Would you agree in the attached image there is no crossbar?

[absence of uniformity]

As the title says.

Thank you.

 

[jelida]

I think you’ll find a crossbar there in the hand, under the crud. I have hopefully bought several over the years and they have all had faint crossbars (under the microscope) due to die fill. I doubt that any master die was ever created using an inverted V for the A, it’s simply that some of the many working dies created from each master developed die fill in use causing the crossbar to become very faint or absent. It is possible that some filled dies were re-punched with an inverted V  for the A - the use of I, F, L etc for partial letter repairs seems well attested (see Gouby) but this is part of normal die management and should not be regarded as erroneous, though particularly obvious repairs can achieve collectable status.

Jerry

[absence of uniformity]

Thank you for the response. Its a V not an A !

Edited August 17 by absence of uniformity

[Coinery]

Gosh, let’s be straight with each other, how is that going to encourage future comments on your posts? That’s ridiculously underhand!

[PWA 1967]

Sorry i am a bit thick and perhaps dont understand 😀

Are you asking why a V doesnt have a cross bar ?

[absence of uniformity]

4 minutes ago, Coinery said:

Gosh, let’s be straight with each other, how is that going to encourage future comments on your posts? That’s ridiculously underhand!

sorry you feel that way. The question remains the same.. I did not ask about V or A rather do you agree there is no crossbar.. Interestingly do you think the response would of been different with the second image?

[absence of uniformity]

2 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Sorry i am a bit thick and perhaps dont understand 😀

Are you asking why a V doesnt have a cross bar ?

I'm asking whether you agree or not the initial image does not show a crossbar, based on the possible faint line visible.

 

[Coinery]

10 minutes ago, absence of uniformity said:

 Interestingly do you think the response would have been different with the second image?

No, just that it’s a very juvenile way of communicating with adults. We’re all interested in these things, but this definitely fell short of the way I like to discuss things with others.

[absence of uniformity]

3 minutes ago, Coinery said:

No, just that it’s a very juvenile way of communicating with adults. We’re all interested in these things, but this definitely fell short of the way I like to discuss things with others.

My intention was to keep it simple, and not let any other factors influence the core question about the possible crossbar or not.

Jerry awnsered on the basis the letter in question was the letter A.

My response was simply to indicate its actually V.

I dont think Jerry will take offence, I hope he wont I dont really see why he would. That certainly was not my intention.

In either image the question remains the same, but does either image receive the same response?

 

 

 

[Coinery]

Maybe it’s just your natural approach to things, but I can’t imagine for a second it’ll encourage free unguarded comments going forward, that’s all!

[PWA 1967]

I think you’re better off either buying them or don’t, having the coin in hand rather than asking questions from a photograph. I am sure everyone on the forum who collects copper/bronze from a picture has thought the coin was something it wasn’t. Hope that makes sense, people have looked at bronze pennies for years and although hundreds not recorded it’s because the tiny differences are not really relevant. Cgs when they were slabbing pennies had over 80 just for 1860 and if you want to take it so far then my own opinion is your doing a lot of work finding and buying pennies that nobody else would be interested in. Maybe study the Gouby book as there are plenty in there recorded that you can look for and recorded being more than one of each rather than something struck in error like a random flaw, dot or die crack or tiny difference in date width. As I mentioned you can take it as far as you want, just ones like 1902 pennies there are over 20 and yet most you can’t see with the naked eye 😃

[absence of uniformity]

4 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

I think you’re better off either buying them or don’t, having the coin in hand rather than asking questions from a photograph. I am sure everyone on the forum who collects copper/bronze from a picture has thought the coin was something it wasn’t. Hope that makes sense, people have looked at bronze pennies for years and although hundreds not recorded it’s because the tiny differences are not really relevant. Cgs when they were slabbing pennies had over 80 just for 1860 and if you want to take it so far then my own opinion is your doing a lot of work finding and buying pennies that nobody else would be interested in. Maybe study the Gouby book as there are plenty in there recorded that you can look for and recorded being more than one of each rather than something struck in error like a random flaw, dot or die crack or tiny difference in date width. As I mentioned you can take it as far as you want, just ones like 1902 pennies there are over 20 and yet most you can’t see with the naked eye 😃

100% I just research what I come across and not search for anything in particular. Ofcourse il look for the recorded types, I will also look into anomalies.

The coin from this post it was purchased directly, given how cheap it was, worth a look in hand.

I know some of you flip coins for profit, I dont and the search, research, success and failures are all part of the fun. Its's not work in the sense of working for money, so as long as I'm enjoying the hobby not alot else matters.

 

[PWA 1967]

Sorry i thought from your original post you were looking at a picture and were asking the question as you DIDNT have the coin in hand.

"Would you agree that the attached image has no crossbar" Yes i dont think a V has a crossbar 👍

Some people on the forum know why i look for coins everyday and flip for a profit, but dont feel as if i need to explain myself.

 

 

 

[jelida]

Hmm, yes the presentation of the photo was somewhat misleading. If it’s a V, then the default position is that it remains a V despite the photographic ambiguity. I did however examine the possibly unique 1860 ‘V over inverted A’ when it came up for sale a few years ago and thought it looked good under the loupe. So maybe worth a closer look under a microscope if it’s an 1860, probably not if later.

Jerry

[Sword]

I don't collect bronze, but I think in general, the rule is that the coin is not an error or variety unless there is convincing evidence supporting the claim. Otherwise, the number of imaginary errors / varieties would be huge. So if the letter is supposed to be a V, then it is just a V. The illusion of a crossbar (which is faint and unconvincing) can be caused by say a die crack for instance. If the letter is supposed to be an A, then it is just an A and the faint cross bar could be due to a partial die fill for instance. However, if the variety is documented for that specific coin type, then it is worth investigating more closely. But convincing evidence is still needed.

It's like asking a doctor if a new rash is cancerous. They would say don't be silly as it can be caused by a variety of common things. But if someone has already been diagnosed with cancer and gets a bad rash, then the doctor would work on the assumption that it is related to the cancer if a rash is a possible symptom.

[absence of uniformity]

6 hours ago, jelida said:

Hmm, yes the presentation of the photo was somewhat misleading. If it’s a V, then the default position is that it remains a V despite the photographic ambiguity. I did however examine the possibly unique 1860 ‘V over inverted A’ when it came up for sale a few years ago and thought it looked good under the loupe. So maybe worth a closer look under a microscope if it’s an 1860, probably not if later.

Jerry

Was not my intention to mislead, and for that I'm sorry.

The coin is 1860 2+D.

[absence of uniformity]

4 hours ago, Sword said:

I don't collect bronze, but I think in general, the rule is that the coin is not an error or variety unless there is convincing evidence supporting the claim. Otherwise, the number of imaginary errors / varieties would be huge. So if the letter is supposed to be a V, then it is just a V. The illusion of a crossbar (which is faint and unconvincing) can be caused by say a die crack for instance. If the letter is supposed to be an A, then it is just an A and the faint cross bar could be due to a partial die fill for instance. However, if the variety is documented for that specific coin type, then it is worth investigating more closely. But convincing evidence is still needed.

It's like asking a doctor if a new rash is cancerous. They would say don't be silly as it can be caused by a variety of common things. But if someone has already been diagnosed with cancer and gets a bad rash, then the doctor would work on the assumption that it is related to the cancer if a rash is a possible symptom.

Yes there is a documented 1860 2+D variety BP1860JB V over inverted A.

 

[absence of uniformity]

Would you agree in the attached image there is no crossbar?

The question implies I dont think there is however I was asking simply for other's thoughts.

The reason the image was cropped and rotated was to simplyfy the presentation of the letter and into correct orientation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[absence of uniformity]

On 8/18/2026 at 12:45 AM, PWA 1967 said:

 

Quote

my own opinion is your doing a lot of work finding and buying pennies that nobody else would be interested in

 

I think a unrecorded confirmed overstrike variety on a penny post 1864 is an important find which will surely generate interest?

[Coinery]

I’ve been on this forum for many years, dodging many people like you, thereby avoiding losing my privileges on here!

But, I have to say, you are 100% the kind of game-playing arsehole that a forum of even-tempered, socially-skilled, intellectuals could well do without! I hope you tire of this site soon, and migrate asap to these other sources that acknowledge and endorse your approaches so much more congenially. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Coinery

[absence of uniformity]

26 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I’ve been on this forum for many years, dodging many people like you, thereby avoiding losing my privileges on here!

But, I have to say, you are 100% the kind of game-playing arsehole that a forum of even-tempered, socially-skilled, intellectuals could well do without! I hope you tire of this site soon, and migrate asap to these other sources that acknowledge and endorse your approaches so much more congenially. 

🤷‍♂️ Splendid display of those 'social skills' you mentioned

[Coinery]

I think you’ll find the 🤷‍♂️ was about a frustration that you baited the forum for weeks, only to share a point of interest with a private message! 
 

As I say, a manipulator, a game-player…well below me, m’friend! Big blessings, I hope you find your happy place in numismatics, and hopefully not here 🙏

 

[absence of uniformity]

36 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I think you’ll find the 🤷‍♂️ was about a frustration that you baited the forum for weeks, only to share a point of interest with a private message! 
 

As I say, a manipulator, a game-player…well below me, m’friend! Big blessings, I hope you find your happy place in numismatics, and hopefully not here 🙏

 

Respecting the privacy of a personal email exchange with Michael Gouby is basic etiquette, not manipulation. Out of courtesy, I would never publish a specialist's private confirmation of an unrecorded variety without asking their permission first. Furthermore, Michael invited me to contact Richard, which I did this morning via email, hence me saying I have sent an email....

You are resorting to personal insults simply because a newcomer's analysis turned out to be correct. The 'gatekeeping clique' mentality is no match for objective facts.

A genuine variety discovery should be a positive for the hobby, not a source of hostility. I invited objective discussion, not a debate on personalities. Since your input brings nothing but toxicity to the thread, you are now on my ignore list

Edited 43 minutes ago by absence of uniformity

[Coinery]

11 minutes ago, absence of uniformity said:

“Respecting the privacy of a personal email exchange with Michael Gouby is basic etiquette”

- Absolutely ridiculous…to say I’ve approached/emailed Michael would not, in the least, be a breach of privacy, it would represent a very normal conversation held on a numismatic forum like this.

“You are resorting to personal insults simply because a newcomer's analysis turned out to be correct.”

- Absolutely ridiculous…I was the first person to say I believed you had an interesting coin with a likely new variety imho!

“since you bring nothing but toxicity to the thread, you are now on my ignore list.”

- Absolutely ridiculous…you were already earmarked to be on mine first! 🙏

[Coinery]

55 minutes ago, absence of uniformity said:

Furthermore, Michael invited me to contact Richard, which I did this morning via email, hence me saying I have sent an email.... I invited objective discussion, not a debate on personalities…The 'gatekeeping clique' mentality is no match for objectivefacts.

Just highlighting the edited info. added to the above post, the type of information an academic should be drawing attention to himself, lest he be lacking in rigour!

 

Edited 2 minutes ago by Coinery