More Pennies

[terrysoldpennies 691]

1 hour ago, alfnail said:

Thanks for the confirmation that your coin has the same obverse features as my own Terry. That being the case I would then expect the reverse of your coin may be the difficult Bramah 2c with the serious repair to the F of DEF (see attachment). That pairing is the one I have in my own collection. It is not 100% certain though, as you may clearly have a coin with the same obverse as mine, but paired with yet another reverse die. Please can I ask for your further confirmation one way or the other? Cheers, Ian

No Ian , I knew mine was not a Bramah 2C, and it is not the same die before the botched repair on the F in DEF . Two differences on the reverse are clear, the E in DEF on the Bramar 2C is rotated anticlockwise, mine is not, and the A in BRITANNIAR on my coin is Doubled ,which I can see no sign of on the Bramar 2C.   Terry

Edited February 2, 2017 by terrysoldpennies

[terrysoldpennies 691]

Pic 2

[alfnail 756]

Many thanks Terry, I had wondered whether you were teasing me. So your reverse is a 2nd one paired with the wide date obverse. The protrusion which you show to the RHS of the second A of BRITANNIAR is a good indicator to help me find one of these for my own collection. Such a protrusion is often seen the LHS but I think rarely to the right, at least on 1841's.

While we are on the subject of 1841 pennies here are some different numeral fonts I have observed 

 

[terrysoldpennies 691]

18 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Many thanks Terry, I had wondered whether you were teasing me. So your reverse is a 2nd one paired with the wide date obverse. The protrusion which you show to the RHS of the second A of BRITANNIAR is a good indicator to help me find one of these for my own collection. Such a protrusion is often seen the LHS but I think rarely to the right, at least on 1841's.

While we are on the subject of 1841 pennies here are some different numeral fonts I have observed 

 

I must confess I don't collect variations on the copper pennies [as yet] concentrating mainly on the bronze, and on the unlisted date variations , which I think you have an interest in to. I bet there are quite a few unknown ones we have found between us .  Good luck in your quest.    Terry 

Edited February 2, 2017 by terrysoldpennies

[secret santa 2,013]

Just checked my spares and I've got one of those doubled A's.

[terrysoldpennies 691]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

Just checked my spares and I've got one of those doubled A's.

Yours is slightly different Richard as the under A shows to the Left of the A. My one is on the right hand side. Yours my be a third Rev die combination .   Terry

[alfnail 756]

Hi Richard, please could you send full pictures of this 1841 so I can check if it matches one of my existing no REG colon pieces? If your images are too big for Predecimal please email them to me if possible. Many thanks, Ian

[secret santa 2,013]

Pictures attached (in separate posts)

[secret santa 2,013]

and reverse

[alfnail 756]

Thanks for the pictures Richard. It looks like this coin is a die pairing I do not have. I wonder how many obverse and reverse dies were actually used in 1841. I believe there were something over 900,000 pennies struck bearing this date, and seem to remember that someone with more knowledge of minting than me advised probably around 50,000 could be struck from a single die. If that is the case I may have examples of only half of these in my own collection.

Can any other members offer thoughts on this please?

[Rob 3,000]

The numbers struck from a pair of dies varied over time. 1825 halfpennies had 4 die pairs for a mintage of 210,000 which implies about 50-60K per die. Mint output of halfcrowns in 1848 was 91K ish but a total of 24 dies were used and there was concern at the RM over the short lives of the dies. One would assume this is also related to the number of overcut dates seen at the end of the 1840s. Exactly when the die life shortened I am not sure, but seems to be in the second half of the decade.

Although neither are pennies, it would seem likely that a typical figure of approx. 50K is a reasonable assumption, with the caveat that occasionally one will break earlier rather than later, though the large size might cause them to fail quicker than a small die.

[scott 129]

working out a count per die would be easier using the die number shillings though, as an estimate.

[Rob 3,000]

1 hour ago, scott said:

working out a count per die would be easier using the die number shillings though, as an estimate.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. For whatever reason, die life shortened to the point where it was hampering output in the second half of the 1840s. The figure of 30000ish per die typically had stood for more than a century, but was severely reduced for a while - see Linton's article on the 1848 halfcrowns in the BNJ. Once you get past 1850 the mint accounts are available. If only they went back a bit further.

[secret santa 2,013]

Just bought an interesting coin - matt proof 1953 penny but struck with the circulation obverse die (121 beads; A of ELIZABETH to bead) rather than the proof die (120 beads; A of ELIZABETH to gap). I suppose it's logical that, if they were struck for photographic purposes, they would strike examples of both circulation and proof coins in a matt finish.

[Nordle11 564]

Nice purchase, have you got a reverse shot Richard?

[secret santa 2,013]

Voila !

[Nordle11 564]

I wouldn't be able to spot a matt coin if it was in front of me, proofs/matts/proof matts/VIPs etc. that's probably why I stick with circulation 

[secret santa 2,013]

I think you would - just as when you tilt a normal proof against the light, it is mirror-like, then a matt proof is uniformly matt Matt !

[terrysoldpennies 691]

Richard , I spoke to you some time ago about my possible 1953   121 tooth matt finish penny, its below.    Terry

[secret santa 2,013]

Thanks for posting that, Terry, I think I misplaced the earlier pics. Considering these matt coins were supposedly struck for photographic purposes, they don't seem to photograph all that well !

[terrysoldpennies 691]

10 hours ago, secret santa said:

Thanks for posting that, Terry, I think I misplaced the earlier pics. Considering these matt coins were supposedly struck for photographic purposes, they don't seem to photograph all that well !

I wonder if they were not made for photographic use, but are just the result of a sand blasted die , as I see that they both seem to have a soft image , and not the crisp look of the proof like examples of other years ?.  Maybe other examples will turn up.  So if any of you have one , please let us see them.  Terry

[jaggy 528]

There is a 1935 penny for sale at this week's Heritage auction. It is a nice coin and in excellent condition; MS 65 RD. But the bidding has reached $80 which, with buyers premium and shipping will be well over $100. Is there something special about this coin that you penny people can identify and am I missing something? I just don't see how it is worth that much money.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-george-v-penny-1935-ms65-red-ngc-/a/231706-62220.s?ic2=mybidspage-lotlinks-12202013&tab=MyBids-101116

Edited February 8, 2017 by jaggy

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Your not missing anything Jaggy its a nice coin but of a relatively common year and i cant see anything special.

I think its more to do with it being MS65RD that seems to fetch a premium and would be suprised if it went for anymore.

The price for the English graded one in 85 is £75.

Edited February 9, 2017 by PWA 1967

[VickySilver 775]

Although hopefully more excusable, I more recently purchased a 1932 in MS66RB for about 140 USD....

[Nordle11 564]

31 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Although hopefully more excusable, I more recently purchased a 1932 in MS66RB for about 140 USD....

Sounds like a very good purchase. Pics if you can VS!