1890 Penny Obverse Legend Difference

[zookeeperz]

Smee again  I was looking through some low balls as you do and I came across some 1890 Pennies with difference in legend lettering. As in  the R In Regina is On one obverse Straight legged and away from the E and the other has a longer curved leg almost touching the E. Is this normal? Or should I say does this happen frequently on 1890 pennies? Your thoughts? Thanks

[zookeeperz]

Here is a close up

[Michael-Roo]

 

Just a bit of fill in the tail of the R. They are identical in all other respects.

[zookeeperz]

2 hours ago, Michael-Roo said:

 

Just a bit of fill in the tail of the R. They are identical in all other respects.

Apart from the leg doesn't narrow at all on coin A and starts to halfway down on coin B. I guess coin A could have a repair?i'll look closer to see if there is a join . Thanks for reply Michael

[zookeeperz]

3 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

Apart from the leg doesn't narrow at all on coin A and starts to halfway down on coin B. I guess coin A could have a repair?i'll look closer to see if there is a join . Thanks for reply Michael

yup appears there is a repair that would go along with your explanation

[secret santa]

I mention this in my description of Gouby Obverse R on my pennyvarieties website (see below).

[terrysoldpennies]

I've found three types on the 1890 , your two, and one with the E in REG rotated clockwise making the R and E not line up at the bottom, the E is higher up than the R.  I have also open and closed REs on 1889s , and on two 1891 Ex. wide date , unlisted 16 tooth pennies. Pictures of the 1891 later

[terrysoldpennies]

Here's the 1891 unlisted 16 tooth date width, this one has the gap between R and E, I have another with the letters joined.  Terry

[zookeeperz]

On 07/10/2017 at 5:44 PM, terrysoldpennies said:

Here's the 1891 unlisted 16 tooth date width, this one has the gap between R and E, I have another with the letters joined.  Terry

I have lots of Pennies with differences. I did at one time send them to certain places (picture form) to point out the differences and some are just so noticeable you would need to be blind not to see them. Just seems if your name isn't bla bla bla you just get shot down with some stupid counter argument like they are from two different coins. I mean really its all most just short of an insult lol. Like this 1864 penny normal and narrow date. I don't think the narrow date is even listed.

 

[secret santa]

The trouble with early bronze coins is that date width differences occur so often that they are too numerous to catalogue and, because the final date numeral was often hand punched onto "blank" dies, the actual die variety does not differ between coins of a particular year and therefore does not, arguably, constitute different coin varieties. Michael Freeman didn't record date width differences within a given die type (with different Freeman numbers) but Michael Gouby did allocate different identifiers for a few "select" years with date width variations in his first book "The British Bronze Penny", e.g. 1889 narrow date, but then went on to record further variations in his follow up book "The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1901". Collectors often collect these different date width variations but shouldn't really expect them all to be given different reference identities.

But arguments as to what constitutes a "variety" will continue ad infinitum.

[terrysoldpennies]

5 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

I have lots of Pennies with differences. I did at one time send them to certain places (picture form) to point out the differences and some are just so noticeable you would need to be blind not to see them. Just seems if your name isn't bla bla bla you just get shot down with some stupid counter argument like they are from two different coins. I mean really its all most just short of an insult lol. Like this 1864 penny normal and narrow date. I don't think the narrow date is even listed.

 

Hi I must say, I welcome your input, and please do continue as we all can learn from each other. I posted the three types of R plus E as I thought it would be of interested to you.  I am very interested in date differences , and do collect differing date widths, some of which are extremely rare . I know many collectors don't bother with them, but interest is growing, as can be seen by the sales recently of an 1896 extremely wide date worn penny on London Coins for £200, and the 1904 narrow date selling at Colin Cooks for £70.  Good luck in your collecting.  Terry

[zookeeperz]

2 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Hi I must say, I welcome your input, and please do continue as we all can learn from each other. I posted the three types of R plus E as I thought it would be of interested to you.  I am very interested in date differences , and do collect differing date widths, some of which are extremely rare . I know many collectors don't bother with them, but interest is growing, as can be seen by the sales recently of an 1896 extremely wide date worn penny on London Coins for £200, and the 1904 narrow date selling at Colin Cooks for £70.  Good luck in your collecting.  Terry

Likewise Terry. I was trying to post an email convo I had with CGS back when they first started in 2007 but am unable too . Not sure if its because its too long or there might be characters that this site doesn't recognise. Shame really it makes good reading. I believe I was the major instigator in changing the way CGS graded variety coins. They were of the opinion that only those printed in the books should be categorised . After a few blurts of who do you think you are and your opinion means nothing. you are paid to do a service and to note differences no matter what they are. That is how varieties started in the first place. The collector deems weather he will purchase a coin for a whole number of different reasons and being a different type of the same coin being one of them. They countered with it makes no monetary difference. I then pointed them to two coins selling on ebay An unc coin and a EF  same date but with a 8/8 lower and the EF coin sold x3 the amount. So I said there your argument is total nonsense. They decided to change how they graded coins and to attribute varieties as they occur and as you probably know they have the most extensive list of varieties for British coins anywhere. Only prob is you have to pay £90 for the pleasure of viewing the info.£500 I spent to grade coins and most came back with no explanation as to why and the coins that I wanted attributed I knew would only be details grading but I wanted them on record. In fairness they did offer to regrade all my coins again at no cost but I was so annoyed I couldn't be bothered to wait another 3 months to get them back lol.

[terrysoldpennies]

24 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

Likewise Terry. I was trying to post an email convo I had with CGS back when they first started in 2007 but am unable too . Not sure if its because its too long or there might be characters that this site doesn't recognise. Shame really it makes good reading. I believe I was the major instigator in changing the way CGS graded variety coins. They were of the opinion that only those printed in the books should be categorised . After a few blurts of who do you think you are and your opinion means nothing. you are paid to do a service and to note differences no matter what they are. That is how varieties started in the first place. The collector deems weather he will purchase a coin for a whole number of different reasons and being a different type of the same coin being one of them. They countered with it makes no monetary difference. I then pointed them to two coins selling on ebay An unc coin and a EF  same date but with a 8/8 lower and the EF coin sold x3 the amount. So I said there your argument is total nonsense. They decided to change how they graded coins and to attribute varieties as they occur and as you probably know they have the most extensive list of varieties for British coins anywhere. Only prob is you have to pay £90 for the pleasure of viewing the info.£500 I spent to grade coins and most came back with no explanation as to why and the coins that I wanted attributed I knew would only be details grading but I wanted them on record. In fairness they did offer to regrade all my coins again at no cost but I was so annoyed I couldn't be bothered to wait another 3 months to get them back lol.

What ever happened to the saying ''The customer is always right'' ?.  As to date widths , as you say, its often so obvious a difference that can stand out a mile, but there, it takes all types to make a world.  Did you see the picture I posted of the different 1861 penny dates, well they certainly can vary dramatically , as the narrowest date one I showed has the 1 almost climbing on top of the 6, and as to how a date type like that cannot be seen as interesting and desirable beats me.  Well soldier on      Terry

[zookeeperz]

6 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

What ever happened to the saying ''The customer is always right'' ?.  As to date widths , as you say, its often so obvious a difference that can stand out a mile, but there, it takes all types to make a world.  Did you see the picture I posted of the different 1861 penny dates, well they certainly can vary dramatically , as the narrowest date one I showed has the 1 almost climbing on top of the 6, and as to how a date type like that cannot be seen as interesting and desirable beats me.  Well soldier on      Terry

Yes I find it rather a flippant attitude taken by some that certain dates will be vastly overdone with date widths when it's obvious some are exactly the same. Yet others get a foot-note can be seen wide narrow high or low. I guess it depends on how many you stock perhaps 

[Peckris]

On 10 October 2017 at 4:22 AM, zookeeperz said:

Yes I find it rather a flippant attitude taken by some that certain dates will be vastly overdone with date widths when it's obvious some are exactly the same. Yet others get a foot-note can be seen wide narrow high or low. I guess it depends on how many you stock perhaps 

Not flippant when you look into the history behind the differences - for example, the Mint had enormous problems with the early bronze coinage, which is why there are so many varieties for the first few years. Many of these varieties are 'significant', in that different designs can be seen (lighthouse, leaves in wreath, signature present somewhere or other or absent, beads vs teeth, die letters below lighthouse, position of bust, lettering, shield, etc) - some are very common, others very rare, added to which there are common obverses and reverses which are rare in particular combinations. 

One thing which varies a great deal is the position and angle of the final punched digit in the date. These correspond to different individual dies being used, there being no other difference to note. They of course might be of interest to a (very small) number of collectors, and those same collectors might equally wish to pursue a collection of different die numbers used on silver coins, and good luck to them - as has been said, it takes all sorts...

However, the small collector base for these means that although certain dies may be rare, you'd have to search out an interested collector to get any premium over the listed price for - e.g. - a common variety of 1861 penny. Where it becomes more interesting (i.e. a greater number of potential collectors) is where you get a deliberate design difference in the spacing of date numerals, as can be seen between 1875 and 1879. A few varieties are rare, and though some collectors wouldn't be interested in the slightest, there are enough others to raise the premium on a particular variety by quite a large amount.

HTH

[1949threepence]

12 hours ago, Peckris said:

Not flippant when you look into the history behind the differences - for example, the Mint had enormous problems with the early bronze coinage, which is why there are so many varieties for the first few years. Many of these varieties are 'significant', in that different designs can be seen (lighthouse, leaves in wreath, signature present somewhere or other or absent, beads vs teeth, die letters below lighthouse, position of bust, lettering, shield, etc) - some are very common, others very rare, added to which there are common obverses and reverses which are rare in particular combinations. 

One thing which varies a great deal is the position and angle of the final punched digit in the date. These correspond to different individual dies being used, there being no other difference to note. They of course might be of interest to a (very small) number of collectors, and those same collectors might equally wish to pursue a collection of different die numbers used on silver coins, and good luck to them - as has been said, it takes all sorts...

However, the small collector base for these means that although certain dies may be rare, you'd have to search out an interested collector to get any premium over the listed price for - e.g. - a common variety of 1861 penny. Where it becomes more interesting (i.e. a greater number of potential collectors) is where you get a deliberate design difference in the spacing of date numerals, as can be seen between 1875 and 1879. A few varieties are rare, and though some collectors wouldn't be interested in the slightest, there are enough others to raise the premium on a particular variety by quite a large amount.

HTH

I bet most would give their eye teeth to get hold of an 1877 narrow date.......   

[RLC35]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

I bet most would give their eye teeth to get hold of an 1877 narrow date.......   

 

You mean this Mike? I sold this one about 5 years ago. 

[secret santa]

8 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I bet most would give their eye teeth to get hold of an 1877 narrow date.......   

Yes, but to state the obvious, this is an example of a different reverse variety rather than a variation of date spacing.

[1949threepence]

8 hours ago, RLC35 said:

 

You mean this Mike? I sold this one about 5 years ago. 

Fantastic. What did you get for it, Bob, if it's not an impertinent question?

[PWA 1967]

Before Bob tells you Mike should he wish to as its someone elses coin now 

Be interested in what you think it sold for .........Have a guess 

[zookeeperz]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

Before Bob tells you Mike should he wish to as its someone elses coin now 

Be interested in what you think it sold for .........Have a guess 

I'll stab at £4000

 

[RLC35]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Fantastic. What did you get for it, Bob, if it's not an impertinent question?

 

Mike & Pete,

I can't tell you the exact amount, but it was well over $10,000 US$. I caused a lot of excitement on the Forum when I put a picture of it on the Thread. I was getting e-mails and calls from most of the well known penny guys in the UK. I purchased it from a High End Collector, in Florida, who had owned it for many years. I delivered it, in person, at Notting Hill, in London, since I was vacationing, at the time, in Great Britain. There are 5 or 6 of these Narrow Date known (actually) at this time, with some collectors having multiples.

This is a good test for Zooy, as the listed estimates for really rare coins, are somewhat low, in most cases, compared to actual sale prices. I wish I still had it! 

[PWA 1967]

1 hour ago, RLC35 said:

 

Mike & Pete,

I can't tell you the exact amount, but it was well over $10,000 US$. I caused a lot of excitement on the Forum when I put a picture of it on the Thread. I was getting e-mails and calls from most of the well known penny guys in the UK. I purchased it from a High End Collector, in Florida, who had owned it for many years. I delivered it, in person, at Notting Hill, in London, since I was vacationing, at the time, in Great Britain. There are 5 or 6 of these Narrow Date known (actually) at this time, with some collectors having multiples.

This is a good test for Zooy, as the listed estimates for really rare coins, are somewhat low, in most cases, compared to actual sale prices. I wish I still had it! 

I remember reading an old thread on here Bob with interest 

[zookeeperz]

2 hours ago, RLC35 said:

 

Mike & Pete,

I can't tell you the exact amount, but it was well over $10,000 US$. I caused a lot of excitement on the Forum when I put a picture of it on the Thread. I was getting e-mails and calls from most of the well known penny guys in the UK. I purchased it from a High End Collector, in Florida, who had owned it for many years. I delivered it, in person, at Notting Hill, in London, since I was vacationing, at the time, in Great Britain. There are 5 or 6 of these Narrow Date known (actually) at this time, with some collectors having multiples.

This is a good test for Zooy, as the listed estimates for really rare coins, are somewhat low, in most cases, compared to actual sale prices. I wish I still had it! 

Wow very nice. Yeah agreed the really rare issues will always surpass book values. Purely the fact they are so rare and demand outweighs supply for all collectors and I would imagine 98% do not have that variety in their collection. As was the case when we saw record figures for the 1863 Narrow 3 and the 1863 die number 5.  I wonder what it would sell for today if it came up at auction?

 

[RLC35]

54 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

Wow very nice. Yeah agreed the really rare issues will always surpass book values. Purely the fact they are so rare and demand outweighs supply for all collectors and I would imagine 98% do not have that variety in their collection. As was the case when we saw record figures for the 1863 Narrow 3 and the 1863 die number 5.  I wonder what it would sell for today if it came up at auction?

 

 

My coin sale was a private sale, without the frenzy usually associated with a auction. I would assume the price at auction would be higher. However I did save the auction fee.