All Activity

You will have difficulty finding any die detail specific to the Heaton mint other than the letter ‘H’ as the working dies were prepared at the Royal Mint from their master dies and sent to Birmingham for striking. The Heaton mint did not develop their own dies. And don’t confuse differences due to die wear, depth of strike, clashed dies etc as differing varieties. It’s a potential minefield. Jerry

No, you need to expand the image in my post again. The point I was making is there are all kinds of bobbles and bumps in the fields of these coins. Also, I too can see an H, but feel it’s just a collection of anomalies that create the illusion of one. This probably represents the view of quite a percentage of those who said they could see one, which likely puts the percentile well into the NO camp. 😉 As you allude to, there are some very high-calibre and serious penny collectors on this forum (I’m not one of them), so you’ll be in very good company with your intensity and approach to all this. Enjoyable post, thank you!

Thats the arrow highlighting the location of the H Thats's what caught my eye when I purchased it, then I noticed what I thought was a H. You are not alone its currently 50/50 split decision. Thanks

Good result. Well done.

The more I look at examples, I am more convinced that the position of Britannia's foot is another marker, and like the shield, it is always much closer to the teeth than on regular/low tide.

Currently it's a split decision. An equal amount of people say they see a H and the same amount say no H. Respectively the opinion of the members here I value to be of higher credence however I will remain on the fence until I have completed my search for an identifiable die characteristic unique to Heaton coins. If nothing else it's a great learning experience for me and a good reason to learn to look closely at details, going forward I will need those skills. I have spent a good few hours and found some differences between F82 and F85 on some coins, each time I find a consistant different detail I then find a coin in between the two or find an example which proves the theory incorrect. Part of my issue when trying to corroborate apparent differences is the inconsistant grade and or photos of different coins I'm looking at. If I had 20 uncirculated F82s and 20 F85s with photos taken under the same conditions would probably be more decisive. It's a challenge out of interest rather than simply going against opinion. Up until now I have only been studying the reverse, I will check the obverse to see if I can find any consistant differences between Heaton and London die pairings for 8+J This coin was not purchased as F85 and it was purchased cheap, already the purchase has provided me with hours of interest and learning about grade and scrutinizing details.

First thing i clocked as soon as i saw it. It's in high relief all over. It's what OP says it is in my opinion. Nice find. Stu.

Great Collections has responded to me, and accolades to them for being receptive and ethical.

Thanks, Gary Edit: wow, what a ride. It ended sort of unresolved regarding your pursuit of PCGS putting up more than obfuscating language counter to known history of beaded borders. But no response is also a response.

On a relatively high grade penny like that, the H would show strongly. What you've got there is a ghostly anomaly, and I'd agree - no H

Link to the thread about the farthing mule

Definitely NOT an H. As you can see from Secret Santa's post above too, the H if present is smaller than the smudge/toning/anomaly you have where the H would be. Many times we all wish the presence of something and convince ourselves from a humble picture that a smudge or blob just might be the magic thing! I myself must have bought over the years half a dozen 1863 pennies with "something" perhaps below the date which just might possibly have been a die number with a fair wind behind. Needless to say of course, none of them were!!

Thanks, I dont have a clue what I'm talking about hence me posting here about it. One thought I had if the 5 is manually added or punched would that account for variation in the position of the 5. Please see the following image.

New variety. Hah!

I'm honestly expecting to be ignored or given nonsense form responses. I am hoping GC is responsive, and applies pressure to PCGS to be accountable. Other examples (from NGC) earlier in this thread were on eBay, not much leverage there, but this is a bit different.

I would say it's an F82. The figure 5 is more upright on the 1875H.

Good luck, Some members might remember the fiasco of PCGS misattributing an uncirculated 1860 Mule farthing. PCGS would not admit that the slightly separated teeth, a known issue and mentioned in catalogs and guidebooks, were not round beads. They covered themselves by identifying it as a new variety, midway between teeth and beads. It will be interesting to see what their response is. Probably just call it a clerical labeling error.

I noticed that Britannia's foot is also closer to the denticles on the High Tide. Obviously the tides are different, even if i did not scale the pictures exactly the same. Using the two PCGS examples, both correctly, and (IMO) incorrectly attributed.

Also sent more pics

Here is what I plan to send to PCGS I believe this coin to be improperly attributed as High Tide/ High Sea Level https://www.pcgs.com/cert/56163554 Distinctive markers to determine variety correctly: Center of the upright part of P in Penny should point to gap between denticles, not to a tooth. Shield at bottom should basically be touching denticles, whereas there is a gap here in this coin. Tide on right side of coin should reach next fold up in Britannia's dress, closer to where legs cross. For comparison, this one is correctly identified: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/82915544 I can also provide more pictorial proof upon request.

I contacted Great Collections, who has it up for auction, trying to contact PCGS through their web contact form, but the contact options don't exactly pertain to this, so who knows how this will go.

It could be a filled die but I am not convinced of the presence of an ‘H’. Either way, I would want a clear cut example for my collection rather than one that will likely remain uncertain. In terms of grade, don’t confuse the UK grading system with the US Sheldon scale; their AU is more akin to our EF and their EF40 is about our VF. The book you need is https://coinpublications.com/product/the-standard-guide-to-grading-british-coins/ Jerry

I can’t see an H either. I think there may be a blemish in there that the brain may try to interpret as something meaningful, especially if one is looking for it. Like the image of Jesus in a slice of toast or an alien face on Mars.

FWIW I don’t think it’s an H, just an anomaly of toning and surface metal. The big issue is, if you’re going to call that an H, you then have to have an explanation for the Triangular shape that’s hovering between the digits?

Images, photos, etc, can be deceptive and not necessarily deliberately. The best determinant is studying the coin in hand.