Minor GB Penny Queries 1899 narrow date 1880 higher 0 and 1889 Victoria's Nose

[The Bee 41]

Hi,

I received another pile of circulated pennies over the weekend and had a look last night. Over half of pennies in this accumulation were end of QV reign 1896 -1901. So far had a look through 1896 and 1899. Under 1899 I have one example where spacing of the 9's are clearly closer together (first one I think I've seen) assuming its Mr Freeman's 1 B (I have the 2006 reprint) not sure if there is any other description. I also started to tidy up 1880 and found just one where the 0 is set slightly higher. 

Lastly having found missing serif's in 1888 (quite a few so must be quite common) I thought I'd check 1889. No luck so far on 1889 missing serifs, but on comparing my 1889 in the main tray vs the 1889 next best (which I had relegated to the box of next best's) I noticed some differences on the obverse on Victoria's face. I assuming the smooth nose might be 12N and the one with a triangular depression would be 13 N ?

Very Best Regard

 

[secret santa 2,137]

I don't see any differences.

[Rob 3,106]

I think they could possibly be different punches. The top one has a bit of a double chin, but the bottom not. The eyelids look a bit different, the mouth a bit deeper on the top one and nostril more hooked on the bottom one, but whether it's down to depth of strike, I'm not sure.

[Martinminerva 294]

7 hours ago, The Bee said:

I assuming the smooth nose might be 12N and the one with a triangular depression would be 13 N ?

First thing to do is to ascertain if they really are different obverses: easily done - 13 has the "missing leaf" compared to 12. If so, no need to worry about fractional possible differences around nose/lips/eye area. If they prove to be the same obverse, like Richard and Rob, I don't think there's any significant difference worth noting. Could well be depth/pressure of strike, wear of die, resistance of metal in each blank etc.

With the 1899 and other date widths you might see, you really need to get hold of that latest Gouby (2020 additions) as he covers all manner of subtle date varieties - but as we've said before on these threads, many other date widths (and heights!!) are known, even if not catalogued by Gouby yet.

Edited September 24 by Martinminerva

[The Bee 41]

Thank goodness for Secret Santa's wordpress site ! 

Just checked the leaves and the RE in REG.

Victoria "Triangle" has a leaf missing , replaced by hair , and the long tail of the R touches the base of the E ! So this is Mr Freeman's Obverse 13

Whilst Victoria "Smooth" has the leaf and the R and E are clearly separated ... and this is Mr Freeman's Obverse 12

So good I almost added an emoji ! 

Very Best Regards !

[Peckris 2 2,102]

1899 is *the* year for varying date widths - they occur from narrow to very wide

[The Bee 41]

9 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

1899 is *the* year for varying date widths - they occur from narrow to very wide

Many thanks Peckris 2

Sounds like there is a lot of variety (or inconsistency) in 1899. Maybe the apprentices had been given a chance to show what they could do !

I wondered would it be possible to advise what the very narrowest and very widest would be ?

Very Best Regards

[secret santa 2,137]

Courtesy of Michael Gouby

[The Bee 41]

Many thanks Secret Santa

It is really helpful to see the examples of the differences in the widths of the date

I think I have the 9.5 and 10 

Probably though an improvement on1896 and 1897, where the mint staff must have staggered back in to work after a very big night out, or the QA team was unwell !

Very Best Regards

[Coinery 1,012]

Just seeing this for the first time…were there thought to be any differences in those bust profiles, because clearly there are?

[PWA 1967 2,044]

8 hours ago, The Bee said:

Many thanks Secret Santa

It is really helpful to see the examples of the differences in the widths of the date

I think I have the 9.5 and 10 

Probably though an improvement on1896 and 1897, where the mint staff must have staggered back in to work after a very big night out, or the QA team was unwell !

Very Best Regards

The 1896 Very wide date is Rare ,i have only seen or know of about 10 looking for them over the last 7/8 years.

Gouby BP1896Ad , 11-5 Date width ,although Michael has put scarce in his book due to not doing another book and knowing how many will turn up in the future.

There are 4 date widths for 1896 ( a,b,c&d) this being the widest.

Keep it safe 👍

Edited October 1 by PWA 1967

[blakeyboy 1,643]

 

I found this 1880 years ago, which i think shows that the Mint were concerned at some point about the 0 wandering up and moved it back down....

[The Bee 41]

Many thanks for the comments

When I joined the list I really didn't think anyone would comment on any of my posts - being a relatively complete beginner

I really like blakeyboy's 1880, the correction to the "0" is clear, I assume that followed on from my posting at the the top of the list

Thank you PWA 1967 for the comment on the 1896, I had no idea it was scarce. only that its the only one I've found (obviously well circulated).

It made me wonder if there was a practice at the Mint, when they has spare time (aside from repairing broken dies) they prepared a die with the first three digits and then just had to put the last digit in, but suffered last digit "creep." Or maybe it simply was done for bet / last day on the job / the heavy head after the big night before ! I wonder if there were letters to the Times  about sloppy pennies ! Incidentally Newspapers even early ones were consecutively numbered for each week or day e.g. 1000, 1001, 1002, etc. But I've noticed when it got to Christmas / New Year this is the time errors creep in. You'll find the number doesn't change , or changes by far more than it should.     

On 1889, both pennies are in decent condition. These were probably purchases to upgrade and probably bought two by accident, rather than the one I needed. I know its a bit numpty, but if you look at the lower of the two QV's and follow the queens eyebrow up to the top, there a clear depression which has the illusion of being roughly triangular (head left from the end of the eyebrow then when it terminates up right and back down right). This has the missing leaf. The nose is different (the right side of the "triangle"-and the nostril is different , as is I think is the chin, possibly the neck, etc. Photographed at a different angle the differences wouldn't be so obvious. I only spotted it because like to handle coins and as I tilted it at a certain angle the sunlight caught it and I saw the area under QV's nose.  

If anyone has the time / interest and is able to share pictures of other extremes in dates from any year that you've noticed - that would be really helpful

Very Best Regards and thanks again

 

[blakeyboy 1,643]

That 1880 is one of my favourite coins, because it was an accidental find, and explains a lot.

I don't know of another. My feeling is that ten more need to be found, and it will then have known status and value.

[blakeyboy 1,643]

11 hours ago, Coinery said:

Just seeing this for the first time…were there thought to be any differences in those bust profiles, because clearly there are?

Agreed, and the extra fat under the chin makes Victoria look likes she's put on a stone in the first picture...!

[Coinery 1,012]

2 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

Agreed, and the extra fat under the chin makes Victoria look likes she's put on a stone in the first picture...!

Equally, the bottom lip of the upper image extends beyond the top lip, plus the cheek has a flatter profile on one.

Also, and I realise it’s exaggerated by one of the images being slightly tilted, but the alignment of her features below the nose are also very different!

[Rob 3,106]

6 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

 

I found this 1880 years ago, which i think shows that the Mint were concerned at some point about the 0 wandering up and moved it back down....

The last digit was entered manually, whereas the first three are on the master. That's why you get varying date widths usually on the 3rd & 4th (not related to narrow and wide dates which are completely different. I know the coppers had a die with just 18, because one reading that went through Baldwin's, but I think by the time of the bronze coinage, it was normally the first three. So in summary, the 0 was just entered too high initially.

Edited October 1 by Rob

[blakeyboy 1,643]

6 minutes ago, Rob said:

The last digit was entered manually, whereas the first three are on the master. That's why you get varying date widths usually on the 3rd & 4th (not related to narrow and wide dates which are completely different. I know the coppers had a die with just 18, because one reading that went through Baldwin's, but I think by the time of the bronze coinage, it was normally the first three. So in summary, the 0 was just entered too high initially.

Thanks Rob. Useful as usual!

 

[secret santa 2,137]

I've taken another look at the two 1889 obverses. Interestingly, I've found that the 1889 F127 which is recorded as Obverse R has a distinct difference to Victoria's jawline as mentioned in several of the above posts. This difference appears unique to the F127 as none of my other Obverse R coins seem to have the slight "double chin" and nor does the 1889 F128 (Obverse S). There are other minor differences around the eye and mouth. It does suggest that F127 has a unique variation of Obverse R, and that Obverse S is a modified version of Obverse R and not a modified version of the F127 obverse. 

Photos of an 1888 penny (obv R) and 1889 F127 (obv R) are shown below to illustrate the difference together with the F128.

1888 obverse R

1889 F127 obverse R

1889 F128 obverse S

 

Edited October 1 by secret santa
amendment

[secret santa 2,137]

In addition, the angle of her nose and upper lip differs between the 2 obverse R (Freeman obv 11) photos.

All my examples of 1889 obv R (date width variations) have this double chin.

[Paddy 1,617]

As everyone here knows, I am not good on minor varieties! But looking at my 1890 and 1891 Obverse Rs they resemble to 1889 with the fatter chin, but not the 1888? Is it that the Obverse R for 1889 and later is different to the obverse R 1888 and earlier? That is a different die and so not really and R?

 

[secret santa 2,137]

I've just checked through my dates from 1882 (F114, F115) through to 1894 when obverse R was used and, like Paddy, my 1890 and 1891 pennies all have the fatter chin, but 1882 to 1888 and 1892 to 1894 have the normal chin. It seems strange that this slightly different obverse was used for a 3 year spell in the middle of a 14 year run.

I've asked Michael Gouby for his views.

[The Bee 41]

12 hours ago, secret santa said:

I've just checked through my dates from 1882 (F114, F115) through to 1894 when obverse R was used and, like Paddy, my 1890 and 1891 pennies all have the fatter chin, but 1882 to 1888 and 1892 to 1894 have the normal chin. It seems strange that this slightly different obverse was used for a 3 year spell in the middle of a 14 year run.

I've asked Michael Gouby for his views.

Hi,

Just a query. I had a look at my "best" 1890 - 1892 Pennies. These examples being circulated show wear on highlights (particularly wreath and berries) but the portrait is okay and QV's chin is clear. My 1890 and 1891 have the fatter chin and 1892 normal chin. So being curious I wondered whether the changeover was clean* or does anyone out there have either a 1891 Penny with a normal chin or an 1892 Penny with the fatter chin ???

Very Best Regards 

* I will have a look at the rest of my 1891 and 1892 to see if I can find anything

 

[secret santa 2,137]

I've just flicked through the LCA sold pennies dated 1890-1892 and all the 1890 and 1891 coins have the fatter face and the vast majority of 1892 have the normal obverse although there is at least one that seems to have the fatter variety.

I wonder whether there was a subtle attempt to age the queen's portrait (as in 1874) which she then objected to and so they reverted to the previous obverse ?

[The Bee 41]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

I've just flicked through the LCA sold pennies dated 1890-1892 and all the 1890 and 1891 coins have the fatter face and the vast majority of 1892 have the normal obverse although there is at least one that seems to have the fatter variety.

I wonder whether there was a subtle attempt to age the queen's portrait (as in 1874) which she then objected to and so they reverted to the previous obverse ?

For 1892 I think I have a worn example of the fatter face. I think when worn you can see a "v" in the chin area. Think I've seen "fatter face" for sale in good condition (possibly EF) but expensive.

And sounds a good hypothesis ! If QV was unhappy about it in 1874, then she would probably still be "unamused" at a second attempt in 1889 - 92  . Her chins were looking better in 1896 just in time for her Diamond Jubilee the following year!