LCN- Rare Pennies

[Rob 3,002]

The raised dot below the ear on the left coin is not in the centre. On my screen the dot is 56mm from the bottom edge, but 65mm from the top edge. As the thicker letters suggest the left one is the later coin, there is no dot on the right one, so should be a rust spot if genuine.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

Thanks for the links and photos

Ok, here's a theory :

- the inverted die axis coin was intended as a proof (hence the inversion), which would explain the fully-formed teeth and the presence of double incuse lines on the fillet; however, it was kept by a "proud" owner who rubbed the coin rather too much thus imparting the wear we see, and the evidence of cleaning.

- the other coin was collected as a currency coin, obviously from the same die, but was not subjected to the same treatment and has therefore survived in better condition.

[Rob 3,002]

Mushiness of the hair in front of the ear, extra line to the back fillet, thicker lettering on the obverse legend, less clear hair detail in the bun area. All raise questions.

[Rob 3,002]

Thanks for the links and photos

Ok, here's a theory :

- the inverted die axis coin was intended as a proof (hence the inversion), which would explain the fully-formed teeth and the presence of double incuse lines on the fillet; however, it was kept by a "proud" owner who rubbed the coin rather too much thus imparting the wear we see, and the evidence of cleaning.

- the other coin was collected as a currency coin, obviously from the same die, but was not subjected to the same treatment and has therefore survived in better condition.

The cleaned one is a later striking if genuine because the R of VICTORIA has been recut. The lettering is thinner in general on the good one. So if later, where did the second line on the fillet come from? If you were going to add that later, you would at least re-engrave the hair in front of the earhole which has all the attributes of a copy.

[Paulus 1,942]

Many of the George III modern copies have an inverted axis (perhaps deliberately?), which is a dead give-away of course.

If the inverted coin is genuine I would have thought it would be worth a small fortune, given the popularity of bun penny varieties?

[Michael-Roo 777]

There are also identical rim nicks seven teeth before the centre of G in Gratia.

[Colin G. 147]

I have just overlaid the images and gradually adjusted the opacity, whilst there is the weakness in the hair, other aspects of the design do not lose detail. The line to the second fillet could well be present on the right hand piece just not visible in the photo. There is no real difference in the flaws/clash which I would have expected if one was cast from a similar piece, I would have expected the copy to have a slightly shallower clash and marginal difference in dimension. I can understand the scepticism due to the cleaned appearance which I suppose is the ideal way to hide a counterfeit copper coin tone.

I will see if I can video the transition and upload a link.

[Rob 3,002]

Many of the George III modern copies have an inverted axis (perhaps deliberately?), which is a dead give-away of course.

If the inverted coin is genuine I would have thought it would be worth a small fortune, given the popularity of bun penny varieties?

Agreed, but I'm not convinced it is (genuine).

[Colin G. 147]

Rob I know the farthings are unrelated, but there are a mix of Reverse types on the 1860 copper farthings. An example is found with what I class as Reverse type B which was used from 1843-1859, the proofs of 1853 also conform to this type, yet examples of the 1860 copper farthing exist with Reverse A which was used for currency pieces between 1838 and 1845, and also the 1839 and 1841? proof examples. Why would they use two distinct Reverse types, one of which had not been utilised since 1845? For such a small number of pieces, this implies they were not all struck at the same time.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Colin G.

[Rob 3,002]

Rob I know the farthings are unrelated, but there are a mix of Reverse types on the 1860 copper farthings. An example is found with what I class as Reverse type B which was used from 1843-1859, the proofs of 1853 also conform to this type, yet examples of the 1860 copper farthing exist with Reverse A which was used for currency pieces between 1838 and 1845, and also the 1839 and 1841? proof examples. Why would they use two distinct Reverse types, one of which had not been utilised since 1845? For such a small number of pieces, this implies they were not all struck at the same time.

I agree.

Chronologically, the inverted one would have to be the later strike given the recutting seen, but the consistency of the teeth doesn't fit with die blockage as it is too consistent. The overall mushy hair worries me too. We need someone with a database of no.WW penny images to input here. The die clash ought to be known somewhere on an 1859 penny as all the 1860s show this as far as I am aware.

[Peckris 579]

Rob I know the farthings are unrelated, but there are a mix of Reverse types on the 1860 copper farthings. An example is found with what I class as Reverse type B which was used from 1843-1859, the proofs of 1853 also conform to this type, yet examples of the 1860 copper farthing exist with Reverse A which was used for currency pieces between 1838 and 1845, and also the 1839 and 1841? proof examples. Why would they use two distinct Reverse types, one of which had not been utilised since 1845? For such a small number of pieces, this implies they were not all struck at the same time.

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't.

[Rob 3,002]

Rob I know the farthings are unrelated, but there are a mix of Reverse types on the 1860 copper farthings. An example is found with what I class as Reverse type B which was used from 1843-1859, the proofs of 1853 also conform to this type, yet examples of the 1860 copper farthing exist with Reverse A which was used for currency pieces between 1838 and 1845, and also the 1839 and 1841? proof examples. Why would they use two distinct Reverse types, one of which had not been utilised since 1845? For such a small number of pieces, this implies they were not all struck at the same time.

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't.

Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies.

[Peckris 579]

Rob I know the farthings are unrelated, but there are a mix of Reverse types on the 1860 copper farthings. An example is found with what I class as Reverse type B which was used from 1843-1859, the proofs of 1853 also conform to this type, yet examples of the 1860 copper farthing exist with Reverse A which was used for currency pieces between 1838 and 1845, and also the 1839 and 1841? proof examples. Why would they use two distinct Reverse types, one of which had not been utilised since 1845? For such a small number of pieces, this implies they were not all struck at the same time.

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't.

Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies.

But that's exactly what I said, Rob... that an 1860 copper issue was a rush-job, as they thought the bronze might not get issued in time. When it was (albeit in smaller quantities than anticipated) they might have felt able to melt down what was a very much larger copper issue which was being held in reserve, but then not needed. The precious few 1860 coppers that DID get issued might well have been souvenirs that evaded the meltdown, perhaps as thank you's to everyone involved in getting the bronze out just in time?

[Chingford 166]

I posted my thoughts earlier today,but my reply seems to have gone astray, we are currently moving office and the servers are playing up a little.

I have seen a reference to an inverted CP1860/59, and have read of a proof coin, I haven't got access to my notes/libary currently, I will find them out over the weekend, these references are from text dating back to the the early 1900s and before, no modern book mentions Inverted or proof strikes for this date, and this is the first example I have seen.

Personally, I am not 100% sure it is the genuine article, that is until I can line up the coin with other examples, examine my notes thoroughly and have taken a bit of time to read through this thread.

The subtle differences in examples i have seen are skinner dates and legends, suggesting continual wear and filling during use, but I have seen nothing to make me think more than one pair of dies existed, the die clash flaws alone would suggest one Obverse die, yet within the similarities I can see there are differences.

.

John

[Paulus 1,942]

Just felt like pointing out that here we are again, auction season, and London Coins (the UK's leading coin auctioneers, according to their web site) still do not have internet bidding - are they stupid or what??

There are a couple of coins I won't be bidding on, but otherwise would ...

• I cannot go to the auction in person
• I don't trust that an email/postal/phone maximum bid necessarily delivers the same result as if you were there (virtually or actually)

[Rob 3,002]

Rob I know the farthings are unrelated, but there are a mix of Reverse types on the 1860 copper farthings. An example is found with what I class as Reverse type B which was used from 1843-1859, the proofs of 1853 also conform to this type, yet examples of the 1860 copper farthing exist with Reverse A which was used for currency pieces between 1838 and 1845, and also the 1839 and 1841? proof examples. Why would they use two distinct Reverse types, one of which had not been utilised since 1845? For such a small number of pieces, this implies they were not all struck at the same time.

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't.

Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies.

But that's exactly what I said, Rob... that an 1860 copper issue was a rush-job, as they thought the bronze might not get issued in time. When it was (albeit in smaller quantities than anticipated) they might have felt able to melt down what was a very much larger copper issue which was being held in reserve, but then not needed. The precious few 1860 coppers that DID get issued might well have been souvenirs that evaded the meltdown, perhaps as thank you's to everyone involved in getting the bronze out just in time?

A bit of topic drift here. The original point I was making was not the circumstances under which they were made, rather the differences between the normally seen coins and this inverted die axis piece. I still haven't seen anything to reassure me that it is kosher to date.

It wil be interesting to see what it goes for and who is bidding in the room.

[VickySilver 775]

Not to divert the topic (again) but I am with Paulus about LCA and their lack of internet bidding in sales. I would certainly be bidding a lot more, and will not bid at all this time for similar reasons.

Meanwhile, I too will be interested in the outcome of the 1860 sales prices....

[Rob 3,002]

Not to divert the topic (again) but I am with Paulus about LCA and their lack of internet bidding in sales. I would certainly be bidding a lot more, and will not bid at all this time for similar reasons.

Meanwhile, I too will be interested in the outcome of the 1860 sales prices....

I'm down tomorrow, so we will see who puts their head above the parapet. Of course, it could go to a book bid. I see Accumulator was logged in today for the first time in a while. Wonder if he will be there as it ought to appeal if ok?

[Accumulator 52]

Not to divert the topic (again) but I am with Paulus about LCA and their lack of internet bidding in sales. I would certainly be bidding a lot more, and will not bid at all this time for similar reasons.

Meanwhile, I too will be interested in the outcome of the 1860 sales prices....

I'm down tomorrow, so we will see who puts their head above the parapet. Of course, it could go to a book bid. I see Accumulator was logged in today for the first time in a while. Wonder if he will be there as it ought to appeal if ok?

It has been a while! I've been very busy with other things (mostly expensive!) so pennies have taken a back seat through the summer. The arrival of a few autumn sale catalogues has caught my attention, though, so I indeed may go along today. How will I recognise you, Rob?

[Paulus 1,942]

Would be very interested in any report from the battlefront, Rob and/or Steve!

[Rob 3,002]

The inverted 1860/59 went for 3600 and the normal one for 4200 or 4400, both to the same phone bidder. Re the inverted one, in the hand the border teeth do not look so thick as in the image. There is no double line on the second fillet and what looks like a raised dot is actually slightly inset, so was probably a small flaw. Michael Gouby gave it the ok and I must admit it looked a lot better in the hand than the image. Some bargains, some OTT and others were run of the mill. i.e. a normal sale.

[Accumulator 52]

Penny values seemed strong, at least for the rarities. In addition to the two 1860/59 mentioned by Rob, other coppers returned good prices. The 1843 with no colon went for £3200 (estimate £750-£1250), 1843 with colon went for £1100 (estimate £350-£500), 1849 impaired went for £2200 (estimate £1750-2750). The bronze series was similarly strong. Among the highlights, the GVF 1903 open 3 (with minor flaw/damage) made £1700 and the 1953 mule £3600.

I picked up very nice 1868 cupro-nickel proof (F 57) and a currency strike (F56) as an upgrade to my existing example. I also bought a surprisingly cheap 1862 with halfpenny date figures (F 41). It's suffering from a patch of verd, so is sitting in olive oil now!

[Peter 615]

Penny values seemed strong, at least for the rarities. In addition to the two 1860/59 mentioned by Rob, other coppers returned good prices. The 1843 with no colon went for £3200 (estimate £750-£1250), 1843 with colon went for £1100 (estimate £350-£500), 1849 impaired went for £2200 (estimate £1750-2750). The bronze series was similarly strong. Among the highlights, the GVF 1903 open 3 (with minor flaw/damage) made £1700 and the 1953 mule £3600.

I picked up very nice 1868 cupro-nickel proof (F 57) and a currency strike (F56) as an upgrade to my existing example. I also bought a surprisingly cheap 1862 with halfpenny date figures (F 41). It's suffering from a patch of verd, so is sitting in olive oil now!

It is worth trying verdicare.

[Accumulator 52]

Penny values seemed strong, at least for the rarities. In addition to the two 1860/59 mentioned by Rob, other coppers returned good prices. The 1843 with no colon went for £3200 (estimate £750-£1250), 1843 with colon went for £1100 (estimate £350-£500), 1849 impaired went for £2200 (estimate £1750-2750). The bronze series was similarly strong. Among the highlights, the GVF 1903 open 3 (with minor flaw/damage) made £1700 and the 1953 mule £3600.

I picked up very nice 1868 cupro-nickel proof (F 57) and a currency strike (F56) as an upgrade to my existing example. I also bought a surprisingly cheap 1862 with halfpenny date figures (F 41). It's suffering from a patch of verd, so is sitting in olive oil now!

It is worth trying verdicare.

I've ordered some today!

[Accumulator 52]

I'm very pleased with the 1868 Cupro-nickel proof (F 57):