September LCA Catalogue Now Online

[Rob]

That certainly dispels any idea of the crossbar being added after, and the two types are sufficiently different to say they are not related.

The no bearing comment was a reflection of the fact that the 4 is only used on this year, so there is no crossover from the previous or to the next year unless anybody has sequenced obverse dies to establish the order in which the reverses were used? Yes? No? Ideally we need to identify an obverse used on 31/12/1863 or 1/1/1865 that is also seen on an 1864 to settle this.

Whatever the outcome, at least we have generated a discussion

 

[Chingford]

I think the answer is simpler than it seems

Victorian copper pennies and Halfpennies from all had serif 4s up to 44, where the serif was only used for half the coins struck, both serif and plain end. After 44 all 4s where plain end, the next example where 4 was the last number was in 54, these have crosslet ends, both Halfpennies and Pennies.

It could be that the 4 being the last number in the date was subjected to more stress and therefore damaged, a more sturdier design was used, the crosslet, and used in subsequent date ending in 4

[Leo]

The countermarked Guatemala 8R is just amazing... Rare and lovely

Totally out of my budget zone though

[1949threepence]

On 8/10/2017 at 5:00 PM, alfnail said:

 

 

 

Quote

 

I'm not certain I would necessarily agree with that. For example, the chronology seems to logically follow the numbers in both 1860 and 1874. Very possibly 1861 also, as far as he can do. It may not in the case of 1864, although he does say type (i) for the 48 and type (ii) for the 49, so I'd say it's more probable than not that it does, at least in Freeman's mind.

No, the mint wouldn't care, but since you've now raised the question, and piqued my interest in the issue, I've sent off a Freedom of Information Act request to the RM asking them about the plain and crosslet 4's. I'll post the reply when it arrives. It may not be much of a reply, we'll see. But they are, at least, legally obliged to answer it.   

 

Well the above is what I posted on 10th August, and I've finally received a reply. As it happens, it isn't much of a reply, but I thought I would post it anyway. Shown below. An unrelated quote from Ian keeps coming up, when I try to quote my own post, which I can't seem to delete. Never mind.   

To be fair, the question is very obscure, and realistically, getting a meaningfuul answer was always going to be a long shot, 153 years after the event. 

 

 

Quote

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Barker

To: 

Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:12 AM

Subject: RE: Freedom of information request

 

Dear Michael

 

I am sorry for the delay in replying to your enquiry regarding the 1864 penny.

 

Having searched through the documents that we have available here in the Royal Mint Museum, we have been unable to find any documentary evidence relating the 4 used on the coins. The vast majority of the Mint’s records covering this period are, however, held in the National Archives at Kew although it is unlikely that these will shed any light on the matter.

 

Unfortunately, we do not have both types of these coins in the Museum but it may well be that we could offer a more definitive opinion on this if we were to examine both types here in the Museum.

 

Best wishes

Chris

 

 

Chris Barker

Assistant Curator

chris.barker@royalmintmuseum.org.uk

............................................................................

The Royal Mint Museum

Llantrisant, Pontyclun

CF72  8YT

United Kingdom

............................................................................

Tel: +44 (0) 1443 623004 (Direct)

Tel: +44 (0) 1443 222111 (Switchboard)

http://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

 

My name is

I would like to ask the following archival type question regarding a British pre decimal penny variety:-

 

In 1864 two types of the figure four were produced in the date of British pennies. The plain 4 type, which can be seen here and the crosslet 4 type, which can be seen here.

 

My questions are:-

 

a) Which type was minted first?

 

Was the plain 4 with the upward serif, the crosslet 4 "gone wrong", due to damaged or filled dies? Or was it intentionally produced like that?

 

I apologise for this question being somewhat obscure, but it will help settle a debate in our coin forum. I'm wondering if there is any reference to the matter in the 1864 Royal Mint report.     

 

Thanks for your time.

 

10 August 2017

 

 

 

This e-mail originated from The Royal Mint Limited or one of its group entities. The information in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

 

 

[Stuntman]

It's nice that they replied, even if the reply doesn't add to the pool of knowledge.

[1949threepence]

31 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

It's nice that they replied, even if the reply doesn't add to the pool of knowledge.

Yes it was rather decent of them.