I OVER T Please can I ask opinions of the forum

[absence of uniformity]

Please dont feel I'm relying on the opinions shared here to make a decision to buy, I'm not.

I'm simply asking what others think; I dont think it is I over T but the truth is I dont know !

What do you think? In the image attached there appears to be a what looks like a crossbar extending left of the I.

I would appreciate hearing what you think.

The only reason I'm not sure the tip of the crossbar shows a similar angle of the serif of the T also the crossbar possibly appears to extend to the right of the I.

Thanks

Edited yesterday at 12:12 PM by absence of uniformity

[absence of uniformity]

The coin is a Penny, and for the year there is no listed I/T listed from what I can see.

[Coinery]

I’ve definitely seen less convincing overdates and legend errors…I personally think that is a very intriguing coin. I’ll leave it to the penny gurus but, for me, I could easily be convinced there’s a T involved.

[jelida]

I don’t think it’s T over I either, the ‘serif’ starts far too close to the vertical and there is nothing visible to the right . But it is interesting, even if just a die flaw. I do have an 1860 BRTTT and the overstrike repair error is very much clearer. But do you have a USB microscope for clearer close-ups? A close look at the edge of the flaw/overstrike could be illuminating.

Jerry

[absence of uniformity]

Here I attached an image of coin with what I think is the same pairing note the top right serif of the letter I does not extend far also shown in image is the coin in question for comparison. None of the coins I have looked at for the same pairing show the top right serif of the letter I extending and almost touching the T.

 

Edited yesterday at 12:56 PM by absence of uniformity

[jelida]

I think it may be worth a punt if not too expensive if you don’t have it in hand. The issue could certainly be clarified by microscope close-ups. It’s worthy of note that you see virtually no letter repair errors after the first three or four years of bronze penny production  so the date might be relevant too. A die flaw can certainly flow through a letter but an overstrike is not impossible.

Jerry

[absence of uniformity]

In the attached image I have rotated the image and layered the T over the I from left to right I have faded out the top layer with T becoming more transparent from left to right.

[absence of uniformity]

27 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I’ve definitely seen less convincing overdates and legend errors…I personally think that is a very intriguing coin. I’ll leave it to the penny gurus but, for me, I could easily be convinced there’s a T involved.

Thank you for the response it's frustrating this type of enquiry ofcourse I have a hopeful imagination but also have learnt things are more often than not what they seem.

[absence of uniformity]

29 minutes ago, jelida said:

I think it may be worth a punt if not too expensive if you don’t have it in hand. The issue could certainly be clarified by microscope close-ups. It’s worthy of note that you see virtually no letter repair errors after the first three or four years of bronze penny production  so the date might be relevant too. A die flaw can certainly flow through a letter but an overstrike is not impossible.

Jerry

 

38 minutes ago, jelida said:

I don’t think it’s T over I either, the ‘serif’ starts far too close to the vertical and there is nothing visible to the right . But it is interesting, even if just a die flaw. I do have an 1860 BRTTT and the overstrike repair error is very much clearer. But do you have a USB microscope for clearer close-ups? A close look at the edge of the flaw/overstrike could be illuminating.

Jerry

Its quite expensive, the coin is for sale so I dont have it in hand and the images are all thats availible. The penny is from the 1870s, not a rare pairing. For the price of over 100 there is no luster and the coin is not anything special in my opinion.

Concerning location of the serif I made a layered image Jerry to show the serif is actually quite close in terms of location. If I had the coin to hand I could look closely and take macro images. 

Thanks for the input so far.

Edited yesterday at 01:26 PM by absence of uniformity

[absence of uniformity]

45 minutes ago, jelida said:

I don’t think it’s T over I either, the ‘serif’ starts far too close to the vertical and there is nothing visible to the right . But it is interesting, even if just a die flaw. I do have an 1860 BRTTT and the overstrike repair error is very much clearer. But do you have a USB microscope for clearer close-ups? A close look at the edge of the flaw/overstrike could be illuminating.

Jerry

 

[absence of uniformity]

The imagination is running wild now I know; if a mint worker went to repunch the T using a T punch and suddenly realised at the last moment the punch wash infact over the I and the punch was struck partially could this little visible flaw be the result of that? I know all too well using a metal punch when marking base metal objects with my makers mark if the force is not right and the punch is not perfectly square to the object half of the imprinted mark is often missing.

[absence of uniformity]

One last detail, at the very tip of the red arrow there is a possible faint outline that could represent the right serif of the T.

The tip of the yellow arrow marks where the I serif should stop and there also appears to be a faint line.

Edited yesterday at 01:58 PM by absence of uniformity

[jelida]

You’ve put in some good work there,  but sadly the original sellers image is not sharp enough to be confident either way. Can you get it on approval? Most professional sellers would do that. Otherwise it’s a balance of lower likelihood of very significant gain against a higher likelihood of moderate loss. Might be worth trying to get a clearer photo from the vendor.

Good luck!

Jerry

[absence of uniformity]

47 minutes ago, jelida said:

You’ve put in some good work there,  but sadly the original sellers image is not sharp enough to be confident either way. Can you get it on approval? Most professional sellers would do that. Otherwise it’s a balance of lower likelihood of very significant gain against a higher likelihood of moderate loss. Might be worth trying to get a clearer photo from the vendor.

Good luck!

Jerry

Thanks alot ! I have asked if they will sell upon approval, also asked for extra images.

Not sure if you remember the coin in the attached imaged but when it arrived the apparent crossbar of the T was nowhere to be seen?? Reminds me of that...

Edited yesterday at 03:02 PM by absence of uniformity

[absence of uniformity]

1 hour ago, jelida said:

You’ve put in some good work there,  but sadly the original sellers image is not sharp enough to be confident either way. Can you get it on approval? Most professional sellers would do that. Otherwise it’s a balance of lower likelihood of very significant gain against a higher likelihood of moderate loss. Might be worth trying to get a clearer photo from the vendor.

Good luck!

Jerry

Thank you, I made one last observation; (Now il move on😅) The T in Victoria has a much thinner crossbar when layered over the image possibly fits better.

Would there be a punch for each style of a single letter? So a punch for the T in Victoria and a seperate punch for T's in BRITT?

The attached image shows the original image, the layered image and the two seperate styles of T found on the same coin, it also points out a potential faint line of the right serif and the layered image shows the location of where the two serifs would intersect.

Thanks.

 

Edited yesterday at 03:36 PM by absence of uniformity

[absence of uniformity]

Update the seller said I can return the coin if not happy so Im going to go for it.

[jelida]

Even with a single punch the apparent width etc can vary slightly as the edge of the punch is bevelled to prevent it sticking so the heavier the blow the wider the digit will appear. This variability is due to the hand punching of the master dies.

Jerry

Edited 22 hours ago by jelida

[absence of uniformity]

 Somebody has pointed out the following " there's definitely something there and it can't be a die flaw as it's underlying.. "

What options remain if its not a die flaw please?

And is that a fair observation the fact the anomaly is underlying?  Do you agree?

An underlying anomaly could only be introduced by human alteration of the die? Is that not the definition of a variety?

If thats the case what would be the most likely reason or cause of alteration or changes to the die?

Does this not lean towards a repunched/re-engraved letter or trace of?

If the above is correct, what could be the possble options for the underlying feature, could what we see be anything other than a T?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by absence of uniformity

[jelida]

12 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:

 Somebody has pointed out the following " there's definitely something there and it can't be a die flaw as it's underlying.. "

What options remain if its not a die flaw please?

And is that a fair observation the fact the anomaly is underlying?  Do you agree?

An underlying anomaly could only be introduced by human alteration of the die? Is that not the definition of a variety?

If thats the case what would be the most likely reason or cause of alteration or changes to the die?

Does this not lean towards a repunched/re-engraved letter or trace of?

If the above is correct, what could be the possble options for the underlying feature, could what we see be anything other than a T?

 

 

 

 

 

It could certainly be a die flaw. If a developing crack in a working die has only a surface ‘gape’ then the ridge on the struck coin will be shallow and appear to run under the letters. If the crack is more advanced with a deeper gape, deeper than the incuse letters on the die, then the flaw when struck will appear to run over the letters. 
Statements on Facebook and other forums are just opinions, not necessarily truths. Perhaps that includes mine?

Jerry

[PWA 1967]

Flaws, Die cracks all show mainly from the die if not a flaw to the flan, so will appear to be underlying on the coin.

As Jerry says it could definately be a die flaw.

Edited 3 hours ago by PWA 1967

[absence of uniformity]

5 hours ago, jelida said:

It could certainly be a die flaw. If a developing crack in a working die has only a surface ‘gape’ then the ridge on the struck coin will be shallow and appear to run under the letters. If the crack is more advanced with a deeper gape, deeper than the incuse letters on the die, then the flaw when struck will appear to run over the letters. 
Statements on Facebook and other forums are just opinions, not necessarily truths. Perhaps that includes mine?

Jerry

Ok thanks for this information. 

I hear you. All opinions can't be taken as truths for sure. I value your objective approach to my questions and thank you for taking the time to awnser and explain.

 

[absence of uniformity]

3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Flaws, Die cracks all show mainly from the die if not a flaw to the flan, so will appear to be underlying on the coin.

As Jerry says it could definately be a die flaw.

Thank you and yes it makes sense.

 I have been lookng at as many examples of the die pairing I can find and I have noticed some minor differences on this coin comapared to the other coins I have looked at.

I have only managed to find maybe 35-40 examples with the same pairing, heres what I have noticed;

1) On the coin in question the I of BRITT appears shorter than the others looked at. All other examples the I of BRITT is noticeably taller and straight sided.

2) The I of BRITT appears to be thicker and slightly more tapered than all the others.

3) The first T in BRITT appears rotated clockwise not shown on any other example I have looked at.

4) I found one coin with the left serif on the crossbar of the first T in BRITT missing.

5) I found a second coin with something going on a possible flaw? above and to the left of the I in BRITT.

 

 

[PWA 1967]

5 minutes ago, absence of uniformity said:

Thank you and yes it makes sense.

 I have been lookng at as many examples of the die pairing I can find and I have noticed some minor differences on this coin comapared to the other coins I have looked at.

I have only managed to find maybe 35-40 examples with the same pairing, heres what I have noticed;

1) On the coin in question the I of BRITT appears shorter than the others looked at. All other examples the I of BRITT is noticeably taller and straight sided.

2) The I of BRITT appears to be thicker and slightly more tapered than all the others.

3) The first T in BRITT appears rotated clockwise not shown on any other example I have looked at.

4) I found one coin with the left serif on the crossbar of the first T in BRITT missing.

5) I found a second coin with something going on a possible flaw? above and to the left of the I in BRITT.

 

 

You can take it as far as you wish, lots of tiny differences, repairs, flaws, die cracks as the coins were struck in there thousands with numerous dies. Its just upto you were you wish to draw a line as if you dont you will end up with dozens all for the same year.

[absence of uniformity]

9 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

You can take it as far as you wish, lots of tiny differences, repairs, flaws, die cracks as the coins were struck in there thousands with numerous dies. Its just upto you were you wish to draw a line as if you dont you will end up with dozens all for the same year.

yes, I have not purchased any other coins, rather I'm just looking to see if I can find another coin with the same die characteristics with the shorter I and the rotated  first T in Britt. I already have this year and pairing. I'm only going after a new unconfirmed variety with the purchase and research. 

It's probably nothing, we will soon see. 

After many coins not being what I hoped for I have tried to not even go down the rabbit hole and avoid these types of purchases that are not clear cut, once I see it I just can't walk away.

Given I can return the coin for a small fee I dont really have much to loose.

Edited 2 minutes ago by absence of uniformity