JLS Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said: Note Britannia's fully struck up breastplate and little sign of ghosting, showing this was a successful experiment that was strangely not continued. Yes, I was comparing to my uncirculated 1913 penny; strike on Britannia is generally much better except for the head which is much stronger on the 1913 piece ? Not sure how much wartime affected production standards on these though, no expert on the series. Quote
1949threepence Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 Well you say that, but with regard specifically to 1913, the Britannia strike seems to be variable. My 174 is fully struck up, whereas my 177 has a poor breastplate. Both have good hair detail. Quote
Peckris 2 Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 18 hours ago, JLS said: Yes, I was comparing to my uncirculated 1913 penny; strike on Britannia is generally much better except for the head which is much stronger on the 1913 piece ? Not sure how much wartime affected production standards on these though, no expert on the series. I personally think that's the answer. Maybe the experiment was conceived and initial dies prepared in 1914, but by 1916 there was just too much demand on the Mint's resources. 2 hours ago, 1949threepence said: Well you say that, but with regard specifically to 1913, the Britannia strike seems to be variable. My 174 is fully struck up, whereas my 177 has a poor breastplate. Both have good hair detail. That's the first reverse (pre-1914) which often has fewer problems compared to the 1914-1921 reverse; the rim and teeth especially are different. 1 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 3:26 PM, Peckris 2 said: I personally think that's the answer. Maybe the experiment was conceived and initial dies prepared in 1914, but by 1916 there was just too much demand on the Mint's resources. That's the first reverse (pre-1914) which often has fewer problems compared to the 1914-1921 reverse; the rim and teeth especially are different. Yes that's true. Fewer ghosting issues to boot. I wonder why they didn't just revert back to reverse A, rather than start the experiment with the recessed ear. I mean, surely they kept the die. Quote
Peckris 2 Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, 1949threepence said: Yes that's true. Fewer ghosting issues to boot. I wonder why they didn't just revert back to reverse A, rather than start the experiment with the recessed ear. I mean, surely they kept the die. It was a combination of obverse and reverse. I think the biggest problem at the beginning was the lack of rim on reverse, which caused rapid wear. 1 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said: It was a combination of obverse and reverse. I think the biggest problem at the beginning was the lack of rim on reverse, which caused rapid wear. I did wonder about those thin rims. But was there ever any evidence of excess wear on reverse A as compared to reverse B? Quote
Peckris 2 Posted October 19, 2019 Posted October 19, 2019 21 hours ago, 1949threepence said: I did wonder about those thin rims. But was there ever any evidence of excess wear on reverse A as compared to reverse B? I think the answer to that is with halfpennies, where they didn't introduce a modified reverse - I remember collecting in the late 60s, and halfpennies between 1911 and 1924 had reverses that were really badly worn, Poor where the obverse was Fair to Fine. 2 Quote
Coppers Posted October 21, 2019 Posted October 21, 2019 VickySilver reports that he just received the following penny out of the Waterbird Collection... 3 Quote
copper123 Posted October 21, 2019 Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) The little detail on brittanias head just lets the coin down slightly - but to be honest I would say it would be very hard to improve on🌞 The 1916 recessed ear penny about unc Edited October 21, 2019 by copper123 Quote
VickySilver Posted October 21, 2019 Posted October 21, 2019 Funny that in hand the coin has a very glossy appearance, and hard to tell from the photos but the fields do not appear to have been "smoothed". I believe that although certainly having suffered some wear that the original strike was very soft. I was a bit disappointed, but not terribly so, by the rim issues, etc. Very glad to have it. I will try to compare it to the 1922 specimen photos and see what I can make out - if anything (LOL). Quote
Bernie Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 I have pictures of this 1922 penny from a previous point in time, pictures attached Quote
VickySilver Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 Bernie, excellent! I know I have seen this one before and believe it was at Spink or Baldwin. Do you know its origin? Not a great quality coin, but at the price I guess I couldn't miss too badly... Quote
secret santa Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 Eric It was previously sold by Spink in September 2015 as part of the Andy Scott collection (for £2108) See my rarest pennies site below. Richard Quote
1949threepence Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 3:26 PM, Peckris 2 said: I personally think that's the answer. Maybe the experiment was conceived and initial dies prepared in 1914, but by 1916 there was just too much demand on the Mint's resources. That's the first reverse (pre-1914) which often has fewer problems compared to the 1914-1921 reverse; the rim and teeth especially are different. But just very occasionally a fully struck up 1915, with good hair detail, that isn't a recessed ear, will show up:- 9 Quote
Peckris 2 Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 18 hours ago, 1949threepence said: But just very occasionally a fully struck up 1915, with good hair detail, that isn't a recessed ear, will show up:- Yes, it's hard to predict, but given that the 'not fully struck up' specimens were not the original intent, there are bound to be a minority that - for some reason or other - ARE as intended. Obviously those are worth a premium. Quote
ozjohn Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 My 1913 and 1915 pennies. Not sure what type as I do not collect down to that level. However the 1913 is a better strike than the 1915. 3 Quote
PWA 1967 Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) Your 1913 looks like a F176 the scarce one. OBV 2.......... I of IMP to tooth ?. Edited October 24, 2019 by PWA 1967 Quote
shane carew Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 Lovely coins there @Oz My sight is not what it used to be, blame it on age, but the lower colon dot looks closer to A than to B, which to me would rule out F176. On the Rev there are fewer than 13 teeth between the 1 and 3 so that would rule out F175. Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 Not to clear from the picture but to me it looks more like an F174 Quote
PWA 1967 Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) Yes its definately REV A so either F174 or F176. The Gap / colon does look wider ,however the I of IMP does look to tooth ,would need a clearer picture to be certain i think 🙂 OZ John if the I of IMP points to a tooth its F176 if its to a gap its F174 ,there are other indicators but thats the one i use first. Having another look at the indicators i do think its a F174 Edited October 24, 2019 by PWA 1967 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 A clearer bigger pic would mean certainty. Quote
ozjohn Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 Thanks for the interest and comments. It's obvious there are a lot of enthusiastic penny collectors out there. I'll try to provide a higher resolution scan of the 1913 obverse within the 500k file size limit 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.