zookeeperz Posted October 1, 2017 Posted October 1, 2017 Hi folks was looking at some pennies online as you do and I also know photographs can be so deceiving So air with a little caution. But some things really stood out to me and I wondered if my explanation could be a valid reason for what I am seeing. Both F10 Pennies but with some noticeable differences. The shape of the head at the top coin on left a gentle meander to the bun. In stark contrast to the very sharp curved style on coin on the right. Also the hair at the nape looks to be increase in depth more full overall. the rose in the middle of the shawl decoration is larger on the left coin as is the leaves to the left and the center rose at the bottom of the bust. Also notice a large section of the lower mantle is missing. Also there seems to be a flaw on the neck on the left coin which doesn't appear on the right hand coin. The bridge of the nose where the curve starts. On coin 2 it starts slightly lower to give the nose a more demure appearance. So after looking over both I came to an assumption that someone wasn't happy with the state of the die make up and reworked it or touched it up to make Victoria look less bulky and fill the mantle and remove the flaw on the neck. What do you think ? Thanks as always 1 Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 On 01/10/2017 at 11:01 AM, zookeeperz said: Hi folks was looking at some pennies online as you do and I also know photographs can be so deceiving So air with a little caution. But some things really stood out to me and I wondered if my explanation could be a valid reason for what I am seeing. Both F10 Pennies but with some noticeable differences. The shape of the head at the top coin on left a gentle meander to the bun. In stark contrast to the very sharp curved style on coin on the right. Also the hair at the nape looks to be increase in depth more full overall. the rose in the middle of the shawl decoration is larger on the left coin as is the leaves to the left and the center rose at the bottom of the bust. Also notice a large section of the lower mantle is missing. Also there seems to be a flaw on the neck on the left coin which doesn't appear on the right hand coin. The bridge of the nose where the curve starts. On coin 2 it starts slightly lower to give the nose a more demure appearance. So after looking over both I came to an assumption that someone wasn't happy with the state of the die make up and reworked it or touched it up to make Victoria look less bulky and fill the mantle and remove the flaw on the neck. What do you think ? Thanks as always Hi Looking at the pictures you have shown, I note that the one on the left is not completely circular , and that the top right side of the coin is some what straighter than on the right side coin . In fact the one on the right seems wider across the middle of the coin than it is from top to bottom. this I think may account for the different shape at the back of Victorias head. Also the left coin seems to have a weaker image than the right coin, as there is a larger bare patch below the bust , possibly due to die ware , and the high part of the die, [ i e what shows as the field on the coin], has possible been re-polished serving to reduce the depth of that part of the die which gives the queens head. At the same time may be retooling took place to parts of the die , and may be to the rose. just my thoughts, possibly a load of tosh Terry 1 Quote
zookeeperz Posted October 2, 2017 Author Posted October 2, 2017 46 minutes ago, terrysoldpennies said: Hi Looking at the pictures you have shown, I note that the one on the left is not completely circular , and that the top right side of the coin is some what straighter than on the right side coin . In fact the one on the right seems wider across the middle of the coin than it is from top to bottom. this I think may account for the different shape at the back of Victorias head. Also the left coin seems to have a weaker image than the right coin, as there is a larger bare patch below the bust , possibly due to die ware , and the high part of the die, [ i e what shows as the field on the coin], has possible been re-polished serving to reduce the depth of that part of the die which gives the queens head. At the same time may be retooling took place to parts of the die , and may be to the rose. just my thoughts, possibly a load of tosh Terry Yes I know the cropping isn't completely rounded as it was taken from online so I had to deal with what I could see. Even if I had put a square box around it . It would still look the same and the minute pixel difference which prob equates to less than 2 mm wouldn't Change the shape of Her head. And as you note the 2nd looks wider so her head should be the one that is different and should be wider?. But it's online pics so I know they can lie at times depending on angles the shot is taken at. But I wasn't prepared to pay £300+ to confirm my suspicions lol. I lightened the pics just to show detail. But the seller seems to think they are UNC. I think not GVF at best to me . Thanks for the input though Terry Quote
secret santa Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 I've looked these pictures a few times now and I have to say that I don't see any difference in the engraving on the bust (rose, leaves etc), or any real difference in her head. I have seen minor differences to the fabric rose and also that "missing" part of the bust quite a lot over the years on F10 pennies and assume that these small differences are due to the many working dies that were produced for the new coinage and the hard work that they went through producing coins. I certainly don't think we're looking at conscious design differences here. Quote
1949threepence Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 2 hours ago, zookeeperz said: Yes I know the cropping isn't completely rounded as it was taken from online so I had to deal with what I could see. Even if I had put a square box around it . It would still look the same and the minute pixel difference which prob equates to less than 2 mm wouldn't Change the shape of Her head. And as you note the 2nd looks wider so her head should be the one that is different and should be wider?. But it's online pics so I know they can lie at times depending on angles the shot is taken at. But I wasn't prepared to pay £300+ to confirm my suspicions lol. I lightened the pics just to show detail. But the seller seems to think they are UNC. I think not GVF at best to me . Thanks for the input though Terry The base of the bust looks much closer to the toothed border on the second coin, which makes it appear somewhat akin to obverse 3. Quote
zookeeperz Posted October 2, 2017 Author Posted October 2, 2017 2 hours ago, 1949threepence said: The base of the bust looks much closer to the toothed border on the second coin, which makes it appear somewhat akin to obverse 3. Well this seller also has an 1860 penny advertised as having obv 3 rev D F13 . I think its wrong and it's obverse 4 but it's £75 even in Near fair its £70 overvalued lol. So I take his descriptions with a pinch of salt. Quote
1949threepence Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, zookeeperz said: Well this seller also has an 1860 penny advertised as having obv 3 rev D F13 . I think its wrong and it's obverse 4 but it's £75 even in Near fair its £70 overvalued lol. So I take his descriptions with a pinch of salt. Can you link to the seller, zookeeperz? Might give us a bit of an insight. Quote
zookeeperz Posted October 2, 2017 Author Posted October 2, 2017 Just now, 1949threepence said: Can you link to the seller, zookeeperz? Might give us a bit of an insight. 302412636286 thats the item number and will link you to the seller on ebay Quote
1949threepence Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, zookeeperz said: 302412636286 thats the item number and will link you to the seller on ebay Thanks - link to the e bay page here I'll have a closer look tomorrow when I'm a bit sharper. Half asleep at the mo. Quote
jelida Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 The vendor is Shelly, who has featured on this forum several times before, and I am afraid is prone to misattribute , over grade and overprice, and whose coins often turn out to have been cleaned. Photography is not a strong point either. You can get a lot of spatial distortion when using some lenses, especially fisheye types on mobile cameras, and I suspect we have some of that here. My feeling is that we are looking at normal F10's, showing the results of differing die pressure and wear that Richard alludes to. Jerry 1 Quote
zookeeperz Posted October 5, 2017 Author Posted October 5, 2017 On 03/10/2017 at 11:23 AM, jelida said: The vendor is Shelly, who has featured on this forum several times before, and I am afraid is prone to misattribute , over grade and overprice, and whose coins often turn out to have been cleaned. Photography is not a strong point either. You can get a lot of spatial distortion when using some lenses, especially fisheye types on mobile cameras, and I suspect we have some of that here. My feeling is that we are looking at normal F10's, showing the results of differing die pressure and wear that Richard alludes to. Jerry Thanks Jerry In my original post I said with caution . I know only too well that pictures can look so different if taken at an angle. But sadly and I am as big a culprit but I do try to just take top down pics but my picture taking skill is novice at best. Sometimes I cannot believe what results I get from a Gem BU coin esp with scope pics. They show what isn't even visible to a loupe. Same can be said when viewing on forums some pics are pretty poor to say the least. Yet the so called experts seem to see through all the lens glare and over exposure and say they can see all manor of things on your coin and if they have never see a variety type before it's a fake and they spot glue residue lols. I asked on Aussie forum about 1922 threepence double die reverse. If it was a known variety type. In 2 days one person answered "looks like one". Whilst grateful that he confirmed what I already knew it didn't really answer my question. Well actually it did lol. It's obviously unknow and they all went to their hideaways to check all their 1922 threepences 1 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 19 hours ago, zookeeperz said: Thanks Jerry In my original post I said with caution . I know only too well that pictures can look so different if taken at an angle. But sadly and I am as big a culprit but I do try to just take top down pics but my picture taking skill is novice at best. Sometimes I cannot believe what results I get from a Gem BU coin esp with scope pics. They show what isn't even visible to a loupe. Same can be said when viewing on forums some pics are pretty poor to say the least. Yet the so called experts seem to see through all the lens glare and over exposure and say they can see all manor of things on your coin and if they have never see a variety type before it's a fake and they spot glue residue lols. I asked on Aussie forum about 1922 threepence double die reverse. If it was a known variety type. In 2 days one person answered "looks like one". Whilst grateful that he confirmed what I already knew it didn't really answer my question. Well actually it did lol. It's obviously unknow and they all went to their hideaways to check all their 1922 threepences In summation: it's not always easy to draw an accurate conclusion on variety, from photographs alone. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.