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

"With no precise record of the number minted, and with the coin having been struck to ordinary circulation standard, it is entirely possible that one might turn up in everyday use."

One wonders what the "everyday use" of a predecimal penny might be, let alone one dated 1933..

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2022 at 11:26 PM, Peckris 2 said:

"With no precise record of the number minted, and with the coin having been struck to ordinary circulation standard, it is entirely possible that one might turn up in everyday use."

One wonders what the "everyday use" of a predecimal penny might be, let alone one dated 1933..

Everyday use of a pre decimal penny

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thoughts please. There is also a raised line crossing the bottom loop just below half way - just visible. Intriguingly it stops halfway across the left hand section of the loop

WIN_20220330_15_44_01_Pro.jpg

Edited by Rob

Share this post


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

Thoughts please. There is also a raised line crossing the bottom loop just below half way - just visible. Intriguingly it stops halfway across the left hand section of the loop

 

No idea what the raised line you refer to is, but the coin is certainly is an 1858/?

Some say it's an 8/9, others an 8/3.

Not attributed by Peck, but Bramah (page 107) describes as follows:-

Quote

25c. ALTERED DATE.    O - As the obv . of No 25 but the last figure of date has been altered, though it is not obvious from what. At left base of 8 is a knob , like the lower terminal of a 3 or a 5, protruding slightly inside the loop. Higher, inside same loop, are two dots, as the remains of a line. But on right side of 8, between its loops, is a shallow vertical stroke, irreconcilable with a 3 or a 5.  

This type is not especially rare, although I've never yet made out the two dots referred to. The knob and vertical line are clearly very obvious.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'll defer to those better acquainted with the series and its intricacies.

However, although it defies conventional wisdom and logic, to me at least, it looks most like a 8/9.

Much as Bramah states (in extrapolation), the most likely source of the line to the right between the upper and lower loops of the 8 would be an underlying 9.  The knob within the lower loop on the left side, although potentially from either a 3 or a 5, could also be from a 9. The slight curved line within the upper loop lower right side, could be from a 3, but also and to me, more likely a 9.

A strange conundrum to have an earlier year recut over a later year, yet not impossible.

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Edited by Bronze & Copper Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a 9 to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a thought but could it not be a fault with the 8 punch and not an underlying digit at all.

If all the old dies had been used up, to meet the unforeseen delay prior to change over to bronze, a hastily made or altered 8 punch could create the anomaly directly on to a new die?

Just throwing it out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well known variety but no decisive/definitive description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my vote would be for a 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping someone might have come to a conclusion since it was last discussed.

The first thing I had considered in hand was a 4 as a possibility based on relief, but looking from multiple angles I am on balance still inclined to the halfpenny 9 punch theory. In the absence of the right digital skill set for drawing lines and annotating, I'll print off a picture and mark it up to demonstrate what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red lines are commensurate with a 4, purple with a 9.

img461.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a comparison between this 8 and a halfpenny 9. It's a very good fit, particularly the distance between the knob and the arc at the top inside the lower loop.

DSC_0007-2-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d have to go with some kind of 4 involvement myself. Is there any way of ruling out (or in) any of the theories by looking back over the dies with regards to that distinctive bead below the 5?

Share this post


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

And a comparison between this 8 and a halfpenny 9. It's a very good fit, particularly the distance between the knob and the arc at the top inside the lower loop.

DSC_0007-2-2.jpg

The 4 is much more up for debate in your example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

IMO and having looked at plenty its been corrected / repaired / overstruck more than once on some ,so there are different types having the bit within the bottom loop of the nine.

I havent got any pictures but the one coutesy of Michael goubys site appears different than Robs above ,it does not look to have the straight line to the right of the loops.

So what appears to look like something on one coin may not on another and thats why i think nobody has been able to give a definative attribution.

 

CP1858over9.gif

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Only a thought but could it not be a fault with the 8 punch and not an underlying digit at all.

If all the old dies had been used up, to meet the unforeseen delay prior to change over to bronze, a hastily made or altered 8 punch could create the anomaly directly on to a new die?

Just throwing it out there.

Yes i agree that it could just be a broken 8 on some possibly overstruck but not hard enough at a slightly different angle.

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


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

This type is not especially rare, although I've never yet made out the two dots referred to. The knob and vertical line are clearly very obvious.    

Hi Mike, I think that it references the protrusion highlighted in the pictures on this thread from January last year. It was when I also thought, like Rob, that the top of the underneath numeral/s looked like a 4. There are also some other high-definition pictures on that thread which may be a useful reference for some members.

1858/3 Penny - British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries - British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always the option of an 1854 die filled and recut with a 9 punch before the mistake was recognised and corrected with an 8. That would keep everyone happy. :ph34r:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Hi Mike, I think that it references the protrusion highlighted in the pictures on this thread from January last year. It was when I also thought, like Rob, that the top of the underneath numeral/s looked like a 4. There are also some other high-definition pictures on that thread which may be a useful reference for some members.

1858/3 Penny - British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries - British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

 

Hi Ian - yes that was a really interesting, if still totally inconclusive discussion. 

I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to keep all options on the table, even the improbable. When you already have 8/2, 8/3, 8/6 and 8/7 as accepted variants, there is nothing to exclude the possibility of 8/4 and 8/5 also coming into the equation. At a time when they were clearly reusing every available die, it is also not inconceivable that an 1840s obverse could have been repurposed if they found one.

Probably not relevant if all they wanted to keep was an example of the ww and no ww dies, but FWIW Hocking only lists the 18- die and an 1859.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1860/59 clearly has the zero over the narrow date style of numeral 9, as the 'overlay' picture (RHS) below demonstrates; perhaps the same style of numeral 9 was also used for 1858's.

Bearing in mind that no 1858 overdates are seen on type without WW, doesn't this imply that it must be a 9/8....... not an 8/9? Several have mentioned 8/9, but wouldn't an over-dated 1859 already have the WW on the truncation?  

 

1860 over 1859 Narrow Style of 9 DNW.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the fact it is impossible to reconcile some overpunches, even the seemingly impossible/improbable cannot be ruled out. If the wrong punch was used, you could get any possible combination in any year as any punch (including letters) could be used. Most of the time the correct character punch would inevitably be used, but this can't be guaranteed. e.g. a 9 instead of an 8 is only a case of picking a punch from the adjacent bin, or choosing one that was replaced in the wrong bin. All options must be on the table.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ok Smith. Time to start work on the punches for 1859."

[A little later ]

"Damn. Sorry Guv'nor, I've used the halfpenny 9 in error"

"Ah. Well, overpunch with an 8, no-one will notice. At least, not for 150 years."

[A little later ]

"Looks all right. Go ahead and use it. Oh, and there's some unused 1854 dies - use it on those if you have to. And then start work on the 1859 punches but don't mess it up this time."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I'd heard about this before, but couldn't remember where or when. It concerns the rumour, started in the late 19th century, that a gold ingot had been accidentally added to the metal mix for the 1864 penny blanks, and that consequently some 1864 pennies had gold in them. It became a craze which spread over to as late as 1907. David Pickup wrote an excellent article about it in the July 2021 edition of Coin News, if anyone is interested in reading about it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was the 1875 Heaton penny? Regardless, I like the 1864s even without micro-varietals......

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

×