More Pennies

[Bernie 188]

The trident shaft is not as doubled where it touches the leg.

[bhx7 222]

Could the double strike not have spread the coin further than the norm? Just a thought.

[Paulus 1,942]

Apropo of nothing, April Fool's day is still a week away ... 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Paulus

[PWA 1967 1,841]

I have logged on hoping someone had some kind of answer .

Some ideas are better than none.

Hope you find an answer that you are happy with Matt as think if it were mine would start doing my head in 

[IanB 175]

 I have a theory on this and it may well be wrong. I think it may be an apprentices test piece. Made oversize as they learn the process of manufacture. Other types of apprentices do similar things but in reverse, furniture makers make half size models to test them. However as a coin is small to begin with it would make sense for the apprentice to make it larger when learning.

The double stamping would not have stretched it, if it had Britannia would be double struck with one figure smaller than the other whearas the reverse is clearly rotated by a few degrees. There is more rotation the further away from the centre hence less error at the point where the trident touches the leg. Also both sides would have been effected if double stamping had made it bigger.

it is possibly thinner because they somehow used a standard size blank which would have had to have made slightly larger before being stamped.

just a theory imo

 

[Nordle11 564]

I like the theory Ian, it's something to think about. I think as Pete suggested I will get round to sending it to the RM one day and see what they say. When I do find anything out I'll update you all. 

[Bernie 188]

Another thing, why is the coin worn, if it were struck that size, I am certain that someone early in its life would have noticed it and it would have been kept in better condition.

It would not have fitted in any chewing gum machines !

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Thats a good point and yes i think someone would of put it away before it got to that stage 

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

19 hours ago, InforaPenny said:

Probably repeatedly passed through rollers between pieces of leather to gradually flatten it out. I seem to remember a similar Australian penny mentioned in Australian Coin Review from many years ago...

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

 

I seem to remember reading somewhere that coins were sometimes placed between pieces of leather and pressure applied either by repetitive hammer strokes, steady pressure,  etc....  it would both enlarge and flatten them a bit ..... 

I'm not sure whether this could also account for the apparent doubling. I do seem to remember something about this procedure inducing a sort of ghost doubling on one side of the coin.....

Just throwing this into the mix from memory... I can't locate any documentation on this process; just what I think I remember a dealer explaining to me 35+ years ago when showing me a similar coin....  I may be off in another universe with this, but maybe it will jog someone else's  memory....

 

[Rob 3,002]

On 27/02/2016 at 9:26 AM, Prax said:

8 hours ago, IanB said:

8 hours ago, IanB said:

8 hours ago, IanB said:

 I have a theory on this and it may well be wrong. I think it may be an apprentices test piece. Made oversize as they learn the process of manufacture. Other types of apprentices do similar things but in reverse, furniture makers make half size models to test them. However as a coin is small to begin with it would make sense for the apprentice to make it larger when learning.

The double stamping would not have stretched it, if it had Britannia would be double struck with one figure smaller than the other whearas the reverse is clearly rotated by a few degrees. There is more rotation the further away from the centre hence less error at the point where the trident touches the leg. Also both sides would have been effected if double stamping had made it bigger.

it is possibly thinner because they somehow used a standard size blank which would have had to have made slightly larger before being stamped.

just a theory imo

 

 I have a theory on this and it may well be wrong. I think it may be an apprentices test piece. Made oversize as they learn the process of manufacture. Other types of apprentices do similar things but in reverse, furniture makers make half size models to test them. However as a coin is small to begin with it would make sense for the apprentice to make it larger when learning.

The double stamping would not have stretched it, if it had Britannia would be double struck with one figure smaller than the other whearas the reverse is clearly rotated by a few degrees. There is more rotation the further away from the centre hence less error at the point where the trident touches the leg. Also both sides would have been effected if double stamping had made it bigger.

it is possibly thinner because they somehow used a standard size blank which would have had to have made slightly larger before being stamped.

just a theory imo

 

 I have a theory on this and it may well be wrong. I think it may be an apprentices test piece. Made oversize as they learn the process of manufacture. Other types of apprentices do similar things but in reverse, furniture makers make half size models to test them. However as a coin is small to begin with it would make sense for the apprentice to make it larger when learning.

The double stamping would not have stretched it, if it had Britannia would be double struck with one figure smaller than the other whearas the reverse is clearly rotated by a few degrees. There is more rotation the further away from the centre hence less error at the point where the trident touches the leg. Also both sides would have been effected if double stamping had made it bigger.

it is possibly thinner because they somehow used a standard size blank which would have had to have made slightly larger before being stamped.

just a theory imo

 

Pete it was listed as 1861 5+G (R18) and no one seemed interested at 99p

Presumably, everybody who needed one already had one, or more likely couldn't live with it they bought it. I have no idea on the numbers available, but presume a few are known, guaranteed to be in better grade. I've fallen for that one myself in the past - buying something because it seemed too cheap

Not sure what's happening with these replies which seem to be in quadruplicate as I write, but IanB might be onto something. When the designs are first made, it is done on something the size of a dinner plate after which it is reduced. There is nothing to stop a piece of intermediate size being made. Keeping an open mind, it might be kosher.

[bhx7 222]

Hi Folks, Got caught up with this one as I thought it maybe a 1911 Gouby X. Is it or isn't it........was it a member who bought it?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1911-George-V-penny-nice-grade-/131755723944?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEDWX%3AIT&nma=true&si=zg2d9oCe7BASOeGejSRm3tYA4ms%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Really curious but out of funds for a chance buy!!!

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Squinting to see Brian 

But doesnt look it.

[RLC35 288]

I'm with Pete, I don't think it is a Gouby-X.

[declanwmagee 122]

I had a look at that one too - for the same reason!

 

Concluded the same though...I don't think so.  The I of IMP is easier to see on the photo than the I of BRITT. 

[bhx7 222]

Glad I wasn't the only person looking!! I thought the I to BRITT looked fairly close but wasn't 100%. Couldn't make out the I to IMP. Also I did note looking at many of the other Gouby X that the colons after IMP seems to point to a space which it seemed too, but maybe wrong. Glad though as I don't feel as gutted now

[scott 129]

ahh that thing... I thought it wasn't.. then squinted at it made it look it..

it isn't though, I was tempted to buy it.. but not at 20+ quid. especially as i spend a fair bit on some early milled varieties recently

[Nordle11 564]

I'm with Declan, I of IMP is easier to see. Definitely just a normal variety though. 

[scott 129]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131345546693?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2648&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

what about this one then?

[declanwmagee 122]

 I of IMP is easier to see again - always worth checking them though - the only one I've ever had was unattributed.  I wasn't the only person to spot it, but I got it for a decent price.  I think it went to Bob  (rlc35) in the end if I remember rightly...

[scott 129]

is there not a slightly flatter O in the Gouby X?

Edited March 25, 2016 by scott

[Nonmortuus 848]

I was watching it as well but didnt bid for the reasons above

[Nordle11 564]

Normal one again. Not sure about the flatter O maybe it's just down to most examples being worn.

[declanwmagee 122]

Which O, Scott?

 

Here's the one I had once...

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Thats been around declan as i bought that off Bob 

[declanwmagee 122]

Oh that's brilliant, Pete!  Do you still have it, or has it moved on...?

 

Nice to know where a coin has been on its travels!