F 67 - Specimen?

[shane carew]

Recently I came across a penny a Freeman 67, which is a rare type (6+H) that looked like it had been struck to a specimen standard. I could not find any reference of this type struck to either proof or specimen standard. Has anyone else come across one they would have thought was too good for a circulation strike? 

Edited October 11, 2019 by shane carew

[secret santa]

Have you seen it in hand ?

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, shane carew said:

Recently I came across a penny a Freeman 67, which is a rare type (6+H) that looked like it had been struck to a specimen standard. I could not find any reference of this type struck to either proof or specimen standard. Has anyone else come across one they would have thought was too good for a circulation strike? 

 

 

No, in fact the only specimens/possible proofs known of in the 1874 series, are the Heaton Mint ones (F74). I actually successfully bid for the Copthorne example, in 2016.

Your F67 definitely does have the typical red/blue toning characteristics of a specimen, as well as that thick rim, especially to the obverse, which my F74 has as well. 

[shane carew]

@Santa: Yes I have and the coin had a very sharp rim, but the coin is now slabbed. Also, the picture does not perfectly capture the bluish toning seen the coin.
@1949: The Copthorne coin that you refer to was a lovely 'specimen'. Indeed, the rim is a good indicator but there are no official specimens of this date bar the Heatons as you rightly point out. Further, the F67 is one variety that I've hardly seen about 6 in high grades and at least 2 out of those had a thick rim. 

 

[JLS]

Is there a die break on the top of the reverse ? 

[Peckris 2]

10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

No, in fact the only specimens/possible proofs known of in the 1874 series, are the Heaton Mint ones (F74). I actually successfully bid for the Copthorne example, in 2016.

Your F67 definitely does have the typical red/blue toning characteristics of a specimen, as well as that thick rim, especially to the obverse, which my F74 has as well. 

I have an 1862 penny with a wide rim, glossy almost reflective fields, and a sharp strike. I've always written it off as "not a proof" but I'd be open to it being a specimen.

[1949threepence]

4 hours ago, shane carew said:

@Santa: Yes I have and the coin had a very sharp rim, but the coin is now slabbed. Also, the picture does not perfectly capture the bluish toning seen the coin.
@1949: The Copthorne coin that you refer to was a lovely 'specimen'. Indeed, the rim is a good indicator but there are no official specimens of this date bar the Heatons as you rightly point out. Further, the F67 is one variety that I've hardly seen about 6 in high grades and at least 2 out of those had a thick rim. 

 

Here's my F67, out of interest. Ordinary rim and definitely not a specimen, but as you say there are other non specimens with a thick rim.

High grade, but definitely a currency strike, and a clear difference to yours, which does have all the hallmarks of a specimen strike. 

 

 

 

 

[1949threepence]

40 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I have an 1862 penny with a wide rim, glossy almost reflective fields, and a sharp strike. I've always written it off as "not a proof" but I'd be open to it being a specimen.

Pics, Chris?

[jelida]

If some specimen coins have a wide rim, but are struck from the same dies as the later currency strikes, would they not have to have a larger collar in the press, and be measurably wider? Otherwise with a wider rim the die would have to be fractionally smaller for a coin of standard size. Any thoughts?

Jerry

And I agree, the coin in question could easily be a “specimen” from the picture. But can we reliably distinguish these from early currency strikes from ‘proof’ dies, or even ‘new’ normal working dies? Unless the existence of specimens is contemporaneously recorded, how can there be any certainty?

[jelida]

My F67 has fairly wide rims too - or smaller teeth. It is clearly a circulated coin.

Jerry

[1949threepence]

11 minutes ago, jelida said:

If some specimen coins have a wide rim, but are struck from the same dies as the later currency strikes, would they not have to have a larger collar in the press, and be measurably wider? Otherwise with a wider rim the die would have to be fractionally smaller for a coin of standard size. Any thoughts?

Jerry

And I agree, the coin in question could easily be a “specimen” from the picture. But can we reliably distinguish these from early currency strikes from ‘proof’ dies, or even ‘new’ normal working dies? Unless the existence of specimens is contemporaneously recorded, how can there be any certainty?

Good points Jerry. Logically, you're spot on. 

Maybe the wide rim is a bit of an erroneous red herring.

[VickySilver]

OP coin looks "specimenish" to me. I like the overall appearance as being proof

[shane carew]

@JLS there are no die breaks on this coin. Considering the Obv 6 and Rev G dies were in use since 1860 with 1874 being their last, I would have expected some die cracks to have made an appearance on the coin struck for currency purposes or for the coin to contain some strike imperfections such as missing detail around the shield or the breastplate. Both these imperfections are almost always present on the 1872 currency penny. 

@Peckris: very interesting, pictures of the coin please? 

@Jelida: "But can we reliably distinguish these from early currency strikes from ‘proof’ dies, or even ‘new’ normal working dies? Unless the existence of specimens is contemporaneously recorded, how can there be any certainty?" Exactly, you capture my predicament accurately. I've come across specimens housed in a special presentation case, as is the case with the 1935 crown, which are quite different to proofs that come housed in a very different type of presentation case. With copper and bronze coins I've seen them housed in presentation cases only when the coins are proof. Would that mean there were no specimen strikes at all with copper and bronze coins? Very unlikely I feel but that alone can't for the basis of a case for base metal specimen strikes. Hence here's me asking on an open forum hoping that someone knows.

[Peckris 2]

17 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Pics, Chris?

I'm afraid this is a typical example of a scan obliterating all that's good about a coin's tone. However, it's the best I could do back then, but it doesn't show the penny's glossy dark blue/green patina.

[secret santa]

I have always been a little sceptical about some of the so-called "proofs" and/or "specimens" of the 1874 series. LCA have sold several F74 proof pennies (I have bought one) and although they are sharply struck with good surfaces, I have never been totally convinced that they were struck as proofs. Interestingly, they offered in September 2012 a "unique" 1874 (no H) 6+G penny for sale, ex-Freeman who described it as proof. The accompanying description was interesting as it exemplified the debates around proof/nonproof pennies of that era. The coin was unsold and I don't recall why I didn't buy it - I guess I wasn't convinced.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I'm afraid this is a typical example of a scan obliterating all that's good about a coin's tone. However, it's the best I could do back then, but it doesn't show the penny's glossy dark blue/green patina.

I can see that the fields are smooth and the strike very sharp.

Are you able to take a picture now?

 

[Peckris 2]

3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I can see that the fields are smooth and the strike very sharp.

Are you able to take a picture now?

 

Not really.  Disability allows me just about to wield an iPad, and my Lumix camera in automatic 'snapshot' mode, but that's about it.

[1949threepence]

31 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Not really.  Disability allows me just about to wield an iPad, and my Lumix camera in automatic 'snapshot' mode, but that's about it.

Not to worry. Got a pretty good idea from the above anyway.

[1949threepence]

I don't think the F74 is a proof, nor was ever intended to be. Rather it is an intentional specimen, as opposed to an early strike from new polished dies. 

The following description accompanied the Copthorne example:-

Quote

 

86.     1874 Specimen issue. BMC 1698. F 74. Dies 7 + H. Small rim nick at 3 o'clock. Virtually as struck with some lustre.

Ex D. Wallis Collection, DNW Auction 83, 30 September 2009, lot 3372 (from J. Welsh January 2000). Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished 'specimen' coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative

(cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p545; cf Tansley Collection, DNW 67, Lot 369 

 

Anyway, here it is. It is an exceptionally good strike, especially to the obverse. But lacks any indication whatever of it being a proof.