1873/2 Penny has it been recorded?

[zookeeperz]

Always the same old coins be nice to find 1 on an UNC. Has there been any recorded or know appearances of an 1873/2 Penny? 99.9 % sure this is one Much clearer through the loupe but pretty obvious . Have any been recorded or anyone got 1 hiding anywhere? I am sure somewhere in the back of my latent memory I am sure this has been discussed somewhere but I might be thinking of another coin?

[1949threepence]

I've never heard of one, Richard. That one just looks a bit worn, which sometimes distorts true perception.

Cue someone to now say they are known 

 

[zookeeperz]

30 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I've never heard of one, Richard. That one just looks a bit worn, which sometimes distorts true perception.

Cue someone to now say they are known 

 

It is one I just wanted to know if anyone else had 1. through the loupe its clear but for some reason whatever spectrum the digiscope uses it is great for a small area at about 3 inches away but get any closer and you might as well look at a box of mud lol

[jelida]

Why do you think it is 3 over 2 Richard? By comparison with my specimens, there seems to be a dent in the back of the upper half of the 3 giving the appearance of a detached spike , but the spike represents the back of the bulbous curve on an undamaged coin, which is why the upper curve of the 3 looks much narrower than normal on yours. Try superimposing the images if you can. This is a very worn, battered coin and I am truly surprised you can express a confidence of one in a thousand! (‘99.9% certain’).  

I’m dubious, sorry, as I would love to see clear-cut new varieties.

Jerry

[zookeeperz]

31 minutes ago, jelida said:

Why do you think it is 3 over 2 Richard? By comparison with my specimens, there seems to be a dent in the back of the upper half of the 3 giving the appearance of a detached spike , but the spike represents the back of the bulbous curve on an undamaged coin, which is why the upper curve of the 3 looks much narrower than normal on yours. Try superimposing the images if you can. This is a very worn, battered coin and I am truly surprised you can express a confidence of one in a thousand! (‘99.9% certain’).  

I’m dubious, sorry, as I would love to see clear-cut new varieties.

Jerry

I don't know if this makes it any clearer I have over layed the normal 3 on top

 

[jelida]

Well, that clarifies my point about the upper half of the 3. I can see that a  ‘spike’ appears to rise from the almost worn away lower curve, but I suspect this is an artefact due to the surrounding dents and the angle looks wrong for a 2 diagonal anyway. I don’t think photos can clarify this on such a worn coin, if you remain adamant I can only suggest getting an ‘in the hand’ expert opinion.

Jerry

[zookeeperz]

9 hours ago, jelida said:

Well, that clarifies my point about the upper half of the 3. I can see that a  ‘spike’ appears to rise from the almost worn away lower curve, but I suspect this is an artefact due to the surrounding dents and the angle looks wrong for a 2 diagonal anyway. I don’t think photos can clarify this on such a worn coin, if you remain adamant I can only suggest getting an ‘in the hand’ expert opinion.

Jerry

Ignore the upward spike Jerry that is part of the coin surface caused by those indent either side . I was more interested in the base below the curve of the 3 and the far right edge of the top loop where there is another loop tracing it but goes inside the loop at a much steeper angle and not the same as the 3. I have the advantage of seeing it much clearer than the sad 5 mega-pixel image I could create and as you said the coin is in such a distressed condition unless you physically see it I wouldn't expect anything finite to be observed but all the input is on board. It's in the ever growing pile of TBD

 

Rich

[secret santa]

I'm not sure one can be definite about anything on very worn specimens like this. And, of course, if you can't actually photograph the evidence, in theory you can't actually record it.

[PWA 1967]

20 hours ago, DrLarry said:

we do have to verify and be careful not to fall into the lalala land that some will go...no you zoo.  I mentioned to a seller from manchester that he had possibly a R over a B in an 1862 halfpenny and apparently he went back on the deal. Now every single coin he puts up for auction is some error or other that hell only knows where he gets some of the ideas from.  It's quite a distraction LOL ...still I have kinda given up buying from him as he always does cloaked auctions with his best mate or cousin at the same ISP who bids everything up for no reason ...other than greed.  There is so little integrity these days....said the old crone 

Sounds like our good friend............If so surely your mistaken as everything he lists is correct and none of it shilled.

If it was him i think he probably struggled to understand you as his English is nearly as bad as mine 

How do you mean he went back on the deal, if you bought it then told HIM what it was its hardly surprising.

[PWA 1967]

No i never said that and obviously being new to the forum you are not aware of my views on dishonesty  .....I also made a point of using HIM in block capitals .

The person who bought it can ask and do what they want ,someone who didnt buy it or bid asking questions after it had sold i feel would not help the buyer.

Some sellers unfortunately are not truthfull or honest and better to just avoid.

it was quite hard typing as got a table cloth wrapped round me to see if the dapery on Britannia is correct 

All good fun.

Pete.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by PWA 1967

[mrbadexample]

15 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

it was quite hard typing as got a table cloth wrapped round me to see if the drapery on Britannia is correct 

Well, is it then? 

[PWA 1967]

Well with a table cloth,brush,wheel trim,flip flops and sat in the bath on a box ,looking in the mirror i think Mr Wyon did a good job 

Edited June 19, 2018 by PWA 1967

[zookeeperz]

Perhaps and seeing as those times you could be hung for just about anything that was against the monarchy the RM believed Mr LCW was making himself more important than what the coin was representing. He was hired to do a job and really only the Mint signature was needed on the coin. I am thinking they may have viewed it improper for him to have such a forefront profile and connection with the monarchy when he didn't other than to design what the coins were to look like. He was probably unauthorised to put his signature on the coins as in that era to mark the coins of the realm or deface them in any way was considered treason. Perhaps they hadn't realised firstly he had signed the coins. As his sig was only for 2 years perhaps in defiance he started to move his sig in a vain attempt to keep his name on the coins longer. As I cannot see why he would put them in 3 different places as human as we are we tend to be creatures of habit . I would of thought 1 signature in 1 place fits all. I also think he played cat and mouse with the RM as on some of the years both the reverse and obverse signatures were omitted only for them to reappear again. Ultimately was probably his parting gesture with the RM.  Has he ever appeared on any notes as a well known figure of history??

[Peckris]

4 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

Perhaps and seeing as those times you could be hung for just about anything that was against the monarchy the RM believed Mr LCW was making himself more important than what the coin was representing. 

I don't think so! Have you not heard of Hogarth and Rawlinson? The mockery of every monarch from Anne onwards was robust and some of them - George IV comes to mind - came in for some (deserved) ridicule. 

[1949threepence]

19 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

Perhaps and seeing as those times you could be hung for just about anything that was against the monarchy the RM believed Mr LCW was making himself more important than what the coin was representing. He was hired to do a job and really only the Mint signature was needed on the coin. I am thinking they may have viewed it improper for him to have such a forefront profile and connection with the monarchy when he didn't other than to design what the coins were to look like. He was probably unauthorised to put his signature on the coins as in that era to mark the coins of the realm or deface them in any way was considered treason. Perhaps they hadn't realised firstly he had signed the coins. As his sig was only for 2 years perhaps in defiance he started to move his sig in a vain attempt to keep his name on the coins longer. As I cannot see why he would put them in 3 different places as human as we are we tend to be creatures of habit . I would of thought 1 signature in 1 place fits all. I also think he played cat and mouse with the RM as on some of the years both the reverse and obverse signatures were omitted only for them to reappear again. Ultimately was probably his parting gesture with the RM.  Has he ever appeared on any notes as a well known figure of history??

Interesting thoughts. To be honest, who knows?

Yes, he had a signature on obverse and reverse, although whether or not this was authorised, and if so by whom, is anybody's guess. Obviously, too, that signature moved about a bit - at one point, on the reverse, even moving to underneath Britannia's foot.

We do know that on 4th August 1859, Gladstone, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, received parliamentary approval for the news smaller, thinner and lighter bronze coinage. Wyon started work on the designs immediately, which proved to be a far from easy task. Notwithstanding that, Gladstone expressed satisfaction with the design and appearance of some specimen coins that had been sent to him by the Master of the Mint, Thomas Graham. There was subsequently a debate regarding the obverse lettering, which was eventually settled on 21st May 1860.

On 4th July 1860, Wyon records in his diary, "bad news today:- The Queen wishes the portrait on the new coins to be altered". Finally, on 6th August 1860, after modifications, Gladstone wrote to Graham saying that Her Majesty was now well satisfied with the modified designs. Wyon had his signature on the pattern pennies as well, which must have been seen by Her Majesty and her staff. I'm reasonably confident that if this had been something that was not allowed, or faced Royal disapproval, the signatures would have been noted by someone, the Queen consulted, and the signatures removed. 

Moreover, to what extent was Wyon involved in any modifications post initial minting of currency issues? Probably very little. Yet his signature continues to appear until finally the Obverse 6 Reverse G type becomes the accepted norm in 1861. Even then, it would still have appeared on the mule Freeman 38, with obverse 2, in 1862.

What we don't know, of course, is why the signature was suddenly removed. Maybe in the subsequent absence of Leonard Wyon's influence, it was just thought unnecessary to continue including it. Again we will probably never know the true reason. 

   

  

     

 

[1949threepence]

Incidentally, here's a photograph of Wyon, who lived from 23rd November 1826 to 20th August 1891, succumbing, at the age of 64, to Bright's disease and apoplexy, at his home 54 Hamilton Terrace, St John's Wood. He's buried at Paddington Old Cemetery. He was married in 1852, to Mary Birks (1831 to 1902). The couple initially lived at Maida Vale, then moved to their St Johns Wood address in 1856.

He designed many other coins, some for the Empire. No idea if his initials appeared on them, and if they did, whether they continued to?

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by 1949threepence

[davidrj]

I am no expert at all values, but it seems to me that there is no consistency for the period 1860-1970 as to which coin designs (farthing to half crown, obverse or reverse) have designer’s initials. So maybe there is no rule?

[blakeyboy]

On 19/06/2018 at 5:11 PM, PWA 1967 said:

Well with a table cloth,brush,wheel trim,flip flops and sat in the bath on a box ,looking in the mirror i think Mr Wyon did a good job 

Oh I would give this ten 'likes' if I could.

My wife also thinks this is brilliant......

[Mr T]

On 6/20/2018 at 0:38 AM, davidrj said:

I am no expert at all values, but it seems to me that there is no consistency for the period 1860-1970 as to which coin designs (farthing to half crown, obverse or reverse) have designer’s initials. So maybe there is no rule?

I thought for a good chunk in the middle there were few or no initials (1870s to 1920s?) but certainly after that mostly there were initials.

[1949threepence]

Another possible reason why the LCW might have been dropped on pennies after 1861, is highlighted at page 422 of Peck. At the asterisked point 4, it reads:- 

Quote

"The signature gradually wore off these Rev C working dies, consequently specimens are met with, showing only C W or W, or sometimes only part of the W. Very occasionally, on specimens of No 1632 all three letters have entirely disappeared".     

We know this, for example, from reverse D, especially on Freeman 26's.

Although this apparently only applies to the reverse, maybe it was decided that it was just not worth the effort of keeping on with the LCW or L C WYON, because of the signature degredation issues.  

[Rob]

I think it may be a case of no policy regarding initials. W Wyon died in 1851, but obverses continued to carry the initials until in 1858 we have the appearance of no WW obverses. Presumably it became necessary to produce a new obverse due to the old ones wearing out and the lack of WW reflected the responsibility passing to another engraver. Given the lack of initials at this point, they were clearly not a required feature, and one might assume were an optional extra, which may account for the inconsistency of application. This is also suggested by the decimal patterns from 1857-9, where J(ames) W(yon)'s initials are the exception rather than the rule, despite him being thought responsible for many of the dies.

[Mr T]

8 hours ago, DrLarry said:

All the old heads are signed I think 

Right you are - I should have qualified it by saying reverse dies.

I think besides the bun head obverse, every obverse after that had initials.

[Michael-Roo]

On 21 June 2018 at 11:15 AM, DrLarry said:

here is my interpretation of the American early cents as a protest against GIII

 The octopus strangles liberty 

 

The Dunghill cartoon is Pitt, not George III.

[1949threepence]

6 hours ago, DrLarry said:

 

James being the uncle? 

Hmmm, you'd think so wouldn't you. That was my immediate reaction, and would be the case if James had been William's brother. But since James Wyon was William Wyon's cousin (presumably first cousin), that officially makes him Leonard Charles Wyon's first cousin once removed.

William Wyon being Leonard Wyon's Father.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by 1949threepence