Recessed ear pennies of 1915 and 1916

[1949threepence]

I'm zeroing in on a couple, and I just wondered if anybody had any thoughts as to how scarce they are, given the extreme commonality of their non recessed counterparts? What, 1 in 10, 1 in 20?

Obviously Freeman makes reference to them, but no quantitatively. 

Thanks in advance gents.

 

  

[PWA 1967]

The 1916 is relatively common ,but the 1915 scarce IMO Mike

16 .....1 in 5

15......1 in 30.

Only a guess 🙂

Looking at CGS they have done 17 1916 and 2 1915 the 2 1915 i sent them both 🙂

Edited November 13, 2018 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

55 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

The 1916 is relatively common ,but the 1915 scarce IMO Mike

16 .....1 in 5

15......1 in 30.

Only a guess 🙂

Looking at CGS they have done 17 1916 and 2 1915 the 2 1915 i sent them both 🙂

Thanks Pete. Much appreciated.

I did attempt some research, but could find nothing. 

 

[PWA 1967]

Having a quick look Mike LCA have only sold one decent 1915 since 2005 ,so yes to find them in a high grade is difficult.

Sure one will turn up , although even the normal 1915 can be hard in UNC with a decent strike .

[1949threepence]

28 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Having a quick look Mike LCA have only sold one decent 1915 since 2005 ,so yes to find them in a high grade is difficult.

Sure one will turn up , although even the normal 1915 can be hard in UNC with a decent strike .

Funnily enough I just had a quick look on LCA before I read your above post, Pete - found this about that same coin:-

 

01/06/2014 Auction 145

English Coins

Lot 1966

Penny 1915 Freeman 179 dies 2+B but with recessed ear. This occurring on 1915 and 1916 Pennies with the 1915 being by far the rarer of the two dates. UNC, the obverse with practically full lustre, the reverse with some toning  More coins like this

£160

[secret santa]

Yes, decent 1915 examples very very hard to find.

[1949threepence]

Just as a footnote to this topic, I found this January 2016 incredibly useful post from @davidrj quoting estimates from V.R.Court in this regard. 

[Peckris 2]

Just as a cautionary note on Court - his estimates are pre-melt, which makes the more obscure/less recognisable varieties more likely to have been melted down. He reckoned the 1926ME was twice as rare as the 1946 ONE', while Gouby reckons it's the other way round.

[1949threepence]

On 12/24/2018 at 7:35 PM, Peckris 2 said:

Just as a cautionary note on Court - his estimates are pre-melt, which makes the more obscure/less recognisable varieties more likely to have been melted down. He reckoned the 1926ME was twice as rare as the 1946 ONE', while Gouby reckons it's the other way round.

Indeed. 

Although by logical extension, since melts would be totally random, the ratios calculated by Court should still be roughly the same on the remaining population.    

[Peckris 2]

On 26 December 2018 at 5:02 PM, 1949threepence said:

Indeed. 

Although by logical extension, since melts would be totally random, the ratios calculated by Court should still be roughly the same on the remaining population.    

Yes, but more 1926ME's would have been spotted and taken out of circulation than 1946 ONE'

[1949threepence]

7 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, but more 1926ME's would have been spotted and taken out of circulation than 1946 ONE'

That is true of course. I must admit I was thinking more of the recessed ear specimens.   

[Gary D]

I would suggest that the big melt would have completely distorted rarity figures. A large number were removed before the melt so a lot of the big mintages may now be rarer than the pre melt rarities.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Gary D said:

I would suggest that the big melt would have completely distorted rarity figures. A large number were removed before the melt so a lot of the big mintages may now be rarer than the pre melt rarities.

Well yes, although if you look at David's post, which is as follows:-

Quote

 

I have 15 & 16 recessed ears, both in good EF but still looking for a decent filled 5 1915 though.

I agree 1915 is harder - V R Court figures from circulation coins were

1915              277/2425       1 in 8.75          = approx mintage of  5.4 M

1916              921/4013       1 in 4.36          = approx mintage of 16.1 M

So approx 3 times as many 1916s than 1915s, and you have to search twice as many 1915s to find one

by comparison for other 20th C scarce pennies Court estimates the following mintages

1903 open 3            37,300

1908 F164a             55,550

1909 F169               23,200

1911 Gouby X        188,000

1926 ME                107,750

1946 dot                384,200

He didn't find any 1922/7, and no mention of the 1909 dot

Good luck folks for finding any of these in top grade! 

 

I'd venture to say that there wouldn't have been too much rarity distortion on the recessed ear varieties, as I don't think they would have been extensively known about or collected prior to withdrawal on 31st August 1971. Although I stand to be corrected on that as I know Freeman was first published at some point in 1970. So there might conceivably have been some collected in the year or so that the book was out, before pennies were withdrawn from circulation. 

 

[Peckris 2]

7 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Well yes, although if you look at David's post, which is as follows:-

I'd venture to say that there wouldn't have been too much rarity distortion on the recessed ear varieties, as I don't think they would have been extensively known about or collected prior to withdrawal on 31st August 1971. Although I stand to be corrected on that as I know Freeman was first published at some point in 1970. So there might conceivably have been some collected in the year or so that the book was out, before pennies were withdrawn from circulation. 

 

This is a real unknown. I was pulling pennies from 5/- bags got from banks through 1968-69. I knew nothing about the 'recessed ear' variety, but I did see very clearly that some specimens of 1915 and 1916 looked 'odd' as if the ear had been punched in. This was especially evident on the worn examples I saw so often - much more so than on the EF or better examples we collect. I could have had the urge to collect these oddities, but did not. However, other kids doing the same kind of thing might have decided to collect them without knowing exactly what they were.

[1949threepence]

28 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

This is a real unknown. I was pulling pennies from 5/- bags got from banks through 1968-69. I knew nothing about the 'recessed ear' variety, but I did see very clearly that some specimens of 1915 and 1916 looked 'odd' as if the ear had been punched in. This was especially evident on the worn examples I saw so often - much more so than on the EF or better examples we collect. I could have had the urge to collect these oddities, but did not. However, other kids doing the same kind of thing might have decided to collect them without knowing exactly what they were.

Indeed. 

Another point that comes to mind is the grade. I'd strongly bet that the 5 bob bags of pennies you got from the bank did not have any high grade specimens from those years. Given the usage and wear of over 50 years, there'd have been a vast majority of VG to fine, with the odd good fine, and the very occasional VF, but nothing better.

The high grade examples that collectors gravitate towards now would have come from prior collections or the odd few from the inside of settees, old long forgotten purses and the like. Probably, they did not include anything deliberately set aside because of what look like a stoved in ear.

Although as you rightly say Chris, it's a real unknown. A mystery we can never crack.        

[Peckris 2]

On 28 December 2018 at 11:25 PM, 1949threepence said:

Indeed. 

Another point that comes to mind is the grade. I'd strongly bet that the 5 bob bags of pennies you got from the bank did not have any high grade specimens from those years. Given the usage and wear of over 50 years, there'd have been a vast majority of VG to fine, with the odd good fine, and the very occasional VF, but nothing better.

The high grade examples that collectors gravitate towards now would have come from prior collections or the odd few from the inside of settees, old long forgotten purses and the like. Probably, they did not include anything deliberately set aside because of what look like a stoved in ear.

Although as you rightly say Chris, it's a real unknown. A mystery we can never crack.        

Quite so. The exceptions brought real joy but were mostly halfpennies - 1909 in NEF, 1935 in GEF with lustre, and a 1938 in Unc with good lustre. However, pennies were mainly low and ugly grades making the recessed ears easier to spot than EF or better examples would have been, but they never turned up!

[Gary D]

Just looking for the broken tooth they should be easy to spot in any grade.

[AardHawk]

I think the Sunken Ear varieties were quite well known during the '60s and before. Here are two articles from the late '60s.

 

 

[AardHawk]

[1949threepence]

Thanks for that Aardhawk. Very interesting. Clearly the numismatic community had the low down on these pennies before Freeman wrote about them. Obvious when you think about it, as the recessed or "depressed" ear types are very noticeable, so it would have been strange if they hadn't been picked up beforehand.  

[Mr T]

18 hours ago, Gary D said:

Just looking for the broken tooth they should be easy to spot in any grade.

I thought not all the 1915 recessed ear had the broken tooth?

[Peckris 2]

22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks for that Aardhawk. Very interesting. Clearly the numismatic community had the low down on these pennies before Freeman wrote about them. Obvious when you think about it, as the recessed or "depressed" ear types are very noticeable, so it would have been strange if they hadn't been picked up beforehand.  

Yes, a good bit of research that. It does, however, beg the question of how much notice did the collecting community take of these articles and letters? Serious collectors in the 1960s were only buying top grades pre-1937 and the recessed ear was not published in official catalogues and guides, and very much less noticeable in EF and above.

I remember that the 1946 ONE' flaw was described in a beginners' page in Coin Monthly early '68, soon after I started my own interest in coins - it didn't lead to any widespread dissemination of the variety for years though. I think people read those things in magazines and thought "Ooh that's interesting, I must look out for them", but due to a lack of follow-up (which of course would occur rapidly now in the internet age) soon forgot or lost interest.

[1949threepence]

3 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, a good bit of research that. It does, however, beg the question of how much notice did the collecting community take of these articles and letters? Serious collectors in the 1960s were only buying top grades pre-1937 and the recessed ear was not published in official catalogues and guides, and very much less noticeable in EF and above.

I remember that the 1946 ONE' flaw was described in a beginners' page in Coin Monthly early '68, soon after I started my own interest in coins - it didn't lead to any widespread dissemination of the variety for years though. I think people read those things in magazines and thought "Ooh that's interesting, I must look out for them", but due to a lack of follow-up (which of course would occur rapidly now in the internet age) soon forgot or lost interest.

Yes, very much so. In the pre internet era, such magazine articles would probably have been forgotten very quickly, whereas today, of course, there would be considerable follow up as the articles get reproduced internationally, and gain much more exposure on different platforms. That would undoubtedly have generated a lot more interest.

As it was, and as you rightly point out, in those days, collectors and budding collectors would have been much more strongly drawn to the glamour pieces of the day, which would most likely not have included George V pennies, bar the H's KN's and ME's of this world, and probably date fills of any other type going.

Nonetheless, at least the article kindly reproduced by @AardHawk shows that there was awareness of this variety, and probably had been for many years prior to that. It would be very interesting to read some of the relevant Royal MInt annual reports.