1882 London Mint penny ?

[1949threepence]

Take a look here

Decent size image:-

What do you think ?

[1949threepence]

There's certainly a mark of some description under the date. But whether this is co-incidental slight staining or evidence of tooling, is difficult to say. I certainly can't see an "H".

Edited October 19, 2010 by 1949threepence

[davidrj]

Take a look here

Decent size image:-

What do you think ?

I've blown up your picture and I see a slight smudge wher the H would be

I don't have the books next to me. seem to recall 1882 no H has a different die combination, so Hi res scans both sides please

Fingers crossed for you!

David

[1949threepence]

Take a look here

Decent size image:-

What do you think ?

I've blown up your picture and I see a slight smudge wher the H would be

I don't have the books next to me. seem to recall 1882 no H has a different die combination, so Hi res scans both sides please

Fingers crossed for you!

David

Obverse in image, David. I'll take a look at Freeman, myself.

[1949threepence]

post duplicate

Edited October 19, 2010 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence]

Take a look here

Decent size image:-

What do you think ?

I've blown up your picture and I see a slight smudge wher the H would be

I don't have the books next to me. seem to recall 1882 no H has a different die combination, so Hi res scans both sides please

Fingers crossed for you!

David

Looks like F12 to me, as the eye is quite palpably closer to the bridge of the nose on F11, which the 1882 without a H is solely described as being. So either tooled, or the photo does not show up the H for whatever reason.

Definitely an 1882H and I got all over excited for nothing. Sorry for the fuss, people.

[Beebman]

Take a look here

Decent size image:-

What do you think ?

I've blown up your picture and I see a slight smudge wher the H would be

I don't have the books next to me. seem to recall 1882 no H has a different die combination, so Hi res scans both sides please

Fingers crossed for you!

David

Looks like F12 to me, as the eye is quite palpably closer to the bridge of the nose on F11, which the 1882 without a H is solely described as being. So either tooled, or the photo does not show up the H for whatever reason.

Definitely an 1882H and I got all over excited for nothing. Sorry for the fuss, people.

A few weeks ago Bernie Workman posted a picture of his excellent London 1882 Penny:

http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5326&view=findpost&p=41765

To me the eye does indeed look closer to the bridge of the nose on Bernie's coin.

[VickySilver]

My question is: why is Freeman gospel on there being only one die combination for this coin (the 1882 London penny)? I simply do not understand how another obv. die, or even rev. die might not have been employed at another occasion that year, or even another year. This possibility does not seem to be excluded in arguments I have seen thus far.

[davidrj]

My question is: why is Freeman gospel on there being only one die combination for this coin (the 1882 London penny)? I simply do not understand how another obv. die, or even rev. die might not have been employed at another occasion that year, or even another year. This possibility does not seem to be excluded in arguments I have seen thus far.

Not Gospel of course, new varieties are being found all the time

If 1949 has this in hand then close microscopic examination of that smudge under the date is needed. If he is thinking of purchase then alarm bells should ring if anything over the standard price for an 1882H is asked for

David

[1949threepence]

My question is: why is Freeman gospel on there being only one die combination for this coin (the 1882 London penny)? I simply do not understand how another obv. die, or even rev. die might not have been employed at another occasion that year, or even another year. This possibility does not seem to be excluded in arguments I have seen thus far.

Not Gospel of course, new varieties are being found all the time

If 1949 has this in hand then close microscopic examination of that smudge under the date is needed. If he is thinking of purchase then alarm bells should ring if anything over the standard price for an 1882H is asked for

David

Theoretically, Vicky Silver is right. But I wouldn't go for this coin as I think it's been deliberately tooled by someone at some point. Realistically, it's the only explanation. It would also account for the apparent smudging under the date.

[Peckris]

My question is: why is Freeman gospel on there being only one die combination for this coin (the 1882 London penny)? I simply do not understand how another obv. die, or even rev. die might not have been employed at another occasion that year, or even another year. This possibility does not seem to be excluded in arguments I have seen thus far.

Freeman isn't gospel, of course. There are significant differences between his first edition and his second.

The point here though is - the main striking for 1882 was done by Heatons. They were supplied with dies by the Mint. The London striking was done by the Mint and was possibly only a tiny experimental run. It is therefore much less likely that unknown die combinations will turn up, as Heatons were commissioned to produce a significant quantity of pennies. It is MORE likely that an unknown combination will turn up with an H than without, considering that was the main source of striking that year.

[VickySilver]

You know, Peck, I was thinking this only because of stories I have heard about untold hundreds, if not thousands of dies laying around mint property(ies?) which certainly left room for "sport". I know that the mint wizards at the Philadelphia mint carried on with such activities in the 19th century and even into the 20th, so to me kind of a black box situation. Bernie's penny is much nicer than most and I believe Rob would be able to locate a picture of the mint state, or so, piece that Spink had in one of their SNCs about 1980 or so that was far and away the best I have seen.

I believe I have seen one 1882 London penny that is not strictly following the F11 format and it is in GVF or better condition with no problems other than poor planchet with no "monkey business" in the erstwhile mintmark area. The reaction when shown was that it was not F11 and therefore could not be London minted coin. That is NOT de facto data, and such intrepretation quite poor as opposed to the opinion that further study was needed.

Electron microscopy in the area of the mintmark should show metal manipulation but access and cost of such testing may not be feasible. I vote for cautious openminded approach to such coins overall, with the coin having to essentially prove itself if possible...I can not condemn even this coin without further study but think that there are serious questions about the mintmark area.

Edited October 21, 2010 by VickySilver

[Peter]

1882 seems to be a collectible year for most coins....I wish my great grandma was born then and stashed a huge collection in the loft.In fact she was born in 1874 which makes me feel a bit old....still in my fourties.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Peter

[£400 for a Penny ?]

1882 seems to be a collectible year for most coins....I wish my great grandma was born then and stashed a huge collection in the loft.In fact she was born in 1874 which makes me feel a bit old....still in my fourties.

Interesting. I can get there in one less generation - discovered my GRANDFATHER being 17 years old in the 1891 census and I'm only halfway through my forties.

[Peter]

A fine year 1874 I wish great grand ma had saved the selection of coins each year in BU and maybe cherry picked a few of the earlier coins.I wonder what was circulating in 1874?

I have made hashed attempts to collect decimals but they do nothing for me.

[davidrj]

I want a TARDIS for Christmas

David

[Peter]

When I was a teenager my sister bought me a 1914 shilling which I still have today probably gvf but will never be replaced.

My parents have given me money for birthdays and Xmas which I have used for coins and not depreciated as fast as M&S jumpers.I also spend far too much time on internet forums (and Ebay et all)and have managed to bore my wife and children about my coins...although my eldest is taking an unhealthy interest in their values/and probate laws.

[Beebman]

I want a TARDIS for Christmas

David

A little time ago I found an interesting article in ‘The Times’ of Thursday January 7th 1869 (I’ve access to the online archive at work) about the age of coinage then in circulation. It only refers to gold coinage but it’s an interesting snapshot nonetheless.

A Mr Stanley Jevons, Professor of Political Economy at Owens’ College, Manchester, asked some 200 banking places across England to assist him with a survey of 100,000 full sovereigns and 100,000 half-sovereigns in circulation in March 1868 to ascertain their date of minting. The results were as follows:

Pre-1820: 207 full and 523 half

1820-1829: 7,402 full and 1,303 half

1830-1839: 6,979 full and 1,141 half

1840-1849: 16,935 full and 16,302 half

1850-1859: 28,612 full and 40,060 half

1860-1867: 38,246 full and 39,593 half (it’s noted that 18,671 of the full sovereigns had the dates 1863 or 1864)

Australian: 1,619 full and 1,078 half.

(It was also noted that the Bank of England had in its vaults some 600,000 full sovereigns unissued due to lack of demand, which could explain why there were none minted in 1867!)

434 of the full sovereigns were also assessed in Manchester to see if they retained the correct legal weight for gold. Those from the 1860s were all OK. Of those from the 1850s “many were notâ€, of those from the 1840s the average weight of all of them was just below the level, and of those dated 1817-1829 the average weight of all of them was one full grain below. It was calculated that on average a sovereign would fall below the legal level after 18 years’ circulation.

I hope that’s of interest to any gold coin collectors with a TARDIS who are thinking of setting it to sometime in the mid-to-late 19th century!

[Peter]

It makes you wonder what the £ could buy.My parents bought their house for £2,000.00 in the early 60's.So a gold coin was worth approx £2,000.00 in todays currency.

My memories of coins go back to the early 70's when you could buy them for £5 to £6 although my pocket money didn't stretch.

I do remember buying an Unc 1901 farthing for 10p and a GVF 1/2d for 20p....the rest came from change as my uncle was a baker/milkman and my father had access to a till which I used to search every Saturday morning.I amassed a good collection of pre 47 silver although no pre 20 silver.

In the last 30 years I have bought willy nilly but recently calmed down to buying only quality....unless auction fever strikes on a bit of quality.

Anyone remember the "Farthing Specialist"? he was an inspiration as he actually took time to write a note with every order and often put a few extras in the package.

Maybe life was simpler then.

[davidrj]

I hope that's of interest to any gold coin collectors with a TARDIS who are thinking of setting it to sometime in the mid-to-late 19th century!

So if we took £20 in sovereigns back to 1869, would we get value exchanging for current bronze or silver? the chances of finding anything scarce would be low - no 1869 pennies, probably the majority would be 1862/3

So let's think in reverse, what current circulation coins would you salt away for your great grandchildren?

David

[scott]

hard to say, trying to work on a method for picking them.

namly, curculation life of a coin (ease of wear etc, how often a coin is used day to day) the mintages, and events of the year (people saving coins of that year etc) still hard to find anything

except the usual 1992 dot to dot 10p and small head 1992 20p there is very little in general coinage

1992-97 20ps never seem to wear lol

pennies and 2p's usage is low IMO (getting common to find 90's copper with some lustre)

5p? i dunno tbh.

10p, 2008 old design and dot to dot. but mainly nothing there

20p, a few noted ones, but hard wearing is in a issue for saving the higher grades

50p, not much post 97 to get excited about

£1. this is the way to go, high curculation life (or easy wearing) with a couple of nicer dates (1988 and 2008 old design)

£2. low mintage but probably kept back more oftendue to designs, but plenty here to save.

its not as fun as back then i admit lol

boring years are the way to go

[Peter]

However I try I can't float my boat with anything after....well it has to be predecimal when you got 480 halfpennies for £1.

In my youth I used a lot of these in 2p arcade machines.

I've still got rolls of halfpennies.

Maybe I have copper tinted glasses but really pre 1936 gets me going everytime.

[azda]

However I try I can't float my boat with anything after....well it has to be predecimal when you got 480 halfpennies for £1.

In my youth I used a lot of these in 2p arcade machines.

I've still got rolls of halfpennies.

Maybe I have copper tinted glasses but really pre 1936 gets me going everytime.

Decimal currency does nothing for me what so ever, hence the fact most of us tend to collect OLD coins lol. Does anyone here actually collect decimal? Apart from the 2 pound boys

[Colin G.]

When I was a teenager my sister bought me a 1914 shilling which I still have today probably gvf but will never be replaced.

My parents have given me money for birthdays and Xmas which I have used for coins and not depreciated as fast as M&S jumpers.I also spend far too much time on internet forums (and Ebay et all)and have managed to bore my wife and children about my coins...although my eldest is taking an unhealthy interest in their values/and probate laws.

Thats soudns like a very familiar story...the same one in my household...apart from the shilling!!

[davidrj]

Does anyone here actually collect decimal? Apart from the 2 pound boys

Not with any enthusiasm, but then if I look at my accumulation of pennies collected in the 60's, I have very few post 1894, "modern" except H & KNs didn't interest me at the time.

I wonder how current bronze clad steel will look in 100 yrs time, will they rust with age?

David