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

3 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Just a quick question. Would this be considered to be an open 3?

Bottom looks right but top is not as open as Freeman's illustration.

Bob.

IMG_20210503_225055.jpg

In my opinion, that is not a open 3. The bottom of the 3 curls upward too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RLC35 said:

In my opinion, that is not a open 3. The bottom of the 3 curls upward too much.

You are correct Bob its not an open 3 both the top and bottom are not right and just a normal one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all. Maybe one day......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RLC35 said:

In my opinion, that is not a open 3. The bottom of the 3 curls upward too much.

IMHO, Absolutely correct.

NOT an open 3

Share this post


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

You are correct Bob its not an open 3 both the top and bottom are not right and just a normal one.

Correct, neither upper or lower curve of the 3 would be considered to be open..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Just a quick question. Would this be considered to be an open 3?

Bottom looks right but top is not as open as Freeman's illustration.

Bob.

IMG_20210503_225055.jpg

Bottom of the 1 sort of wraps around the tooth below it on the Open 3.

403035699_1903F158AOpen3zoomedited.jpg.08c39c015b430dabaa6e80011233e212.jpg

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

 

Also...the top leg of the 3 should point to the the upper part of the zero!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, secret santa said:

 

Is that your Open 3? Very rare indeed in high grades!

Share this post


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

Is that your Open 3?

Yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know this topic has been discussed before, but I'm returning to it from a slightly different angle. Although this too has probably been examined at some point, as well.

I'm referring to the 1897 dot penny O.NE.

I've now got two, and the dots, whilst perfectly symmetrical in both cases, differ considerably in size. The larger one is typical of most that are seen. Whilst the smaller one is much less obvious. 

I really must get some photographic equipment which does close ups. But in the meantime, these two pics are reasonably adequate in showing what I mean. 

So the bottom line is whether the dot was an intentional mint mark, or was it in fact a die problem which grew?

 

 

small dot 1 CROPPED.jpg

LARGER DOT CROPPED.jpg

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So the bottom line is whether the dot was an intentional mint mark, or was it in fact a die problem which grew?

Or, being incuse on the working die, a cavity that gradually filled ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, secret santa said:

Or, being incuse on the working die, a cavity that gradually filled ?

Actually, that's the most plausible theory of all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opposite thinking there, i like the cavity fill theory too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dentist collects pennies. I'll ask him.

(He'll probably use Fuji 9.)

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be some mechanical/metallurgical reason as to why the dots stay circular, but I have no idea what that is....

Share this post


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

There must be some mechanical/metallurgical reason as to why the dots stay circular, but I have no idea what that is....

An enigmatic mystery......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This phenomena begins with a circular ring of rust at the surface of a steel die formed due to corrosion at the edge of a tiny circular water droplet on the die. As this progresses it results in a circular ‘dot’ of rust on the surface of the die, which is pulverized and lost as the die is used in the coining press leaving a round pit. This shows up on the coin as a circular raised dot.

The process has been documented in an article by Paul M. Holland in the Journal of the Numismatic Association of Australia, volume 27, 2016, pages 1-6.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn!   I like enigmatic mysteries!!!!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Anybody here spot this? Sadly pulled after only a day, a reasonable example.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224454520580?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

Jerry

A cannon ball - no, completely missed it. Wonder if someone contacted the seller privately to make an offer.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Meanwhile, this was posted on facebook. I think it's a Gouby Ad, possibly even wider?

 

incredibly wide 6.jpg

incredibly wide 6 two.jpg

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey, I've never known it so quiet in here. You can almost see the tumbleweed drifting across the screen. So I'll take this opportunity to ask a question. I did ask it once before, but I don't think anybody noticed it.

Both Peck & Bramah both say that the 1860 over 59 was "never issued for circulation". All 32,256 of them. I don't see how this assertion can possibly be factually correct. If they were never issued for circulation, how come a) they weren't melted down, and b) the public managed to get access to them?

It just doesn't make sense - or is there something very obvious I'm missing?

Meanwhile........

 

 

  

 

tumbleweed.gif

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

the 1860 over 59 was "never issued for circulation".

I've never seen a specimen well worn through circulation as per every other date so that must mean something ? Although, if the bronze coins were issued soon after, maybe they wouldn't have circulated for very long anyway.

So, actually, I've added nothing of value to the debate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I've never seen a specimen well worn through circulation as per every other date so that must mean something ? Although, if the bronze coins were issued soon after, maybe they wouldn't have circulated for very long anyway.

So, actually, I've added nothing of value to the debate.

I would postulate that a handful were tucked away by collectors, taken from circulation. Just as the people today will collect anything about to be demonetised or superseded for whatever reason, so it is likely the same applied in 1860 - collectors' habits haven't changed. If you have a small number (32K) of 60/59 coppers out of the millions circulating from previous years, that had done the rounds for a few months until the bronze version appeared, I would suggest - cue an instant 'I'd better keep one of these' from collectors who would be the most likely to spot and keep for posterity and you have a small population of preserved but slightly worn 1860/59s. Assuming that the copper pennies were withdrawn as soon as they could be replaced, it would soon remove the majority from circulation. The fact that they were demonetised in 1869 does not mean that there were no withdrawals prior to this date. More likely is that they would be replaced at a rate approximating to the value issued, and that would likely have started immediately after the bronze coins entered circulation. The copper would probably be used for the bronze alloy needed.

Edited by Rob
  • Like 1

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

×