davidrj

Very sensible. Going down the individual die collecting route would be unwieldy. A back of the fag packet calculation using the 1863 & 1864 etched tonnage figures on pennies gives approximately 134 tons of pennies struck up to the end of 1863. Assuming average weight of 145 grains as per Peck and say 100,000 coins per die pair would imply about 144 die pairs used in the first 4 years of the bronze currency. Depending on teething problems with the new currency, that number could and almost certainly would increase. It's fair to say you could be a while. So what you are saying Rob, is the entity we refer to as a DIE which may or not have flaws etc, is in fact a machine tool cloned from a MASTER, the MASTER being where design changes occur. Which explains the differences in date widths if numbers were added later to the working DIE So question, how were working DIEs produced from MASTERs? What was the life of a MASTER compared to a DIE? And why do we frequently have more than one MASTER in use concurrently? Very confusing in that we are all appear to be using the term DIE for two different entities David

Thanks Rob, wonder if it's now available online, Googling beckons David

Somebody got burned! Ooouch! I sent him a question too - "is the coin in the picture the one on offer"? Predictably I got no reply,

Somebody got burned! Ooouch! I sent him a question too - "is the coin in the picture the one on offer"? Predictably I got no reply,

Hocking ??? David

Lots of variations in date width in the first few years,..... production problems, Gouby only starts listing them from 1866 But I have to admit I don't understand why they occur at all. I assume the master die is made and then the final date number is punched in as required, was this from a softer metal, that had to replaced due to wear? Some years have lttle variation, but variations in some types with low mintage, eg 1871, 1875H, and 1879 small date??? ... and the nosensical wide dates in the veil head pennies Anyone here point me to a reference on how dates were added?? David

Okay just spent a bit of time putting 6 1911 pennies on the scanner, simultaneous scan with as near identical illumination and orientation as possible original scan at 3200 dpi >>> massive file, then a bit of cut & paste in Photoshop The Gouby X stands out like a sore thumb, can't see any difference in the rest though some have a hint of hollow neck. Suggest the term "hollow neck" be confined to the dustbin and that 1911 varieties are solely distinguishable by bead size and letter alignement David

A new obverse type for 1861 penny? idiot posting

I reckon there was a H there, light patches below and between the 8 and 7 where we all know the H should be, Here's another 1876 no-H with clearer pictures this time: 1876 Penny no-H Faint H there IMHO - Light is hitting top serif of left hand upright, spot that and you can just make out the H David

This guy would need far better pictures than this 1876 penny no H to convince me Same problem as the 1882s David

By the mid 60's virtually all the KNs had been lifted from circulation, worn specimens are probably now commoner than the RM strikings. I only ever found one 1926ME and one 1897 High Tide in circulation. The latter much rare than the 2mm, but catalogues less in Spink - odd, expect it's the demand thing for a better known, easier to spot variety David

and usually much better quality too! David

Nice pennies Azda

You have a PM, can't help on the 1903 I've only one of those David

This came today, so reviving this old thread a 1911 1d Gouby obv X. Had a bit of a clean but better than my other two all three have I of BRITT and I of IMP to border teeth, I think I have looked at every 1911 penny on Ebay over the last 12 months this is the 3rd I've found, not convinced that the hollow neck exists without this alignment David

Not often you see one of those in change! For this particular issue medal alignment is standard, no idea why they should be the opposite to most other coins in circulation at the time but there you go. Is the edge milled or plain? If it's plain you've got yourself a proof, if it's milled it's the bog standard circulation variety. Cool find nonetheless! Oldest circulating coin find on the forum? Can't beat that, though i did find a wren farthing in my change once, which I assume was circulating as a 1p

be a laugh though, wouldn't it? I bet a lot of people wouldn't accept one for £2! I once spent a Churchill crown. and had it accepted, but that was many years ago

That is a very fair point of view David. It is also one that I personally share. Even though it is Legal Tender, if it is not used in every day transactions then it doesn't qualify as a coin. As I said, I asked out of curiosity to try to find out what peoples definitions were on what makes a coin I do however think some of the Brittanias are very pretty, just not my thing It's the same with stamps, although I no longer collect them; I always considered a nice postally used specimen far more desirable than mint unhinged that seems now to be the preferred option for collectors.

They may be legal tender, but in my view they are only a coin, is someone goes into a shop and uses it to buy an ice cream, a packet of fags or whatever If not they are NOT coins David

Happened quite a lot. The French 10 centimes 1857D has a recorded mintage of 698,830; but no one has ever found one - probably all dated 1856

Not the same die as the "accepted" no H, outer ribbon should point down not outwards Still analysing reverse David Sorry Azda, had a play increasing contrast and adjusting levels I think there is definitely the remains of a faint H Can't win them all! David

Not the same die as the "accepted" no H, outer ribbon should point down not outwards Still analysing reverse David

Nor me! 1954 is proving tricky too

I remember those! Some of my bun pennies cost me a fortune, and they were always heads up and turned out to be 1892s or something equally common when I finally got them david

Azda can you show the whole coin so we can see which dies it's from? David