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.

Recommended Posts

Yes, my 1839 prof cost £250 in 2001 and my 1853 copper proof cost £300 on 2000. Since then they've gone through the roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jelida said:

Chris Finch of DNW asked me to look at the 1882 no H penny at the MCF yesterday. There is no visible evidence of the ‘H’ under the loupe but I also felt it was a little ‘dished’ under the date.  No recent shenanigans, but as it is one of those coins that has considerable surface patination it is quite possible that the ‘H’ might have been lost. Either that, or a filled die, as the obverse is clearly ‘wrong’ for the ‘no H’ as we recognise it, though I don’t know that can be entirely written in stone.

My advice was that if they do try to sell it,  an explanation of the reservations about its authenticity would have to be included in the description, then the punters can make up theit own minds. Not one for me.

The links can be found above.

Jerry

Plus, if it's the one I'm thinking of, wasn't it the wrong obverse for a F112, Jerry? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Plus, if it's the one I'm thinking of, wasn't it the wrong obverse for a F112, Jerry? 

Yes, that was the main indicator of the doubt, and what DNW didn’t seem to get to grips with at first but I think Chris does now.  I think that whatever the (historic) cause of the dishing of the flan below the date,  the end result is the removal of the ‘H’. It looks to me like a coin that may have been in the ground at one time, and when cleaned on recovery a thin layer of patina was rubbed off, along with the mintmark.

But I have seen several ‘no H’ with the wrong obverse offered for sale, including by LCA. What would it take, I wonder, for this combination too to be considered a true variety?

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jelida said:

Yes, that was the main indicator of the doubt, and what DNW didn’t seem to get to grips with at first but I think Chris does now.  I think that whatever the (historic) cause of the dishing of the flan below the date,  the end result is the removal of the ‘H’. It looks to me like a coin that may have been in the ground at one time, and when cleaned on recovery a thin layer of patina was rubbed off, along with the mintmark.

But I have seen several ‘no H’ with the wrong obverse offered for sale, including by LCA. What would it take, I wonder, for this combination too to be considered a true variety?

Jerry

A really good specimen that left you in absolutely no doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

A really good specimen that left you in absolutely no doubt. 

But even then the absent ‘H’ could be due to die fill. If it wasn’t for the unique (for 1882) die pairing, would we be so confident with the agreed ‘no H’ variety?  The couple of ‘no H’ 1876 are generally accepted as die fill. I suppose a reasoned judgement published by a top expert , a Freeman or Gouby equivalent,  would have to be the determining factor in the absence of contemporary records.

Jerry

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there is a bit of dogma in the approach to this date and somewhat slavish mentality about there being only one obverse. I just don't see how that can be proved, though I do agree that many purported "no H" examples on close inspection appear to be "weak H" or possibly moved metal.  I have seen a couple that looked good to me under scope - as far as the  lack of "H" mintmark. And if the die was filled or worn? So what, if it doesn't appear that metal has been (re)moved then it is a "no H" much like the USA 1922 "no D" cent coin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavish seems to be the IN word at the moment ,i will have to try and find out what it means.

Slavish ..........:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means Russian of course.

16 hours ago, secret santa said:

Yes, my 1839 prof cost £250 in 2001 and my 1853 copper proof cost £300 on 2000. Since then they've gone through the roof.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Slavish seems to be the IN word at the moment ,i will have to try and find out what it means.

Slavish ..........:D

I shall presume that you will research it's definition and usage "slavishly".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

I shall presume that you will research it's definition and usage "slavishly".

The problem is Gary ,when i typed in Slavish the words they used to explain the meaning i didnt know what they meant either :D

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

The problem is Gary ,when i typed in Slavish the words they used to explain the meaning i didnt know either :D

Nothing to do with "slavish", but I just 'love' (said sarcastically) when HIGHLY TECHNICAL terms are used to explain a merely TECHNICAL term, which in itself may have used to explain something merely SIMPLE.

I've lost track of how many times I've had to look up an explanation of a definition or something else of that ilk....

Gobbledygook begets more gobbledygook.  Probably makes the user feel superior in some inferior way.

 

PS: Spellcheckers don't help without proper proofreading either.......

 

 

 

Edited by Bronze & Copper Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up another 1875 penny over the weekend - I believe Dies 8+H (Gouby Ja) F80. The question is do I keep this one, or the present incumbent in the subsequent post?

Here is the new one:

 

1875 D 8+H 5-horz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and this is the one currently holding the space:

 

1875 D 8+H 1-horz Red.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marginally more detail on your new one, Paddy. Most noticeable around. Britannia's head and helmet IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1949threepence said:

Marginally more detail on your new one, Paddy. Most noticeable around. Britannia's head and helmet IMO. 

Yes - I liked the better detail, but this is offset by the damage to the rim and below the bust...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paddy said:

Yes - I liked the better detail, but this is offset by the damage to the rim and below the bust...

 

Indeed, there is that. But then your first one looks as though there are some edge knocks as well, albeit not as glaring. 

At the end of the day it's a personal judgement call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paddy said:

I picked up another 1875 penny over the weekend - I believe Dies 8+H (Gouby Ja) F80. The question is do I keep this one, or the present incumbent in the subsequent post?

Here is the new one

You could keep both Paddy for the time being until a better specimen comes along. I don't collect pennies so I don't know your outlay

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't your new one, Britannia with the long neck hair, Gouby reverse J and your old one, with the short neck hair, reverse ja?  I tend to get confused as the bottle empties!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cliff said:

Isn't your new one, Britannia with the long neck hair, Gouby reverse J and your old one, with the short neck hair, reverse ja?  I tend to get confused as the bottle empties!

I am still battling with all these varieties, but as I understand it a reverse J (as opposed to Ja) on an 1875 penny would be an as yet unrecorded combination. This according to @secret santa 's website. So I would be delighted if one of them is a J! 😁

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, will1976 said:

You could keep both Paddy for the time being until a better specimen comes along. I don't collect pennies so I don't know your outlay

Yes I could keep both - but I already have a third 8+H in a lesser grade that I ought to move on! 

As to outlay, the new one cost me only £7 including commission, so I think I did OK either way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Paddy said:

I am still battling with all these varieties, but as I understand it a reverse J (as opposed to Ja) on an 1875 penny would be an as yet unrecorded combination. This according to @secret santa 's website. So I would be delighted if one of them is a J! 😁

 

Whooops - cap in hand, I've misread and misunderstood my Gouby, for which I apologize. I was going off the two different hair lengths your two 1875s 'appear' to have and jumping the gun.

img002 (2).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think you are getting confused Cliff and think your right to say they are two different reverse with the second one Ja.

Although that may mean we are both wrong :D

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cliff said:

Isn't your new one, Britannia with the long neck hair, Gouby reverse J and your old one, with the short neck hair, reverse ja?  I tend to get confused as the bottle empties!

They are both reverse ja - in my opinion, the long/short hair is a red herring and just happened to be shorter on the specimen that Michael Gouby  pictures in his book. On good specimens, the hair is only slightly shorter. For me the key differentiators are the size of the dome of the helmet (larger on ja) and the lower rear of the helmet (convex with a rim on ja).

1790665602_1874F72zoomj.JPG.19e6f29a67847240e2b3525b53fa8be7.JPG2020142662_1874F78zoomja.JPG.1cebab68e52cced577a43a353dd6a578.JPG

rev j on left; rev ja on right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, secret santa said:

They are both reverse ja - in my opinion, the long/short hair is a red herring and just happened to be shorter on the specimen that Michael Gouby  pictures in his book. On good specimens, the hair is only slightly shorter. For me the key differentiators are the size of the dome of the helmet (larger on ja) and the lower rear of the helmet (convex with a rim on ja).

1790665602_1874F72zoomj.JPG.19e6f29a67847240e2b3525b53fa8be7.JPG2020142662_1874F78zoomja.JPG.1cebab68e52cced577a43a353dd6a578.JPG

rev j on left; rev ja on right

Differences in the angle of throat and jaw are pretty obvious in those photos too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to learn as i have looked at a few of this reverse ( 1874 ) on the two pictures Paddy put up the second one is as i thought Ja.

The first picture of Paddys though i am still not sure and maybe i am getting it wrong and still think its J

The single plume on Ja is straight / thinner and falls downwards but on Paddys first picture it is slightly curved ?

I had also looked at both helmets and the hair and thought the first one was J ,only because the first picture the helmet looks off set rather than more upright and straight.

Edited by PWA 1967

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

×