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

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

Jon.............Can you please have a look at the reverse and tell me if its a large rose ,i assume the coin is W.W. ?

 

Pete.

Small rose Pete.

1858 over 9 (2).JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

An explanation of it being a 9 was given on this forum link by Michael Gouby back in 2009. Scroll down to last text:-

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=712566&STARTPAGE=1

 

Whilst I don't have an electron microscope (did actually use one on Apollo moon samples) this is the best picture I have of this overdate using my digital 140x 

 

 

1858 Best 8 Close Up.jpg

The twofold problem with that theory is:

1. If 1859 dies had already been prepared, why strengthen an 1858 die for continued use?

2. Even more problematic - how does this theory account for the projection out of the 8 (top right) which a 9 could not have accounted for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have the die cracks through the A, and between the O&R of VICTORIA.

1858 over 9 (1).JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As well as a 9 I think there was a 7 under there once as there is a pointy bit out of the top right of the 8. I suspect this die might have been recut more than once?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Now, with my anorak on, I did capture ebay images of every 1841 to 1860/59 penny listed on ebay, every day for a full 5 years. I am gradually compiling stats on varieties, but have yet to do this for the 1858 large rose pieces. These images were captured before the large rose variety started to become better known by collectors (i.e. after London Coins sold one in Fine 35 for £600 hammer at their June 2012 auction) so I think when I get round to doing these stats they will reflect the full population quite well. My memory is that there were around a half dozen of each of the two types sold on ebay in 5 years, and that none of them was advertised as such!

   

well done that will be a really great contribution I have about 80 1853's which I have been studying as part of my collection on copper pennies.  Let me know if you need any help there are some strange things going on with some of the legends 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Peckris said:

The twofold problem with that theory is:

1. If 1859 dies had already been prepared, why strengthen an 1858 die for continued use?

2. Even more problematic - how does this theory account for the projection out of the 8 (top right) which a 9 could not have accounted for?

could you please advise me what microscope camera you are using.  Are you a petrologist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Peckris said:

The twofold problem with that theory is:

1. If 1859 dies had already been prepared, why strengthen an 1858 die for continued use?

2. Even more problematic - how does this theory account for the projection out of the 8 (top right) which a 9 could not have accounted for?

there appears to be a lot of left sided compression on the strike flattening out the numerals is it possible the die has broken and the effect is created by metal caught up and lost 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

could you please advise me what microscope camera you are using.  Are you a petrologist?

I'm not - I'm looking at alfnail's big enlargement picture he posted, and I quoted.

Share this post


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

An explanation of it being a 9 was given on this forum link by Michael Gouby back in 2009. Scroll down to last text:-

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=712566&STARTPAGE=1

 

Whilst I don't have an electron microscope (did actually use one on Apollo moon samples) this is the best picture I have of this overdate using my digital 140x 

 

 

1858 Best 8 Close Up.jpg

would you be able to tell me what microscope and digital imaging device you are using please 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like perhaps an 8 over a 7 repunched with a second 8 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one which appears to be the same I always assumed it to be over a 7 however on this one there is less compression on the right side 

CM180705-113524010 (182x300).jpg

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just re-imaged mine upside down and the most interesting thing about it is that bulge on the lower part of the B which on the one I have quite clearly is defined with a continuance into the main part of the lower 8 to me it looks like a 3 under an 8 which might make some sense of the strange angle of the vertical on the right side which seems a little off for a 7 

 

note I have inverted the image 

CM180705-114715014.jpg

CM180705-114645012 (182x300).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one other intriguing thing is that I have a 58 where the 5 appears to be over a 3 with a small bulge in the lower loop of the 8 is it all all possible that the 8 is over a 9 and they reused the proof die for 1839 Penny ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

one other intriguing thing is that I have a 58 where the 5 appears to be over a 3 with a small bulge in the lower loop of the 8 is it all all possible that the 8 is over a 9 and they reused the proof die for 1839 Penny ? 

On the face of it, this might have some merit because 1839 proof sets were being produced long after 1839, so 1839 penny obverse dies were certainly available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes maybe but interestingly this one does not have a W.W on the trunk 

CM180705-120927015.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interestingly the 1 is over a much smaller 1 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks like a small flaw rather than an underlying character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rob said:

That looks like a small flaw rather than an underlying character. 

yes I think so too although there are some interesting features on the 5 at the top of this one and the smaller 8 has been moved and the small 1 

CM180705-124302020 (182x300).jpg

CM180705-124323021 (182x300).jpg

CM180705-124323021.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Rob said:

On the face of it, this might have some merit because 1839 proof sets were being produced long after 1839, so 1839 penny obverse dies were certainly available.

oh that is interesting , perhaps by this time they knew that the copper pennies were on their last legs as I think many questions had already been tabled in parliament about the state of the pennies in circulation perhaps using the proofs was reasonable to consider especially if by 1858 they had been considering changes to the metal? does anyone have the bronze proof in their collection?  what is the size of the 1 in the date is it small or the same size as the general population? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is circumstantial evidence for the 1839 proofs being issued up to the early 1880s because ESC 3249 (1738) is a 3rd young head sixpence with an 1839 reverse. The third young head was introduced in 1880. However, the mint equipment was upgraded in 1882 when the old Boulton & Watt presses were replaced. It's only conjecture, but there may have been a few sets of 1839 proofs issued prior to the refurbishment when the old dies may have become redundant - not being compatible with the new equipment? If so, the number made could possibly equal the number of these anomalous sixpences extant. ESC rates them as R5 (5-10 known), which is feasible.

In terms of the penny, it is therefore likely that 1839 dies were always available. The halfpenny proof die was replaced on at least 2 occasions, with both 39 over 41 & 39 over 43 known.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is circumstantial evidence for the 1839 proofs being issued up to the early 1880s because ESC 3249 (1738) is a 3rd young head sixpence with an 1839 reverse. The third young head was introduced in 1880. However, the mint equipment was upgraded in 1882 when the old Boulton & Watt presses were replaced. It's only conjecture, but there may have been a few sets of 1839 proofs issued prior to the refurbishment when the old dies may have become redundant - not being compatible with the new equipment? If so, the number made could possibly equal the number of these anomalous sixpences extant. ESC rates them as R5 (5-10 known), which is feasible.

In terms of the penny, it is therefore likely that 1839 dies were always available. The halfpenny proof die was replaced on at least 2 occasions, with both 39 over 41 & 39 over 43 known.

thanks for that 

Share this post


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

yes maybe but interestingly this one does not have a W.W on the trunk 

CM180705-120927015.jpg

That looks like a simple 'doubling' caused by recutting the date - my 1858 is exactly like that (though possibly without the protuberance on the 1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, DrLarry said:

could you please advise me what microscope camera you are using.  Are you a petrologist?

 

The digital microscope I use was bought around 4 years ago, so I expect there may be some better ones out there for similar price, but I haven't checked recently. You can see on the following link:-

https://www.dino-lite.eu/index.php/en/component/k2/item/2566-am4815ztl

P.S. You need a good stand as well to focus in accurately. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

The digital microscope I use was bought around 4 years ago, so I expect there may be some better ones out there for similar price, but I haven't checked recently. You can see on the following link:-

https://www.dino-lite.eu/index.php/en/component/k2/item/2566-am4815ztl

P.S. You need a good stand as well to focus in accurately. 

 

 

Video may be of interest, hope so.

I had a Firefly, now expired, was comparable with a Dino-Lite. Looking to purchase a new one. Might try one of these.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Video may be of interest, hope so.

I had a Firefly, now expired, was comparable with a Dino-Lite. Looking to purchase a new one. Might try one of these.

thanks for that it has many of the features I would like in the processing application 

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

×