Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

The Bee

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

In the same way that the tooth enhanced obverse D is designated ‘D*’ in Freeman,  should we be looking at an ‘R*’ designation here? Particularly if some dates do prove to come in both varieties.

Jerry

Edited by jelida
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Bee said:

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! 
 

She was said to be unhappy with the jubilee portrait of 1887- 1893 silver and gold; perhaps the same applies!

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, secret santa said:

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 ?

I think this theory is gaining ground, especially when you compare the modified obverse to the 1895 veiled head obverse:

1584237714_1889F127obvzoom2lowres.jpg.95cc47ca2a5ce384a1e994a8faa70fd7.jpgModified obverse R

1558420644_1895F141obvzoom1lowres.jpg.fc65ce48b8681802be7ba2831c42048f.jpgVeiled head obverse

It may be a prototype stage before the final "old head" design.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, could it be the least flattering coin portrait of any GB monarch ! 

"Everyone likes flattery; and when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel." Benjamin Disraeli

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Bee said:

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 ?

I too have both sub-types of face/chin for 1892 - a very interesting spot, Bee - jolly well done on raising a hitherto unnoticed variety!! Not that my sample is huge, but all my fat face/double chin ones are Gouby BP1892Aa with the 13.5 beads date width, and the slimmer face ones are Gouby BP1892Ab with 14 beads date (and the BP1892B only-recorded-on Gouby website 13 bead narrow date see: http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/bp_1892_varieties.htm   (wonder why he never included this last one in his book??))

All good fun!! Wonder if there are more crossover dates or indeed date widths?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1892 is the fatter face version I think. I struggle with the date width, but I think this is the wider date?

283210979_1892D12NF1341-side.thumb.JPG.75d1f9af041123b1afb10facf910b757.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jelida said:

She was said to be unhappy with the jubilee portrait of 1887- 1893 silver and gold;

As she was with the initial unadopted beaded obverse A and B on the pennies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1892 ‘fat face’ obverse is the 14 tooth date width, and the 13.5 tooth date is the ‘normal’ obverse. Though let’s hope this particular nomenclature doesn’t catch on!

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Paddy said:

My 1892 is the fatter face version I think. I struggle with the date width, but I think this is the wider date?

283210979_1892D12NF1341-side.thumb.JPG.75d1f9af041123b1afb10facf910b757.JPG

This is the "normal" date width of 13.5 beads (to tip of the 2) and so is Gouby BP1892Aa as are all my fat face/double chin ones, but Jerry above confirms he has a 14 bead fat face one and a 13.5 bead normal face one, so there is indeed crossover in date widths and reverse sub-types for the micro-variety completist... Hooray!  I quite like the fat face nomenclature, actually - does what it says on the tin!!

Edited by Martinminerva
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, and obviously when you think about it, the versions of 1889 F127 with the missing serifs are the normal obverse R.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/1/2024 at 7:29 PM, 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.

Regal disapproval?

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2024 at 11:39 AM, jelida said:

In the same way that the tooth enhanced obverse D is designated ‘D*’ in Freeman,  should we be looking at an ‘R*’ designation here? Particularly if some dates do prove to come in both varieties.

I have now changed this obverse from a "sub-variety" of Obverse R (Freeman 12) to an Unrecorded Obverse R* on the varieties website.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I have just finished pulling together my 1879 Pennies to compare date widths - all circulated coins . Apologies for any duplication. Top left is the narrow 1879 

The very worn penny at the bottom of the picture may just be a more worn version of some of one of the others (I have found 3 examples in identical condition)

Great to get your thoughts - I'm sure I'm missing a few !

Best Regards

1879 Penny Dates.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, you've got one narrow date, and the rest are wide dates. I'll leave it to others to see if there are micro varieties among the latter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Peckris 2 ! I'll wait to see if anyone has any thoughts on micro varieties before I post any other date widths 

I posted under "Ticket Central" three coin envelopes, but didn't want to derail the ticket discussion. They include a sealed one from Spink.

My guess is its a 1967 Penny or similar - I will try to open it without damaging the envelope around Christmas 

34 minutes ago, Sword said:

Are you tempted to find out what's in the sealed envelope? But an envelope with mystery content could be a lot more interesting if it turns out to be a low grade penny inside. On reflection, I would probably leave it alone myself to maintain the suspense. 

And Copper123 mentioned the high cost/ poor return of the the 1875 Farthing in the plain brown envelope, so I thought I'd share an image of the expensive 1875 no H Farthing, along with the holed Jack of Cumberland to Hanover Token from the Baldwin's envelope (there were also a couple of Toy coins and fractional Farthings in the same accumulation)

Also attached (from the same accumulation) 1860 Farthing BRIII REG (obviously not , but the top of the T has been very weakly struck only a trace to the left) and and 1861 (much less interesting) Farthing where there has been a break of some kind on the A in Victoria,

Very Best Regards 

 

 

Jack of Cumberland Baldwins and expensive Farthing 1875.jpg

1860 Farthing BRIII.jpg

1861 Farthing A in Victoria.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Apologies ...

Was going through 1908 checking dates and found what I think might be ...

Edward VII Obverse Gouby B (Freeman Obverse 1*) - tried to tie all the evidence together in the one image

Best Regards

1908 Penny.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Bee said:

Was going through 1908 checking dates and found what I think might be ...

Edward VII Obverse Gouby B (Freeman Obverse 1*)

Yes - certainly is. Yet another good find... you seem to have picked up quite a few rare varieties in all your lots. Well done!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/2/2024 at 9:54 AM, secret santa said:

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 ?

I think there may be something in this because the "fatter face" becomes more obvious with wear and so the queen may have noticed in 1892 that the modified obverse was becoming distinctly less flattering with wear (see example below) and requested a reversion to the original obverse R (Freeman 12).

260766732_1891fatface.jpg.f2cb8f9b21efe9ceb1d8a034fea350c3.jpg

 

Edited by secret santa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just wanted to share a 1862 Penny with raised piece of the metal (probably irregular rather than a dot) above the right leg of R in Victoria (ink or other stain under the R !)

Just wondered if anyone else had seen anything similar ? 

Best Regards

1862 Penny raised piece of metal over R in Victoria 2.jpg

1862 Penny raised piece of metal over R in Victoria 1.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning, 

Seeing as 1899 pennies are in this thread, could someone confirm if I have Gouby BP1899Ac here please as I don't have the book? Many thanks.

 

20241126_103535.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kipster,

Yes looks like BP 1899 Ac (10 1/2 teeth from foot of 1 to front tail of 9).

I was lucky enough to find a really nice example in a random auction lot the other week 

Best Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×