Let's See Your Copper Coins, Tokens, Or Medals!

[Colin G. 147]

Actually having looked at a few other 1863 Pennies, they do seem to be generally very well struck, I am used to looking at farthings with dreadful rims!!

Still a very nice coin, but you will have difficulty establishing it as anything other than a very nice strike, unless it has the mirrored fields associated with proofs, which I am not really seeing in your photos (although it is not always apparent in photos)

I will leave you in the hands of the resident penny experts

[Colin G. 147]

I think there are some proofs that immediately scream "proof" at you when you see them, and others that are prooflike, but just don't seem as convincing. For me that 1876H looks to have that contrast and crispness that says proof.

[Rob 2,996]

I think there are some proofs that immediately scream "proof" at you when you see them, and others that are prooflike, but just don't seem as convincing. For me that 1876H looks to have that contrast and crispness that says proof.

But as nice as it is, it still falls a little bit short of say my 1867 bronzed and 1879 bronze proofs. Both are ex-Nicholson http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part5.html for comparison.

[Accumulator 52]

A lovely example Rob!

[Paulus 1,942]

I always gasp at the prices, if only I had got into coin collecting earlier!

[Accumulator 52]

I think there are some proofs that immediately scream "proof" at you when you see them, and others that are prooflike, but just don't seem as convincing. For me that 1876H looks to have that contrast and crispness that says proof.

But as nice as it is, it still falls a little bit short of say my 1867 bronzed and 1879 bronze proofs. Both are ex-Nicholson http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part5.html for comparison.

An 1868 (ex Bamford), for comparison (sorry if you've seen it before):

[Rob 2,996]

The Nicholson images show a reasonable comparison between what is considered a specimen and that which is a proof. Nicholson 400 is a Heaton 'proof', but the fields are misty relative to the RM proofs because they are not so finely polished. Mine is definitely better than N's, but still not quite as good as the RM pieces.

[davidrj 194]

Yes, that's very prooflike in appearance. I have a very similar 1863 (or is it 1862? One or the other..) : dark patina and quite wide rims with strong even toothed border. It does make you wonder if they struck 'specimen' examples that weren't actual proofs but specially prepared and struck?

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006:

Footnote

Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’

That's fascinating. Presumably though, such specimens had the H mintmark?

None of the bronze minted 1860-3 by either Watt & Co or Heatons had a mintmark

Also don't forget Heatons were producing coins for lots of countries, so the "specimens" could have been a cosmepolitan lot, not all these issues had mintmarks

Edited February 11, 2014 by davidrj

[Colin G. 147]

I think you can get that difference across different dates anyway. Obviously I will caveat this with the fact that I am again talking farthings, but 1861 and 1868 proofs tend to be higher quality than many other years that I have seen. I just can not always convince myself that other years (including the Heaton dates) are the same thing. They have proof-like qualities, but are not totally convincing to me. Your picture above is a scan, which makes it more difficult to call but shows quite a bit of contrast and a clear difference in quality to the currency strike. Whether that is a proof for that particular year or a specimen of some sort I doubt we will ever fully establish.

This is an 1875H farthing that showed that prooflike, rather than proof quality IMHO

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=141&l=1480&f=r&s=l

[Peckris 579]

That is a beauty, very "prooflike" in appearance, the border teeth look much more defined than in AC's example, and the transition between border teeth and rims is also a lot more defined.

That has to be some form of "specimen" strike, I know some coins can just be photogenic, but this surpasses just eye appeal ....surely.

It does seem possible. My own example is an 1862 not 1863, and I'm afraid the scans I have are pretty lamentable, but to show the colour similarity, here is the original scan of the reverse :

[Peckris 579]

The scan seemed to translate better into monochrome, so this is that one :

It does at least show the broader rim and defined toothed border.

The colour is so uniform, the details so clear and sharply defined, and the edge / rim so different than normal pennies, plus it has a kind of prooflike sheen when viewed at certain angles, that it really does make me think it could be some kind of specimen strike.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Peckris

[Accumulator 52]

The scan seemed to translate better into monochrome, so this is that one :

1862 penny reverse.jpg

It does at least show the broader rim and defined toothed border.

1862 is another year with often excellent strikes, as is your Peckris. Not a detail missing from that coin.

[Peckris 579]

The scan seemed to translate better into monochrome, so this is that one :

1862 penny reverse.jpg

It does at least show the broader rim and defined toothed border.

1862 is another year with often excellent strikes, as is your Peckris. Not a detail missing from that coin.

Thanks. There are little bits of slight corrosion around the rim as you can see, plus a few areas of very light and shallow surface ?corrosion? (or rusting die?) on the bust, which is probably why I was able to pick it up for £1 from a dealer tray at the Midland in the 1990s

[VickySilver 775]

OK, I'll probably get shot for saying this, but check the farthings in proof of 1863 and 1869 on the PCGS site as they are qutie pleasantly stuck firmly and nice colouration.

[brg5658 111]

OK, I'll probably get shot for saying this, but check the farthings in proof of 1863 and 1869 on the PCGS site as they are qutie pleasantly stuck firmly and nice colouration.

I'll link them here:

[brg5658 111]

Here's a farthing from my collection:

[Peckris 579]

OK, I'll probably get shot for saying this, but check the farthings in proof of 1863 and 1869 on the PCGS site as they are qutie pleasantly stuck firmly and nice colouration.

I'll link them here:

Those are gorgeous, even allowing for the slight striations onn the 1863 obverse.

[VickySilver 775]

Thanks for the link, BRG. Those are ex-SNC coins from the glory days of Spink!

[Colin G. 147]

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality.

http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l

If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

[Peckris 579]

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality.

http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l

If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted.

[VickySilver 775]

The mirrors are actually quite striking as are the device details, perhaps a bit better than the posted 1868 et al but it is interesting the edge detail is not what one would like - on the other hand, quite the blowup ("pie pan " size); also a bit of deflection/difraction of light as Brit's face is actually quite good on both pieces.

Not that it matters, but Steve Hill did give them seal of approval when at Spink which is how they made the SNC.

[Colin G. 147]

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality.

http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l

If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted.

We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs.

[scott 129]

pictures not the best due to trying to get decent lighting.

[Colin G. 147]

The mirrors are actually quite striking as are the device details, perhaps a bit better than the posted 1868 et al but it is interesting the edge detail is not what one would like - on the other hand, quite the blowup ("pie pan " size); also a bit of deflection/difraction of light as Brit's face is actually quite good on both pieces.

Not that it matters, but Steve Hill did give them seal of approval when at Spink which is how they made the SNC.

I am not doubting the fact that they are in someways superior to a circulation strike, and are more akin to a proof, but in the examples I have seen there does seem to be a difference in the consistency of the quality.

[Peckris 579]

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality.

http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l

If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted.

We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs.

No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Peckris