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

Looks to me like the whole area around the date has been lightly ground, thus removing the H. Even so, I reckon I can still see the remnants of the H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like the whole area around the date has been lightly ground, thus removing the H. Even so, I reckon I can still see the remnants of the H.

Looking closely at the 2 and what possibly underlies it, I'm wondering if it's been 'dropped in' over (perhaps) an 8. But then again, that would be far more work than removing the H ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone can manage to open it with a picture editor, by changing the contrast and brightness you can highlight features which are otherwise hidden. (The reverse of removing contrast to hide faults).

Unfortunately I can save it but not open it with the microsoft picture editor to change these parameters, but if anyone knows a way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This coin has the wrong obverse (obv 12, not obv 11) showing that it cannot be Freeman 112 (the only verified 1882 no H type). In other words, it has the dies of the most common 1882-H suggesting that the mintmark may have been removed...

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lighting over the area where the H should be doesnt help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lighting over the area where the H should be doesnt help

That's why I said if anyone can save it and then open with a picture editor they can change the contrast which may reveal some detail. For some reason my image must corrupt when saving as it doesn't give the option to open with the editor, only firefox or word etc. :( This computer is on borrowed time. :angry: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lighting over the area where the H should be doesnt help

That's why I said if anyone can save it and then open with a picture editor they can change the contrast which may reveal some detail. For some reason my image must corrupt when saving as it doesn't give the option to open with the editor, only firefox or word etc. :( This computer is on borrowed time. :angry: .

Rob, try saving it with a different name, sometimes browsers will cache the picture and not show you the latest version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, some work, some don't. The problem seems to be the ones where the rectangular box comes up in the picture. The options would imply it's a link and not a picture, despite seeing an image. I'll have to enquire about manipulating the images as the drop down options have changed since the rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like the whole area around the date has been lightly ground, thus removing the H. Even so, I reckon I can still see the remnants of the H.

Looking closely at the 2 and what possibly underlies it, I'm wondering if it's been 'dropped in' over (perhaps) an 8. But then again, that would be far more work than removing the H ?

Yes I agree with clearly the last digit of a 1888 penny has been carved to look like a 2. It would be far more work but will look authentic as people will be focussed on finding the H as opposed to looking at the other possibility. Everyone is aware of the 'rubbing the H away' trick so here's a new technique that's becoming popular

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it was made to decive. Someone went to the extent of engineering the date as opposed to deleting the H.

A clever try but a bogus nonetheless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It fooled 7 bidders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely no amount of 'carving' can turn an 8 into a 2? Especially as the 2 is of good form. However the 2 is considerably lower than the correctly positioned original number , the top of which is visible as demonstrated above. It seems to me that this was a worn 'normal' 1882H reverse die with a clogged H and the number 2 was re-entered somewhat lower than correct alignment. And I did see a worn 1882 no H with the 'wrong' obverse at the Birmingham Coin Fair last week, and even under a 40x magnification could see no evidence of malpractice. I dont think all of these are fakes, simply that the tiny 'H' on the die clogged on occasion.

Jerry

Edited by jelida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1882 Jamaica penny is the same, the catalogues list a no H variety, but I've never seen a convincing one, given the total mintage recorded was just 48,000, I doubt the RM would bother, unless they were testing their newly installed equipment on cupronickel as well as bronze blanks. a clogged die is the most likely explanation.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately a different obverse die (Obv 11) was used on the genuine no H pennies, resulting in a unique 11+M die pairing for 1882 no H pennies, making schemes for removing the H mintmark unworkable when trying to deceive knowledgeable collectors. Since Obverses 11 and 12 are easily distinguished even on very worn coins, verifying no H pennies is straightforward if you simply examine the obverse.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately a different obverse die (Obv 11) was used on the genuine no H pennies, resulting in a unique 11+M die pairing for 1882 no H pennies, making schemes for removing the H mintmark unworkable when trying to deceive knowledgeable collectors. Since Obverses 11 and 12 are easily distinguished even on very worn coins, verifying no H pennies is straightforward if you simply examine the obverse.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

I've just been looking at Spink's photos of the Obv 11 and Obv 12 and I'm going mad trying to spot the differences, and that's on two high grade coins. What's the clincher that even works for worn specimens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately a different obverse die (Obv 11) was used on the genuine no H pennies, resulting in a unique 11+M die pairing for 1882 no H pennies, making schemes for removing the H mintmark unworkable when trying to deceive knowledgeable collectors. Since Obverses 11 and 12 are easily distinguished even on very worn coins, verifying no H pennies is straightforward if you simply examine the obverse.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

I've just been looking at Spink's photos of the Obv 11 and Obv 12 and I'm going mad trying to spot the differences, and that's on two high grade coins. What's the clincher that even works for worn specimens?

The B and R in BRITT will not touch, This is the clincher.

The next thing to look for is the nose which will be slightly hooked with the bulge present at 20% below the bridge of the nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn meant to say R and I will not touch at their base

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately a different obverse die (Obv 11) was used on the genuine no H pennies, resulting in a unique 11+M die pairing for 1882 no H pennies, making schemes for removing the H mintmark unworkable when trying to deceive knowledgeable collectors. Since Obverses 11 and 12 are easily distinguished even on very worn coins, verifying no H pennies is straightforward if you simply examine the obverse.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

September auction at London coins had a pretty convincing no H with an obverse 12 which was ex Seaby

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=146&l=2720&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=146&l=2720&f=o&s=l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at that however anyone think that an H looks there?

I saw this coin in the auction and it looked like a trace of the H was to be seen. I did bid on it though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the 2 in the date after looking again ?.Not sure about the coin ,but might be me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted 8 minutes ago

Prax, on 15 Jan 2015 - 5:07 PM, said:snapback.png

I looked at that however anyone think that an H looks there?

I saw this coin in the auction and it looked like a trace of the H was to be seen. I did bid on it though :P

I heard the same thing from another collector.-- who did not bid on it :o

Edited by Coppers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the pics there is certainly a hint of the 'H' left by the clogged die, I hope it didnt go for too much.......

Jerry

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

×