for £23,000 ?? My enthusiastic bid was £2750, so who knows!!, without two bidders, the coin could have sold for less than £2000.

[scott 129]

i wonder if there is is an 1863 die 6?

and now i have to look through the 1926's... thanks i wasnt aware of any differance in reverses from 1926 and 27

[Bernie 188]

i wonder if there is is an 1863 die 6?

and now i have to look through the 1926's... thanks i wasnt aware of any differance in reverses from 1926 and 27

There is more likely to be a die 1 somewhere!!

[argentumandcoins 70]

Indeed it is fascinating, and the evidence for the 1922 coin is hard to refute. According to Spink though, there's another piece to the puzzle. They list an identical coin dated 1926, i.e. a penny with ME obverse and 1927 reverse. Does this exist too?

If it does, then why experiment with both dates? Unless, as you say, tests were done in 1925 before the 1926 dies were produced, and then repeated with 1926 dies before 'going live' in 1927. We'll probably never know.

Yes - if the 1926-reverse-1927 is EXACTLY the reverse used for 1927, rather than the 1922 ALMOST reverse, that would make sense.

The Story of 1926 dated pennies is another story! Until recently there were only two different varieties known, this has doubled to four!! in the last two years.

You can't get away with mentioning four varieties for 1926 and not telling more! Apart from Spink, I can find no reference to the third variety. And what is the fourth? The low mintage figures for 1926 mean I don't have that many pennies to look through What am I looking for?

perhaps Bernie meant 4 dies? Unless, there's a non-ME obverse with a 1927-style reverse but dated 1926? Another experimental die?

The two new 1926 varieties are Freeman obverse 4 with reverse D, same dies as for 1927 pennies, the second is Freeman 4 with completely different reverse, similar to reverse C but with much longer border teeth. I have pictures of these coins but when given them was asked not to share them.

Placing value on these coins, including the 1922 rarities is almost impossible, so again, £2000-£5000 ???

When the 1863 die 5 in VG sold for £23,000 ?? My enthusiastic bid was £2750, so who knows!!, without two bidders, the coin could have sold for less than £2000.

No Bernie, it would have made at least £50 more than your bid. My father was at the sale and was going to go up to £6000 (I was working that day so could not attend). I think he said it opened just shy of £8000!

[Peckris 579]

Think we now need a Gouby volume II for pennies 1902 to 1970, or as suggested elsewhere a Wiki to list all these varieties

David

Well that idea was for early milled silver varieties, but no reason why it shouldn't be extended to other series also