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

On 9/17/2021 at 9:54 AM, alfnail said:

........and here is the extra (11th) leaf in case weren't sure where to find it!!

1797 x 4Sized.jpg

LMAO. The extra (fig) leaf appears to be on the reverse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the unc 1882 F112 sell for £30,000 plus commission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Just watched the unc 1882 F112 sell for £30,000 plus commission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely no surprise whatsoever. Wonder if it stayed in the UK.

ETA: did you notice what the 1860/59 went for Richard? It was a very nice specimen.

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


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

Just watched the unc 1882 F112 sell for £30,000 plus commission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not surprised - it must be as rare as the 1933, if not rarer!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

ETA: did you notice what the 1860/59 went for Richard? It was a very nice specimen.

£4,500 plus commission

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Not surprised - it must be as rare as the 1933, if not rarer!

Definitely in that condition. Of course the great thing about it being in that mint state is that you know immediately the H hasn't been worn or tooled away.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Definitely in that condition. Of course the great thing about it being in that mint state is that you know immediately the H hasn't been worn or tooled away.   

Isn't it a unique die combination as well for an 1882 penny? Excuse my ignorance as I haven't got any coin book to hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Isn't it a unique die combination as well for an 1882 penny? Excuse my ignorance as I haven't got any coin book to hand.

It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway.  

yes, that would be a reassurance!

Share this post


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

It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway.  

But it can be difficult to distinguish exact obverse/reverse on very worn specimens.

Share this post


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

But it can be difficult to distinguish exact obverse/reverse on very worn specimens.

Very true, and if I recall correctly this has caused questions on here at some point as to the die pairing on an allegedly no H 1882.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I remember that too- so there is definitely only one pairing for the 'No H' type?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that is dogma, but I really am not all that sure of it - However, I must bow to the true experts here. 

Personally I do not understand why another die or set of dies might not have been employed for a few. Also, in that there are very "weak H" coins out there would it not be possible that there are some where there is absolutely no sign even under magnification of an "H"? As readers know, this is precisely what happened with some of the 1922 D cents from the USA where there were weak and then also absent mint marks that are collected as 1922 "Plain" specimens....

Share this post


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

You know, that is dogma, but I really am not all that sure of it - However, I must bow to the true experts here. 

Personally I do not understand why another die or set of dies might not have been employed for a few. Also, in that there are very "weak H" coins out there would it not be possible that there are some where there is absolutely no sign even under magnification of an "H"? As readers know, this is precisely what happened with some of the 1922 D cents from the USA where there were weak and then also absent mint marks that are collected as 1922 "Plain" specimens....

On the other hand, if the only "no H " specimens that aren’t that die combination are extremely worn, then it's too much of a coincidence to think that no better example exists anywhere; I'm happy to believe the H on these has worn right away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, I remember that too- so there is definitely only one pairing for the 'No H' type?

hmmm....well...probably, but in essence the jury's still out. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peck, I have in the past seen a couple of specimens in VF(ish) condition that had absolutely no sign of "H", even under 5x magnification. To find even the anointed type in VF is as you know a very rare occurrence.

Share this post


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

Very true, and if I recall correctly this has caused questions on here at some point as to the die pairing on an allegedly no H 1882. 

An 1882 F115 with apparently no H was sold by London Coins in 2014

659448354_1882F115noHrev.jpg.f05a11ff8c517925dc76537eb1b22a5e.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

An 1882 F115 with apparently no H was sold by London Coins in 2014

659448354_1882F115noHrev.jpg.f05a11ff8c517925dc76537eb1b22a5e.jpg

That may well have been the one we discussed. There's certainly no trace whatever of any underlying disturbance. 

Another interesting question arising, is whether the no H pennies were produced at the London Mint. Or at the Heaton Mint and one or two errant dies minus the H were produced, but given the extreme rarity, quickly identified. Or maybe both for different reasons. One intentional, the other an accidental omission.

Share this post


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

That may well have been the one we discussed. There's certainly no trace whatever of any underlying disturbance. 

Another interesting question arising, is whether the no H pennies were produced at the London Mint. Or at the Heaton Mint and one or two errant dies minus the H were produced, but given the extreme rarity, quickly identified. Or maybe both for different reasons. One intentional, the other an accidental omission.

Peck thought the RM produced them in December of that year, as the Mint had been closed for 10 months from Feb for reconstruction, as a small issue to "tide over till the following year".

Share this post


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

An 1882 F115 with apparently no H was sold by London Coins in 2014

659448354_1882F115noHrev.jpg.f05a11ff8c517925dc76537eb1b22a5e.jpg

If you stare at the space below the two eights long enough I do see a boxlike section. Could be my imagination !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this is NOT a no ' H '...

If one inverts the image to a negative (often a good way of revealing hidden detail) IMO there is a definite vestige of an H - either removed or not struck up well due to die fill. Does anyone have pictures of the two specimens @VickySilver mentions above? Surely VF condition would be good enough to be conclusive?

 

image.jpeg

Share this post


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

Peck thought the RM produced them in December of that year, as the Mint had been closed for 10 months from Feb for reconstruction, as a small issue to "tide over till the following year".

I thought these were a famous Peck "miss" ? Certainly not in his original book - 1882 he logs as numbers 1726 - 1729 and all have an H mint mark. Or did he pass comment in a later work??

Share this post


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

I thought these were a famous Peck "miss" ? Certainly not in his original book - 1882 he logs as numbers 1726 - 1729 and all have an H mint mark. Or did he pass comment in a later work??

My 1970 edition contains the numbers you mention. No mention of missing H and I don't think there's a later edition ?

  • 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

×