London Coin Auction

[Peckris]

Here is my 1882 NO "H" (F-112)... I still believe the 1877 Narrow Date (F-90) to be rarer and more popular.... If I had to choose between them, I would pick the 1877.....

Is that a verified 1882 London Mint? (I.e. the obverse and reverse types are correct, as far as you can determine?)

I have to disagree with your assessment of popularity. The London 1882 is a long-established and greatly sought-after rarity. As far as I know it is VERY rare (yours is the only one I've seen in the wild). Although it can be faked, it's a more distinct variety - i.e. a complete absence of the H mint mark - than simply the spacing of the date numerals. I'm prepared to bet it appears in more catalogues, going back a lot further.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Here is my 1882 NO "H" (F-112)... I still believe the 1877 Narrow Date (F-90) to be rarer and more popular.... If I had to choose between them, I would pick the 1877.....

Is that a verified 1882 London Mint? (I.e. the obverse and reverse types are correct, as far as you can determine?)

I have to disagree with your assessment of popularity. The London 1882 is a long-established and greatly sought-after rarity. As far as I know it is VERY rare (yours is the only one I've seen in the wild). Although it can be faked, it's a more distinct variety - i.e. a complete absence of the H mint mark - than simply the spacing of the date numerals. I'm prepared to bet it appears in more catalogues, going back a lot further.

Yes, it meets the criteria necessary to be the NO H variety... See the image of the tuft of hair behind Victoria's head....

See information regarding determining the correct attribution of this variety on Tony Clayton's website...Link to Pertinent page on Tony Clayton's Website

The 1882 penny without mintmark is particularly rare (and not in Peck), but watch for worn coins where the mintmark has been worn away. A variety with the bar missing from the H is known. The following is a description of how to tell a genuine 1882 no H from an 1882H penny, as kindly related by the Penny specialist Bernie:

The identifiable features of the genuine non "H" 1882 penny are a flat shield on the reverse, NOT convex. Victoria has an apparent hooked nose, caused by a weak die strike in the area of the eyeball. The "R" and the "I" in "BRITT" should not be joined; a very small space should be visible with a magnifier. There is a tuft of hair protruding from the back of the neck, left of the ribbon knot. This tuft of hair is always visible on very worn specimens. The "H" variety can be clarified by examining the space encapsulated by the inner ribbon, as if the uppermost section forms a point in this triangulated section, then it is the common variety. The rare non "H" does not terminate in a point because of the tuft of hair mentioned above.

I should add that there are two types of obverse and reverse for 1882H pennies, and that the 1882 No H penny has the less common types - having these characteristics does not ensure that it is a No H, but having the characteristics of the other types confirms that there was an H even if worn away.

As a additional note, Spink has a specimen of this variety in it's next auction... Lot # 402

Edited June 11, 2010 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

FULL Obverse

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Also of note, is that aside from the NARROW date... (we are NOT just speaking of differences in date width)... The ENTIRE REVERSE DIE is different....

The NARROW DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE, whereas the WIDE DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE....

PLEASE SEE APPROPRIATE PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's EXCELLENT WEBSITE for IMAGES of BOTH TYPES.....

LINK TO PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's WEBSITE PERTAINING to the 1877 PENNY

We are talking about 2 distinct reverses with these two varieties, NOT just a minor variation in date spacing....

Regarding popularity of one rarity over another... That is what makes collecting so interesting and yet still personal...

As I stated before.... "AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT...."

Edited June 12, 2010 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[1949threepence]

That having been said, I confess to being a Vicky copper nut and especially for pennies. I have spent some money on specimens before, including "eye raising" amounts for certain coins (not without a lot of study first however). I would be much much much more impressed with big prices for a date and mintmark rarity such as the 1882 London mint penny = that coin in EF or better ought to lay absolute waste to this narrow date 77 or that 1863 penny.

Now that would be a nice purchase for £6k ~ an 1882 London Mint penny. Neat & re-saleable

Here is my 1882 NO "H" (F-112)... I still believe the 1877 Narrow Date (F-90) to be rarer and more popular.... If I had to choose between them, I would pick the 1877.....

Although in fairness, we were talking about the 1882 no H in EF or better.

[1949threepence]

Here is my 1882 NO "H" (F-112)... I still believe the 1877 Narrow Date (F-90) to be rarer and more popular.... If I had to choose between them, I would pick the 1877.....

Is that a verified 1882 London Mint? (I.e. the obverse and reverse types are correct, as far as you can determine?)

I have to disagree with your assessment of popularity. The London 1882 is a long-established and greatly sought-after rarity. As far as I know it is VERY rare (yours is the only one I've seen in the wild). Although it can be faked, it's a more distinct variety - i.e. a complete absence of the H mint mark - than simply the spacing of the date numerals. I'm prepared to bet it appears in more catalogues, going back a lot further.

Yes, it meets the criteria necessary to be the NO H variety... See the image of the tuft of hair behind Victoria's head....

See information regarding determining the correct attribution of this variety on Tony Clayton's website...Link to Pertinent page on Tony Clayton's Website

The 1882 penny without mintmark is particularly rare (and not in Peck), but watch for worn coins where the mintmark has been worn away. A variety with the bar missing from the H is known. The following is a description of how to tell a genuine 1882 no H from an 1882H penny, as kindly related by the Penny specialist Bernie:

The identifiable features of the genuine non "H" 1882 penny are a flat shield on the reverse, NOT convex. Victoria has an apparent hooked nose, caused by a weak die strike in the area of the eyeball. The "R" and the "I" in "BRITT" should not be joined; a very small space should be visible with a magnifier. There is a tuft of hair protruding from the back of the neck, left of the ribbon knot. This tuft of hair is always visible on very worn specimens. The "H" variety can be clarified by examining the space encapsulated by the inner ribbon, as if the uppermost section forms a point in this triangulated section, then it is the common variety. The rare non "H" does not terminate in a point because of the tuft of hair mentioned above.

I should add that there are two types of obverse and reverse for 1882H pennies, and that the 1882 No H penny has the less common types - having these characteristics does not ensure that it is a No H, but having the characteristics of the other types confirms that there was an H even if worn away.

As a additional note, Spink has a specimen of this variety in it's next auction... Lot # 402

The bit I have emboldened, is a very useful piece of info. Thanks for posting it.

[Red Riley]

I should add that there are two types of obverse and reverse for 1882H pennies, and that the 1882 No H penny has the less common types - having these characteristics does not ensure that it is a No H, but having the characteristics of the other types confirms that there was an H even if worn away.

1882 'no-H' actually has the more common type of 1882 reverse (Gouby type r, Freeman type N). 1882H with the earlier type of shield (p or M) are themselves very scarce. There is a disagreement here between Michaels Gouby and Freeman, the former describing it as convex and the latter as flat (Gouby is right).

[VickySilver]

I believe that an '82 London mint specimen in aEF (gVF?) sold for in the neighborhood of 2.8k some 4-5 years ago. My point is that such a coin should draw much more interest that a narrow date 1877 at twice the price (or even up at 6k).

BTW, what grade on the upcoming Spink 1882 London piece?

[Coppers]

I believe that an '82 London mint specimen in aEF (gVF?) sold for in the neighborhood of 2.8k some 4-5 years ago. My point is that such a coin should draw much more interest that a narrow date 1877 at twice the price (or even up at 6k).

BTW, what grade on the upcoming Spink 1882 London piece?

1882 Penny

[VickySilver]

Ugggh, only fair, but scary what it should reach given the levels reached by, well, the imposters of 1863 and 1877...OK, relax, just kidding?!?

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Just as a point of information.....

In the June 2006 DNW sale of the Laurie Bamford collection, lot 113, the 1882 no H, F-112 in about fine, sold for £820 PLUS Buyers fee....

In the same auction, lot 99, the 1877 F-90, in only FAIR condition, realized £3100 PLUS Buyers fee

[argentumandcoins]

Spinks grading standard has certainly worsened over the years. The London 1882 would grade as Poor by me and would have been graded as Poor by them 5 years ago!

Two years ago I bought a GEF 1860 Freeman 1 Penny in one of their auctions that was actually a Freeman 6 and another lot containing 3 1845 Crowns, one of which was supposed to be the star stops variety. Imagine my excitement at acquiring a coin that does not exist........yes, that's right, all 3 were cinquefoil stops!!!!!

At least these things even out over the years and you do find the odd sleeper which has been missed by the cataloguer. It was an 1863 open 3 Penny in VF last week

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Sloppiness?????

In the May Spink Circular, they had an 1860 F-14 described correctly as "LCW below foot", but mis-attributed as Obverse 2 & Reverse D....

It was sold for the listed priced of £40......

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[argentumandcoins]

Caveat Emptor when dealing with Spink and Son. I had another couple of examples from last year regarding incorrect die attribution for Victorian Bronze, always making the coin rarer than it actually was!

[Red Riley]

Spinks grading standard has certainly worsened over the years. The London 1882 would grade as Poor by me and would have been graded as Poor by them 5 years ago!

That would almost be overgraded as 'poor'!

Spinks themselves describe 'fair' as 'a coin that exhibits wear, with the main features still distinguishable, and the legends, date and inscriptions still readable'. Hmmmmm...

Edited June 13, 2010 by Red Riley

[scott]

I would take the 1882 no H 1877 narrow and 1879 narrow in whatever i could get them at tbh

not exacly going to come up very often

as fair as greaing, isn't fair the lowest grade where everything is readable?

Edited June 13, 2010 by scott

[1949threepence]

I would take the 1882 no H 1877 narrow and 1879 narrow in whatever i could get them at tbh

not exacly going to come up very often

as fair as greaing, isn't fair the lowest grade where everything is readable?

There's no attempt at grading, in coin books, with exceptionally rare coins. Just a line saying "very rare" where the grades should be.

[Red Riley]

I would take the 1882 no H 1877 narrow and 1879 narrow in whatever i could get them at tbh

not exacly going to come up very often

as fair as greaing, isn't fair the lowest grade where everything is readable?

Yes.

[argentumandcoins]

I just fill you all in.... I am guessing you are all most interested in the following...

1868 bonze proof half penny £650

1841 sovereign £7500

1841 half crown in GVF £4200

And the star prize goes to... yes you have guessed it... the dirty worn out 1877 slender 7 penny.....£6000 - a new fiat panda sport or an undergraduate degree or a deposit on a small house.

As I said, I was most interested in the 1860 penny prototype, effectively in the first couple of dozen or so of a run which extended to over 4 billion coins. Massive historical significance. I thought it was a snip at £2500.

Cheese in my gasket Mr 400. Now I suspect you of over-indulging in the falling down water!

Anyway 1887, can I welcome you to the mad house. What are your interests numismatic or otherwise?

My old man thought that the 1860 F8b was a snip at £2500 as well. He was a little concerned about the curious note re the Bamford specimen. He received the coin through the post yesterday and was pleased to find the coin is as right as rain. I'll get some pictures next week if anybody is interested?