1882 NO H Penny

[Guest]

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.

 

[PWA 1967]

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.

 

[secret santa]

Yes, there is no substitute for pictures of the actual coin.

[Guest]

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)

 

[PWA 1967]

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/ 

[Guest]

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.

 

[jelida]

Sounds good, but we still need photos!

Jerry

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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 Wednesday at 10:46 PM by BronzeVF

[Guest]

All sorted now, 😊 I managed to find out what I needed to know. thanks.

[Unwilling Numismatist]

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 23 hours ago by Unwilling Numismatist

[Peckris 2]

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!

[Unwilling Numismatist]

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 17 hours ago by Unwilling Numismatist

[Michael-Roo]

Is it possible there's a hint of a remaining crossbar, as highlighted below?

[secret santa]

Very similar to a coin of mine

[Unwilling Numismatist]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

Very similar to a coin of mine

With closer 8's - they appear slightly wider around the H.

 

[Peckris 2]

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.

[secret santa]

Yes, at a certain angle with my coin above you can detect the H.