1899 Crown - Confused dot com

[Paulus 1,942]

I am in the process of upgrading my Viccy old head crown type from the coin on the left to the coin on the right. Nowhere can i see reference to a horse with a closed mouth vs an open mouth, any thoughts??

By nowhere, I mean not in any reference material that I have, i.e. Spink, Groom, Rayner & CCGB

Here is the comparison, have I got a fake lurking?

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paulus

[Garrett 76]

I can only draw one conclusion .....

ha haha ha ha

Sorry - another warm afternoon here....

cheers

Garrett

[Coinery 926]

Good spot, Paul! I can only presume 2 things, as it doesn't look suspect to me? What's the milling and weight like?

I'd say it might be a clog in the die, OR, maybe you've found something new! I don't recall reading about an open-mouth horse before.

Haven't you got the silver bible, Paul? I didn't see Davies in your list? I'm not home to check mine at the moment!

[Paulus 1,942]

Good spot, Paul! I can only presume 2 things, as it doesn't look suspect to me? What's the milling and weight like?

I'd say it might be a clog in the die, OR, maybe you've found something new! I don't recall reading about an open-mouth horse before.

Haven't you got the silver bible, Paul? I didn't see Davies in your list? I'm not home to check mine at the moment!

Not mentioned in Davies either, don't know why I left it out earlier as I had checked it! It's probably nothing, looking at images online some 'appear' to have an open mouth and others do not, milling and weight check out.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paulus

[Coinery 926]

Good spot, Paul! I can only presume 2 things, as it doesn't look suspect to me? What's the milling and weight like?

I'd say it might be a clog in the die, OR, maybe you've found something new! I don't recall reading about an open-mouth horse before.

Haven't you got the silver bible, Paul? I didn't see Davies in your list? I'm not home to check mine at the moment!

Not mentioned in Davies either, don't know why I left it out earlier as I had checked it! It's probably nothing, looking at images online some 'appear' to have an open mouth and others do not, milling and weight check out.

Surely if some have an open mouth and some do not, that would surely make for a variety, especially as the old coinage of Victoria is moving into the precision age of milling? Less obvious details make for a variety. Even as a 'clog' it would make for a variety, if you've already spotted a number of other open-mouthed horses in a brief Internet search?

[Rob 3,000]

If the gap between the top and bottom lip broke off on the die, it would then look closed. What is the ratio of open to closed? A small number of 'closed' mouths would indicate die damage in all probability. What are the figures for other dates? If you see significant numbers of both types, there may be two horse punches, which would have to go down as a variety.

[Coinery 926]

I can't see that as being two punches to be honest?

Which horse is the norm on the early dates?

Even if a broken die; with such a transforming and notable difference, I'd bet it would go into the books as a variety! Lesser differences are fought for in the auctions all the time.

But, as is mentioned, replication and statistics would be an interesting starting point.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Coinery

[Paulus 1,942]

If the gap between the top and bottom lip broke off on the die, it would then look closed. What is the ratio of open to closed? A small number of 'closed' mouths would indicate die damage in all probability. What are the figures for other dates? If you see significant numbers of both types, there may be two horse punches, which would have to go down as a variety.

I guess I am reluctant to even conceive of the idea that I might have spotted something that countless others have not, in over 100 years of microscopic examinations! But I suppose this is how varieties can come to light over time!

I will study on-line images a bit more scientifically, perhaps we can have a straw poll on this forum?

Does your Viccy old head crown horse's mouth look like this ('open' or perhaps 'no tongue or bit')

or this ('closed' or 'with tongue or bit')?

I have looked at about 30 so far (1897-1900), the ratio of open to closed in that small sample is about 3:1

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paulus

[sound 25]

Paulus,

Suggestion. Ring the Royal Mint and ask to be put through to the museum. They are very helpful.

Mark

[Rob 3,000]

I'm not sure they would be that helpful. Hocking only lists an 1893 crown together with the 1893 matrix, punch and die. Nothing later.

Just a thought, but what do you see on the 1902 crown. There must be literally thousands of images of these available to do the same checks, and the horse punch is likely to be the same as used in 1899.

[Paulus 1,942]

I will give that a try Mark, thanks for the suggestion. The more I look at examples, the more clear cut it seems to be - they really are one or the other!

[PWA 1967 1,841]

The bit now shows on both pictures and just the tongue that is missing.

[Paulus 1,942]

I'm not sure they would be that helpful. Hocking only lists an 1893 crown together with the 1893 matrix, punch and die. Nothing later.

Just a thought, but what do you see on the 1902 crown. There must be literally thousands of images of these available to do the same checks, and the horse punch is likely to be the same as used in 1899.

I thought of that Rob, and have been looking at those too. So far, I have only seen 'open-mouthed' examples, i.e. with tongue and/or bit missing, as below:

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paulus

[azda 973]

Here's my 1887 Open mouth horsey

[Rob 3,000]

Gut feeling is that it is a bit fallen off the die in that year.I don't know how many dies were used or the numbers struck, but would think that survival rates are going to be the same across the board for all dies. A census would be meaningful. What would almost certainly tie it down to a damaged die would be zero examples from other years.

[Coinery 926]

Which does look like a broken die then! Unless a die was subtly altered as some kind of mint study or experiment?

[Paulus 1,942]

The only 'closed mouth' examples I have found so far have been from 1899 and 1900.

Here's a 1900 sold through DNW:

Anyone got an 'open mouth' 1900?

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paulus

[Rob 3,000]

The profile of the closed bit looks to be different for the two images you have posted, which would imply by damage rather than design. The one immediately above slopes out towards the bottom of the mouth, but the first one slopes in.

[Paulus 1,942]

I'm sure you're right Rob, I find it impossible to think that it was by design, yet remains unlisted/unrecorded. Nonetheless, I find it surprising that there is no mention of it that I can find, given that the 'damage' changes the appearance of affected examples so noticeably!

Seems to me that a lot of Viccy penny 'varieties' are down to damage rather than design ...

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paulus

[Coinery 926]

That could be shadow on Paul's first example? If not, and you're right, Rob, then surely that would rule out accidental damage, as the 1900 example would've required the missing part of the die to partially repair itself, for want of a better word?

Just to really mix it up, could the different sloping mouths (if it's not a shadow) make for three intentional reverse dies? No tongue, down-sloping tongue, up-sloping tongue?

Or should I say, matrix?

Edited April 4, 2015 by Coinery

[Paulus 1,942]

The 2 1899 'closed' mouth pics I posted are not the same coin

Here are 4 examples side by side for ease, there are many many more out there. The first 2 are 1899, the second 2 are 1900:

[Rob 3,000]

If you consider the die, where the open mouth is requires a raised sharp angled point. This could break off leading to a variety of angles within the mouth, level with the end of the mouth or even impinging on the field, though the latter is less likely because you have a large area of unworked metal.

I'm still going for a bit falling off because it would be surrounded by quite a depression making it more susceptible to damage.

[Coinery 926]

The 2 1899 'closed' mouth pics I posted are not the same coin

Here are 4 examples side by side for ease, there are many many more out there. The first 2 are 1899, the second 2 are 1900:

Which rules out a broken die in my opinion. This is surely an intentional design adjustment, possibly for the purpose of some kind of audit or other?

[Coinery 926]

Is the '99 tongue straight-edged, ie sloping fully upwards to the top lip? Or is it more pointed in profile? The shadow makes it hard to tell.

[Coinery 926]

It would certainly depend on that profile of the '99 Rob I agree. Big shadowless pictures!