scott Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 to the eye the 1 in 1892 looks larger (it isn't this illusion is caused by the fat its far chnkier) i know not to worry about date numerals too much, but its getting on my nerves Quote
£400 for a Penny ? Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 Look at it another way;I'd say rather than a large 1, you have a small 8.Gouby has highlighted that there are differing types of 8 in play ? Quote
scott Posted July 11, 2010 Author Posted July 11, 2010 i saw the 8 numeral is smaller, but it seems that way on a few others, but the 1 is definatly wider then normal Quote
1949threepence Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 My 1892 is exactly the same as Scott's, with the 8 looking smaller than the 1 (or slightly raised above it). By contrast, this doesn't occur on any of the others in the 1890 to 1894 series that I have. Quote
£400 for a Penny ? Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 Ok, the task now is to find an 1892 that doesn't look like that...... Quote
scott Posted July 11, 2010 Author Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) i had a look through my average curculated 1892's, and I found one that seems to share the exact size date numerals as an 1891 all numerals are the same size on it, shame the wear in the date is near the 2, i might have had a look there. Edited July 11, 2010 by scott 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.