1799 Half Penny Bronzed Proof Peck 1234

[Patrick2023]

Originally housed in a PCGS PR65 holder. Dark bronzed surface with water like proof surface. No contact marks and with only the lightest hairline on this piece. A few carbon spots on the obv. Details on this coin are extraordinary, even the minutiae of the engraving are all revealed. 

[Patrick2023]

Close up imagery of the coin details:

 

[Patrick2023]

Maybe this is a very newbie question, can someone explain why pieces attributed to Peck 1234 show different stages of coin details sharpness? Picture below is a comparison I made of mine and two coins I found on the Heritage auction website. It is quite clear that the hair, wreath decreases in sharpness. Also jewels size gets smaller. Futhermore the die scratches below King’s nose are present on the first and disappear on the second and third piece. Is this due to die polishing or pressure? 

[Peckris 2]

What I think you're seeing is almost entirely the result of photography - the second slightly less precise focus than the first and third - and also the lighting used. You should also see that - unlike when a coin is scanned not photographed - those 3 pictures each show the coin in a slightly different plane; the second example in particular seems to show that the plane is tilted with the head closer to the camera than the bust.

The scratches on the first are incuse not raised, and therefore not die scratches.

[Rob]

Given the numbers of KH16 known, it is clear that the type was struck over an extended period.

The scratches by the mouth are on the die as my example of P1234 (now sold) also had this feature. See below. In hand, it does not appear on my copper P1235 (see below), nor did it show on my gilt P1233 (now sold). The implication of this is that either it was on the die from the beginning and subsequently filled, or the die was improved at a later date when the scratch appeared. I agree that the lighting may be a factor here, as the ribbon looks weaker on your third image, as is the eyebrow detail and the lines by the eye. If all things were equal, that would imply a worn die, with the smaller jewels also in agreement, but I'm not sure things are equal. The state of the drapery flaw could give a clue as to where in the chronology each image fits. The third looks bigger than the first two, but again this could be lighting. 

The jewels on my 1235 are razor sharp. There are also two faint raised parallel lines on the die running from the ear lobe to the base of the throat profile. These not visible in any image, so can't comment regarding the other two.

 

[Patrick2023]

Quote

 If all things were equal, that would imply a worn die

Thanks. Adding to my question, I found this specimen on Noonans auction. Both obv and rev dies do look quite worn (a die crack along Britannia elbow). So was KH16 used solely in the early Soho period? Peck in his book said that “practically certain that KH 10 to 17 were early pieces”. I find it quite odd that these lacking detail pieces were produced in the early period along their counterparts.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Patrick2023

[Patrick2023]

[Patrick2023]

HA piece from the third picture 

[Peckris 2]

17 minutes ago, Patrick2023 said:

Thanks. Adding to my question, I found this specimen on Noonans auction. Both obv and rev dies do look quite worn (a die crack along Britannia elbow). So was KH16 used solely in the early Soho period? Peck in his book said that “practically certain that KH 10 to 17 were early pieces”. I find it quite odd that these lacking detail pieces were produced in the early period along their counterparts.

Perhaps your example is a Taylor restrike, but @Rob would know whether that's possible from the die(s) in question.

[Rob]

2 hours ago, Patrick2023 said:

Thanks. Adding to my question, I found this specimen on Noonans auction. Both obv and rev dies do look quite worn (a die crack along Britannia elbow). So was KH16 used solely in the early Soho period? Peck in his book said that “practically certain that KH 10 to 17 were early pieces”. I find it quite odd that these lacking detail pieces were produced in the early period along their counterparts.

 

 

Based on when a die pair was first used, Early Soho is essentially contemporary with the date on the coin, whereas Late Soho is struck from the same die(s) at a later date. There is nothing to stop Early Soho pieces being struck for a prolonged period if the dies were serviceable. So although some would be produced later, they would be indistinguishable from early strikes unless the dies showed signs of wear or rusting. What it doesn't tell you however, is the overall time period.

Peck frequently seems to have taken Late to be when one or both of the dies had developed rust spots without gradual degradation of the die. i.e rust spots are present or not, and not seen in a progressive degree of dilapidation. This creates the necessary break between use to assign the period. Dies which had been polished down or refurbished in some way would also qualify for Late status. Obviously the division is an artificial one created by Peck and can't be tied to a particular date, because a die stored in the wrong conditions could degrade within a week or two. Also, one could potentially take issue with some of the attributions such as the 1797 obverse die combined with the 1795 reverse being described as Early, but then none of us knows if the 1797 obverse bust punch was made by 1795.