1853 Penny with Dot

[PWA 1967]

I think Pete has one, we were talking about this flaw the other day

Yes i bought one off ebay .

Only a low grade so just put it away and no pictures.

It was item number 291557646829.

I had bid on the one in LCA ,will probably get blown out now

[Rob]

To add to the above, a figure of 5-9 implies the dot was put on the die as made. If it is the result of wear, then it would appear with time and the number seen would be lower than this per 1000. The number of dies that had to be used suggests you should see a lot more coins with dots if applied deliberately, after all, why place a dot on one or two dies only out of hundreds.

I still think it is the result of wear and tear and not an indicator.

[bhx7]

Just noting that many, if not all Dot coin examples also show signs of retooled letters. So this would add more credence to Robs stance in that debris from the old lettering would be present and could affix itself to the die. Still curious that it seems to be seen on copper and bronze coinage but so far no one seems to have come up with other denominations with these defects.

[Gary1000]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

[Nordle11]

I have an 1897 penny that is showing the initial signs of the wear where the dot forms. You can only see it under a loupe but you can certainly run the nib of a pin over it and feel where the bump began to form.

I have a regular 1897 dot which I compared it against as well, as I was initially doubtful.

[secret santa]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below

[Nordle11]

What's the mark after the E there, Richard? Looks like tooling or something.

[secret santa]

What's the mark after the E there, Richard? Looks like tooling or something.

Difficult to say - if there weren't numerous examples, I'd say it was a bit of excess metal but a piece of clag must have created an indentation on a die that henceforth produced pennies with the raised "dot".

[PWA 1967]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below

1946 F233 ONE' Flaw zoom.JPG

Again after looking at your site i have never seen or heard of one in such a good grade.

[secret santa]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below

1946 F233 ONE' Flaw zoom.JPG

Again after looking at your site i have never seen or heard of one in such a good grade.

Yes, I bought it over 11 years ago and have never seen any better than Fine since.

[Nordle11]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below

1946 F233 ONE' Flaw zoom.JPG

Again after looking at your site i have never seen or heard of one in such a good grade.

That goes for many years he has too, the dot flaws, Gouby X, the 1915 recessed ear, just to name a few. All crackers and I've not seen better in many.

[Nutsaboutcoins]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

I have an 1897 penny that is showing the initial signs of the wear where the dot forms. You can only see it under a loupe but you can certainly run the nib of a pin over it and feel where the bump began to form.

I have a regular 1897 dot which I compared it against as well, as I was initially doubtful.

If these dots are formed by a foreign body getting trapped between die and flan, then what process would make them progressive? surely they would be missing on one strike, introduce crud, and there on the next. what would make the hole / dot develope?

My brain is starting to hurt

[Nordle11]

Think of it this way, if it is a foreign body then as you say it will suddenly appear extremely prominently on the first example, then the foreign body starts to wear slowly until the flaw itself has worn completely away. If this is the case the the 1897 I found is one of the last to be struck as the foreign body has pretty much gone.

Conversely if it's a die chip then it would have started off life small and not very deep and slowly deteriorated into the large dot we see on some examples.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Nordle11

[Nordle11]

Also some people say that particular dots are purposefully engraved into the die as a marker of some sort, then this marker begins to fill in slightly on each strike, eventually levelling off with the die again. All of is speculation as far as I know, there is no literature I know of that confirms it..

[RLC35]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below

1946 F233 ONE' Flaw zoom.JPG

I have a 1946 Dot like yours, but I also have a CGS Slabbed 1946, with almost a perfect "Dot"...pic attached.

[Gary1000]

My way of thinking is that a piece of debris is traped, perhaps for one strike which forms mirco cracks in the die with the effect a bit like bullet hole in a glass window. A hole in the die then starts to form as the die starts to degrade over successive strikes leaving a progressively larger dot.

[secret santa]

Also these dots can be progressive, I brought a 1946 penny with dot from ebay relying on the picture and when it arrived, no dot. Unfortunitly I sold it on but remembering back there was a roughness to the field where the dot would later form. I often wish I'd kept it now.

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below

1946 F233 ONE' Flaw zoom.JPG

I have a 1946 Dot like yours, but I also have a CGS Slabbed 1946, with almost a perfect "Dot"...pic attached.

1946 Dot close up.jpg

Now that is very interesting - your dot appears to be in a different place, a little nearer to the E !!

My "dot" is far from circular and matches the picture in Michael Gouby's book "The British Bronze Penny 1860 - 1967". It also matches 2 spares that I have which are more worn, with the "dot" becoming more like a dot as it wears down. Could you post a pic of the whole reverse to compare positions. I'll post pictures of the spares.

[Nordle11]

Gents, for your comparison here is both of those overlaapped. The yellow outline and red outline differenciate the two.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Nordle11

[secret santa]

Gents, for your comparison here is both of those overlaapped. The yellow outline and red outline differenciate the two.

Matt

Can you do the same trick with Bob's circular dot and my unc lump please. (and how do you do that ????)

R

[RLC35]

Rash....Here is the whole reverse of the 1946 "Dot"

Here is another 1946 "apostrophe" much like your coin.

Edited December 4, 2015 by RLC35

[Nordle11]

Gents, for your comparison here is both of those overlaapped. The yellow outline and red outline differenciate the two.

Matt

Can you do the same trick with Bob's circular dot and my unc lump please. (and how do you do that ????)

R

Here you go, very interesting that thery aren't actually anywhere near each other.. I don't even need to highlight the two it's that obvious. They're not lined up exactly as it's hard to get both to the exact same zoom but I've aligned the Es in ONE almost exactly.

And I'm using a program called Snag-it, it's actually really handy if you have to manipulate lots of images, it's not free unfortunately but we have it at work.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Nordle11

[secret santa]

Gents, for your comparison here is both of those overlaapped. The yellow outline and red outline differenciate the two.

Matt

Can you do the same trick with Bob's circular dot and my unc lump please. (and how do you do that ????)

R

Here you go, very interesting that thery aren't actually anywhere near each other.. I don't even need to highlight the two it's that obvious. They're not lined up exactly as it's hard to get both to the exact same zoom but it's still clear.

And I'm using a program called Snag-it, it's actually really handy if you have to manipulate lots of images, it's not free unfortunately but we have it at work.

Matt

That's great - looks as though there might be 2 kinds of 1946 "dot" (with different dots in different places). That makes a pretty tedious "variety" a tad more interesting. I wonder if anyone has another example of the circular dot ? Get checking your pennies, boys !

R

[Nordle11]

It seems truly strange that this year had 2 flaws in almost the exact same place! If it were the case, perhaps they noticed the first flaw and fixed the problem, only for another to develop next to it as a result of the original fix. Similar to when you have a dot flaw which leads to die crack developing leading off of it. Perhaps the area of that particular die wasn't great and caused both problems. I suspect it was just on the one die though because you don't see this flaw on any of the other years between 1938 and 1948.

Mine is also the 'clag' dot flaw as you've dubbed it Richard