Guest Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Hi I have just joined the forum because I would like to ask a question concerning the 1882 No H penny. If a coin has all the details below and no Heaton mint mark is it certain to be a London minted coin? Obverse: - R & I don’t touch. - the tuft of hair which is not on the Heaton minted examples. - The hair ribbon which does not terminate in a point like the heaton coins. - Victoria has a hooked nose compared to the straighter bridge of the nose displayed on the Heaton coins. Reverse: - 186 border teeth with 13 teeth between 1 and 2. - thinner waist/ trident shaft. many thanks in advance. Quote
PWA 1967 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 One thing that stands out is the date width as should be 14 Teeth ( NOT 13 ) and also the possibility of the last digit being altered from a 3. Maybe post clear pictures as there is a lot more knowledgeable collectors on here than me and will be able to give there opinion. Quote
secret santa Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Yes, there is no substitute for pictures of the actual coin. Quote
Guest Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said: One thing that stands out is the date width as should be 14 Teeth ( NOT 13 ) and also the possibility of the last digit being altered from a 3. Maybe post clear pictures as there is a lot more knowledgeable collectors on here than me and will be able to give there opinion. Hi, thanks ! yes, Including the tooth in line with the (1)882 14 teeth yes. The 1883 obverse from what I have seen shows the hair ribbon terminating in a point to the knot unlike the 1882 no H. Also the 1883 doesnt have the tuft of hair which is shown on all the examples, worn coins show this. I have read about worn or altered F111 (P+p), F114 (R+p),F115 (R+r) none of those pairings have the identifiers F112 (Gouby (P+r); Freeman 11+N) Quote
PWA 1967 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 You seem to know what you have 👍 These are the other pictured known examples off Richards site to compare. https://rarestpennies.wordpress.com/1882-f112/ Quote
Guest Posted January 20 Posted January 20 2 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said: You seem to know what you have 👍 These are the other pictured known examples off Richards site to compare. https://rarestpennies.wordpress.com/1882-f112/ Thanks, I have been studying all of those images. I have used the main identifier for the obverse shown on Richards site being the R & I that don’t touch. And for the reverse the thinner waist/ trident shaft. ( If you draw a line from the nose of Brittania down to by her waist you can clearly see a wider gap on the no H compared to the heaton coins) then I have used the other identifiers for the P+r to confirm the main two. Quote
Guest Posted January 21 Posted January 21 On 1/20/2026 at 12:35 PM, jelida said: Sounds good, but we still need photos! Jerry Im scared to face the music, I cant find any differences between my coin and the example which sold at the baldwin auction for 37k, mine also shows the weak /missing liner circle in the same place as the coin sold in the Baldwin auction. I dont want to post pictures to the forum for privacy reasons. Quote
Guest Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) Can I please email someone from the forum, to take a look and confirm what I'm seeing is actually correct. Can said person respect my privacy and not share images of my coin? Edited January 21 by BronzeVF Quote
Guest Posted January 22 Posted January 22 All sorted now, 😊 I managed to find out what I needed to know. thanks. Quote
Unwilling Numismatist Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (edited) And there was me having a very similar chat with Peter yesterday. The wrong obverse according to the "law" but absolutely no sign of an H ever existing. Edited January 22 by Unwilling Numismatist Quote
Peckris 2 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 4 hours ago, Unwilling Numismatist said: And there was me having a very similar chat with Peter yesterday. The wrong obverse according to the "law" but absolutely no sign of an H ever existing. The problem with those H buns is that being so close to the edge, the H is much more prone to wear than the date digits. I've lost count of "wrong" 1882 pennies offered for sale as "no H " pennies! 1 Quote
Unwilling Numismatist Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said: The problem with those H buns is that being so close to the edge, the H is much more prone to wear than the date digits. I've lost count of "wrong" 1882 pennies offered for sale as "no H " pennies! I said to Pete that I thought there should be evidence of the H as the bottoms of the 8's are visible, and using rarestpennies images I mocked up where the H should be - there are no remnants which would normally be visible, so its either altered very carefully or it wasn't an H to start with. The gap between 8's does look too narrow too. Edit: mock-up isnt exactly to scale but is a good representation. Edited January 22 by Unwilling Numismatist Quote
Michael-Roo Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Is it possible there's a hint of a remaining crossbar, as highlighted below? 2 Quote
Unwilling Numismatist Posted January 23 Posted January 23 2 hours ago, secret santa said: Very similar to a coin of mine With closer 8's - they appear slightly wider around the H. Quote
Peckris 2 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 The other thing you have to consider is that what's left of the H has been artificially rubbed away on a worn penny in modern times, then the whole coin distressed in order to hide what was done. 1 Quote
secret santa Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Yes, at a certain angle with my coin above you can detect the H. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.