Penny Acquisition of the week

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

5 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

How about a pic to compare then eh?

Mine is the one pictured in Michael Gouby's book..

Not sure if I have it handy, not home right now, but I'll check later. .

[1949threepence]

Interesting about the 1862/1. I always thought it was an identical scenario to the 1865/3, where old dies were re-used. In this case the 1861 dies. But Gouby reckons that it's because the repairer forgot that the die would be in reverse order to the coin. Similar to the 1861, 6 over 8, and 8 over 6.

He also says the same of the 1882/1. Although reverts back to the good housekeeping theory of using up old dies, as far as the1893/2 is concerned. 

Is he necessarily right, or just making a convenient assumption because it fits with "one" being the lead number?  

 

      

Edited September 23, 2017 by 1949threepence

[jelida]

I suppose in the case of 1865/3, as there are a number of different overstrikes of the 5 over 3, thus a number of re-used 1863 reverse dies, a 'good housekeeping' policy might be interpreted. The 1882/1 is somewhat similar, fewer different overstrikes but still  a couple and used with earlier obverse dies. There are also a number of different 1893/2 dies. The others seem to be single die varieties, and perhaps therefore less likely the result of a mint 'good housekeeping' policy. But it has to be a question of probability, in the absence of contemporary records.

Jerry

Edited September 23, 2017 by jelida

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

15 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

How about a pic to compare then eh?

As Requested....

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[secret santa]

11 hours ago, jelida said:

I suppose in the case of 1865/3, as there are a number of different overstrikes of the 5 over 3, thus a number of re-used 1863 reverse dies, a 'good housekeeping' policy might be interpreted. The 1882/1 is somewhat similar, fewer different overstrikes but still  a couple and used with earlier obverse dies. There are also a number of different 1893/2 dies. The others seem to be single die varieties, and perhaps therefore less likely the result of a mint 'good housekeeping' policy. But it has to be a question of probability, in the absence of contemporary records.

Paul Holland sent me the following comment on the origins of the 1862 over 1 penny:

I don't think it occurred from a
blundered repair attempt. If I had to guess, I would say that it
arose near the end of 1861 or the beginning of 1862 when final date
numerals were being punched into working dies. A Mint worker may
have placed a numeral 1 punch into position and started to 'set it'
with his hammer, then realized that with the date changeover, a
numeral 2 punch was called for instead, then completed dating the
die as 1862. To me this makes more sense that the other way round...
although we may never know for sure.

This would also help to explain the origins of the 1862 2 over 2 that have been spotted, with a mint worker trying to correct a slightly misplaced 2 when entering a 2 on a working die. But, as Paul says, we may never know.........

[jelida]

If it were not a blundered repair late in the life of a die, but a mistake in the actual preparation of a working die from new, is it not likely that there would be many more examples? The new 2/1 reverse does show at least three early die cracks, so it had clearly been in use  for some time, and by 1862 most of the issues with premature die failure had been ironed out  and a production of perhaps several tens of thousands of coins would have been expected. For this reason I personally  prefer the likelihood that it was an erroneous repair quite late in the lifetime of the die, though I cannot see any other repaired letters or digits, the presence of which might be supportive of this.

Scarcely proof either way.

Jerry

[1949threepence]

8 hours ago, secret santa said:

Paul Holland sent me the following comment on the origins of the 1862 over 1 penny:

I don't think it occurred from a
blundered repair attempt. If I had to guess, I would say that it
arose near the end of 1861 or the beginning of 1862 when final date
numerals were being punched into working dies. A Mint worker may
have placed a numeral 1 punch into position and started to 'set it'
with his hammer, then realized that with the date changeover, a
numeral 2 punch was called for instead, then completed dating the
die as 1862. To me this makes more sense that the other way round...
although we may never know for sure.

This would also help to explain the origins of the 1862 2 over 2 that have been spotted, with a mint worker trying to correct a slightly misplaced 2 when entering a 2 on a working die. But, as Paul says, we may never know.........

 

4 hours ago, jelida said:

If it were not a blundered repair late in the life of a die, but a mistake in the actual preparation of a working die from new, is it not likely that there would be many more examples? The new 2/1 reverse does show at least three early die cracks, so it had clearly been in use  for some time, and by 1862 most of the issues with premature die failure had been ironed out  and a production of perhaps several tens of thousands of coins would have been expected. For this reason I personally  prefer the likelihood that it was an erroneous repair quite late in the lifetime of the die, though I cannot see any other repaired letters or digits, the presence of which might be supportive of this.

Scarcely proof either way.

Jerry

Very good, if somewhat contradictory points in the two posts above. Obviously we will never know for sure, and can only speculate.

[mrbadexample]

[Chingford]

Nice example of a Bramah 2a - Light curved marking to the left of the foot of the 4

[mrbadexample]

5 minutes ago, Chingford said:

Nice example of a Bramah 2a - Light curved marking to the left of the foot of the 4

Thanks John. Pete kindly tipped me off when he spotted it. It's the one sold at LCA auction 158 lot 2351.

[alfnail]

Gouby BP 1863 Ab - his page 46  "another new mystery looking or an answer!".

Anyone had thoughts on this since his 2009 book? Die axes fairly well aligned and nothing on obverse to suggest ghosting. 

[terrysoldpennies]

37 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Gouby BP 1863 Ab - his page 46  "another new mystery looking or an answer!".

Anyone had thoughts on this since his 2009 book? Die axes fairly well aligned and nothing on obverse to suggest ghosting. 

Hi Ian , Its possibly caused by one of the workers at the Mint accidently dropping the die onto its face creating three tiny dents, which when reversed onto the coin would show as three spikes .    Terry

[alfnail]

Hi Terry, I did wonder whether they may be related to teeth gaps, a bit like on this 1860 F16..........again a bit of a mystery in that location!

[terrysoldpennies]

1 minute ago, alfnail said:

Hi Terry, I did wonder whether they may be related to teeth gaps, a bit like on this 1860 F16..........again a bit of a mystery in that location!

Yes , you could have something there, Die clash marks from the teeth on a coin grossly out of position, or a piece of a broken reverse die clashing into the obverse die   Terry

[Rob]

4 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Hi Terry, I did wonder whether they may be related to teeth gaps, a bit like on this 1860 F16..........again a bit of a mystery in that location!

Not really. If you have a partially ejected coin or a die that comes adrift from its holder in the press, the imparted impression can be of any thing anywhere.

e.g. Counterfeit halfpenny with an offset double strike on the obverse and partial brockage on the reverse.

 

[mrbadexample]

Good old ebay. £5.99 all in.

 

[zookeeperz]

Another little cracker SE 1940 Penny

 

[IanB]

5 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

Another little cracker SE 1940 Penny

 

Difficult to tell from the photo but is that a double exergue?

[azda]

2 hours ago, IanB said:

Difficult to tell from the photo but is that a double exergue?

Single

[zookeeperz]

2 hours ago, IanB said:

Difficult to tell from the photo but is that a double exergue?

Defo a single

 

[zookeeperz]

Well there goes the neighbourhood. Just goes to show you even clear pictures tell bloody lies. Was looking forward to a cheap Single ex 1940 and it turns out to be the double. I should of gone with my original gut instinct that the line was too thin 

[secret santa]

The waves are the clue - clear daylight between base of waves and double exergue.

[1949threepence]

Received the Freeman 1 & Freeman 96 won at the recent LCA today:-

 

[1949threepence]

Freeman 96:-

(couldn't get all 4 images onto one post)

Very pleased with both coins. More Freeman boxes ticked.  

 

 

 

 

[zookeeperz]

On 04/11/2017 at 3:39 PM, secret santa said:

The waves are the clue - clear daylight between base of waves and double exergue.

yes I know

but the original pic doesn't look like that. You couldn't see the lower line and the waves looked like they were melding into the top line, But thats pics for you lol. I posted the original above my post.

Edited December 13, 2017 by zookeeperz