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

[jelida 1,252]

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 October 2 by jelida

[jelida 1,252]

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

[secret santa 2,137]

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:

Modified obverse R

Veiled head obverse

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

[The Bee 41]

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

 

[Martinminerva 294]

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?

[Paddy 1,617]

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

[secret santa 2,137]

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.

[jelida 1,252]

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

[Martinminerva 294]

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?

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 October 2 by Martinminerva

[secret santa 2,137]

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

[Peckris 2 2,102]

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 October 2 by Peckris 2

[secret santa 2,137]

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.

[The Bee 41]

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

[Peckris 2 2,102]

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.

[The Bee 41]

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 

 

 

[The Bee 41]

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

[Martinminerva 294]

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!

[secret santa 2,137]

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).

 

Edited October 9 by secret santa