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.

Sign in to follow this  
numidan

1940 penny high and left 4

Recommended Posts

I have not seen this listed anywhere. The easiest way to determine the 4 high and left is to determine where the back tail of 4 is located compared to the denticle (see white arrowed line). The 0 is a little wide but too small to be considered.

The blue line was used compare height of every digit and red rectangles used to compare digit locations. Happy hunting.

gb1940cmp4HL.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen this listed anywhere. The easiest way to determine the 4 high and left is to determine where the back tail of 4 is located compared to the denticle (see white arrowed line). The 0 is a little wide but too small to be considered.

The blue line was used compare height of every digit and red rectangles used to compare digit locations. Happy hunting.

Certainly there does appear to be a difference, though the grade of the coins are poor for the year making it hard to be sure. It is still possible that the observed difference could be accounted for by damage to the the '4'. I have many 1940 pennies so will take a look when I get the chance. I presume that you are aware of the single and double exergue varieties for 1940, listed by Freeman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but I wonder whether it would be better described as a 'large 4' and 'small 4' variety? It'll be interested to see what accumulator, and anyone else comes back with, I don't have anything after G5 myself, apart from QEII pound coins, that is!

I agree there certainly appears to be a difference, sharp eyes, let's see it duplicated and you're home!

You know the author D J Groom frequents this forum, he's obviously spent a lot of time on things like this!

A big welcome, a good post to enter with! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so close to call.Nice work on the images :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so close to call.Nice work on the images :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the responses.

I presume that you are aware of the single and double exergue varieties for 1940, listed by Freeman?

Yes.

The lots of coins I purchase are mostly low grade coins. Being a variety seeker, this does not bother me. Thus, I make sure that differences are not caused by post mint damages and significant enough to be keeped. When I can not find information on it on the web, I post it. The pictures that I post can be used so others can come up with their own conclusion.

The sample I have for 1940 is 30 coins so I do not think this is rare unless I am very lucky.

Hope someone else finds one ... happy hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the responses.

I presume that you are aware of the single and double exergue varieties for 1940, listed by Freeman?

Yes.

The lots of coins I purchase are mostly low grade coins. Being a variety seeker, this does not bother me. Thus, I make sure that differences are not caused by post mint damages and significant enough to be keeped. When I can not find information on it on the web, I post it. The pictures that I post can be used so others can come up with their own conclusion.

The sample I have for 1940 is 30 coins so I do not think this is rare unless I am very lucky.

Hope someone else finds one ... happy hunting.

1 in 30 is quite a small number, especially if none were found in the next 30! ;)

Stick around, I think your findings would be the focus of some good debate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can see the higher 4 is closer to the top of the exergue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can see the higher 4 is closer to the top of the exergue

That might be due to damage to the top of the '4' on the other penny, as it appears to have a less-pointed top. I have a fair few 1940 pennies stored away and will try to examine them over the next few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but I wonder if this is the difference between single and double exergue line varieties? Have a look at this photo (zoom your screen in to enlarge it even more). With the single line, the downstroke of the 4 appears to almost point to a space as with your variety, where with the double line it points just to the left of a tooth.

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/g6/1d/1d40e.jpg

Of course, both yours appear to be a single line, but it could just be due to wear that the second line (always described as "faintly doubled") is not evident? Clearly the teeth appear to have been recut too for the common second variety.

That's not to say that your variety isn't a good spot, and it may be a genuine micro-variety, but it MAY simply be a single line as opposed to a double line, and your ratio of 1 in 30 would support that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but I wonder if this is the difference between single and double exergue line varieties? Have a look at this photo (zoom your screen in to enlarge it even more). With the single line, the downstroke of the 4 appears to almost point to a space as with your variety, where with the double line it points just to the left of a tooth.

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/g6/1d/1d40e.jpg

Of course, both yours appear to be a single line, but it could just be due to wear that the second line (always described as "faintly doubled") is not evident? Clearly the teeth appear to have been recut too for the common second variety.

That's not to say that your variety isn't a good spot, and it may be a genuine micro-variety, but it MAY simply be a single line as opposed to a double line, and your ratio of 1 in 30 would support that.

I'm still not convinced there's a difference that can't be explained by the damaged 4s.

Below is a comparison of single and double exergue examples. It's true that the single exergue is 'faintly doubled'.

1940Penn9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a close up of the 4s. I do not think that the PMD affected the size that much ;)

gb1940cmp4HLclose.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a close up of the 4s. I do not think that the PMD affected the size that much ;)

gb1940cmp4HLclose.jpeg

The magic of macro! I stand down from the large 4, small 4 speculation! One for the denticle boys now I think!

It is undoubtably high though, even if the left component is contestable!

Edited by Coinery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but I wonder if this is the difference between single and double exergue line varieties? Have a look at this photo (zoom your screen in to enlarge it even more). With the single line, the downstroke of the 4 appears to almost point to a space as with your variety, where with the double line it points just to the left of a tooth.

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/g6/1d/1d40e.jpg

Of course, both yours appear to be a single line, but it could just be due to wear that the second line (always described as "faintly doubled") is not evident? Clearly the teeth appear to have been recut too for the common second variety.

That's not to say that your variety isn't a good spot, and it may be a genuine micro-variety, but it MAY simply be a single line as opposed to a double line, and your ratio of 1 in 30 would support that.

I'm still not convinced there's a difference that can't be explained by the damaged 4s.

Below is a comparison of single and double exergue examples. It's true that the single exergue is 'faintly doubled'.

1940Penn9.jpg

That seems to confirm what I suspected. On the 'single exergue line', the downstroke of the 4 points virtually to a space, where on the doubled line it points slightly to the left of a tooth. There is also a difference to the waves, as there is also on numidan's examples. The relative position of the exergual lines and the exact pointings of the teeth could account for the 'up and left' nature of what we see here, plus the fact that there is quite a bit of wear which makes measuring such microscopic differences rather more difficult.

I'd say it was a 75% chance that it's down to the existing exergue varieties, but there's room for doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1940 Single line

1940singleline-1.jpg

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its there in fleabay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1940 Single line

1940singleline-1.jpg

Unfortunately, the way the light falls on the 4's downstroke, that doesn't add much to the discussion either way. (I'm assuming that was the reason you posted it, Dave?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Peck, i posted it to aid the topic. Did you just buy that Mr Accumulator? cos its gone now

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Peck, i posted it to aid the topic. Did you just buy that Mr Accumulator? cos its gone now

Yes, I'm a sucker for lustre and it certainly has more than mine! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. It shall be posted morgen, und danke für ihren Kauf ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Peck, i posted it to aid the topic. Did you just buy that Mr Accumulator? cos its gone now

Yes, I'm a sucker for lustre and it certainly has more than mine! :)

I have a near BU example that cost me £4:50. In 1978 :D Mind you, considering it wasn't a widely known variety back then, it was probably still quite a good price :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks ok to me - have tried to merge (50%) both pairs of pictures seperate and don't find much difference for single versus double exergue (below). However the 'high left' clearly makes a double 4 when merged with the normal example (above).

post-6657-079871300 1345065161_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks ok to me - have tried to merge (50%) both pairs of pictures seperate and don't find much difference for single versus double exergue (below). However the 'high left' clearly makes a double 4 when merged with the normal example (above).

post-6657-079871300 1345065161_thumb.jpg

On the face of it, that's pretty conclusive. However, it leaves a further puzzle. On the 'high left 4' pair, the 4 is clearly offset and so it shows up (as you've demonstrated). However, on that merged pair, the 0 shows no difference between the two coins; yet if you compare it with the other merged pair, there's a big difference : the first pair shows a 0 that is smaller, squatter, and further from the teeth than on the second pair. But as one of the coins in the first pair is supposedly 'normal', you'd expect the 0 to show a different overlay just like the 4 does.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×