1940 penny high and left 4

[numidan]

I have not seen this listed anywhere. The easiest way to determine the 4 high and left is to determine where the back tail of 4 is located compared to the denticle (see white arrowed line). The 0 is a little wide but too small to be considered.

The blue line was used compare height of every digit and red rectangles used to compare digit locations. Happy hunting.

[Accumulator]

I have not seen this listed anywhere. The easiest way to determine the 4 high and left is to determine where the back tail of 4 is located compared to the denticle (see white arrowed line). The 0 is a little wide but too small to be considered.

The blue line was used compare height of every digit and red rectangles used to compare digit locations. Happy hunting.

Certainly there does appear to be a difference, though the grade of the coins are poor for the year making it hard to be sure. It is still possible that the observed difference could be accounted for by damage to the the '4'. I have many 1940 pennies so will take a look when I get the chance. I presume that you are aware of the single and double exergue varieties for 1940, listed by Freeman?

[Coinery]

Just a thought, but I wonder whether it would be better described as a 'large 4' and 'small 4' variety? It'll be interested to see what accumulator, and anyone else comes back with, I don't have anything after G5 myself, apart from QEII pound coins, that is!

I agree there certainly appears to be a difference, sharp eyes, let's see it duplicated and you're home!

You know the author D J Groom frequents this forum, he's obviously spent a lot of time on things like this!

A big welcome, a good post to enter with!

[Peter]

That is so close to call.Nice work on the images

[Peter]

That is so close to call.Nice work on the images

[numidan]

Thank you for the responses.

I presume that you are aware of the single and double exergue varieties for 1940, listed by Freeman?

Yes.

The lots of coins I purchase are mostly low grade coins. Being a variety seeker, this does not bother me. Thus, I make sure that differences are not caused by post mint damages and significant enough to be keeped. When I can not find information on it on the web, I post it. The pictures that I post can be used so others can come up with their own conclusion.

The sample I have for 1940 is 30 coins so I do not think this is rare unless I am very lucky.

Hope someone else finds one ... happy hunting.

[Coinery]

Thank you for the responses.

I presume that you are aware of the single and double exergue varieties for 1940, listed by Freeman?

Yes.

The lots of coins I purchase are mostly low grade coins. Being a variety seeker, this does not bother me. Thus, I make sure that differences are not caused by post mint damages and significant enough to be keeped. When I can not find information on it on the web, I post it. The pictures that I post can be used so others can come up with their own conclusion.

The sample I have for 1940 is 30 coins so I do not think this is rare unless I am very lucky.

Hope someone else finds one ... happy hunting.

1 in 30 is quite a small number, especially if none were found in the next 30!

Stick around, I think your findings would be the focus of some good debate!

[scott]

you can see the higher 4 is closer to the top of the exergue

[Accumulator]

you can see the higher 4 is closer to the top of the exergue

That might be due to damage to the top of the '4' on the other penny, as it appears to have a less-pointed top. I have a fair few 1940 pennies stored away and will try to examine them over the next few days.

[Peckris]

Just a thought, but I wonder if this is the difference between single and double exergue line varieties? Have a look at this photo (zoom your screen in to enlarge it even more). With the single line, the downstroke of the 4 appears to almost point to a space as with your variety, where with the double line it points just to the left of a tooth.

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/g6/1d/1d40e.jpg

Of course, both yours appear to be a single line, but it could just be due to wear that the second line (always described as "faintly doubled") is not evident? Clearly the teeth appear to have been recut too for the common second variety.

That's not to say that your variety isn't a good spot, and it may be a genuine micro-variety, but it MAY simply be a single line as opposed to a double line, and your ratio of 1 in 30 would support that.

[Accumulator]

Just a thought, but I wonder if this is the difference between single and double exergue line varieties? Have a look at this photo (zoom your screen in to enlarge it even more). With the single line, the downstroke of the 4 appears to almost point to a space as with your variety, where with the double line it points just to the left of a tooth.

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/g6/1d/1d40e.jpg

Of course, both yours appear to be a single line, but it could just be due to wear that the second line (always described as "faintly doubled") is not evident? Clearly the teeth appear to have been recut too for the common second variety.

That's not to say that your variety isn't a good spot, and it may be a genuine micro-variety, but it MAY simply be a single line as opposed to a double line, and your ratio of 1 in 30 would support that.

I'm still not convinced there's a difference that can't be explained by the damaged 4s.

Below is a comparison of single and double exergue examples. It's true that the single exergue is 'faintly doubled'.

[numidan]

Here is a close up of the 4s. I do not think that the PMD affected the size that much

[Coinery]

Here is a close up of the 4s. I do not think that the PMD affected the size that much

The magic of macro! I stand down from the large 4, small 4 speculation! One for the denticle boys now I think!

It is undoubtably high though, even if the left component is contestable!

Edited August 14, 2012 by Coinery

[Peckris]

Just a thought, but I wonder if this is the difference between single and double exergue line varieties? Have a look at this photo (zoom your screen in to enlarge it even more). With the single line, the downstroke of the 4 appears to almost point to a space as with your variety, where with the double line it points just to the left of a tooth.

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/g6/1d/1d40e.jpg

Of course, both yours appear to be a single line, but it could just be due to wear that the second line (always described as "faintly doubled") is not evident? Clearly the teeth appear to have been recut too for the common second variety.

That's not to say that your variety isn't a good spot, and it may be a genuine micro-variety, but it MAY simply be a single line as opposed to a double line, and your ratio of 1 in 30 would support that.

I'm still not convinced there's a difference that can't be explained by the damaged 4s.

Below is a comparison of single and double exergue examples. It's true that the single exergue is 'faintly doubled'.

That seems to confirm what I suspected. On the 'single exergue line', the downstroke of the 4 points virtually to a space, where on the doubled line it points slightly to the left of a tooth. There is also a difference to the waves, as there is also on numidan's examples. The relative position of the exergual lines and the exact pointings of the teeth could account for the 'up and left' nature of what we see here, plus the fact that there is quite a bit of wear which makes measuring such microscopic differences rather more difficult.

I'd say it was a 75% chance that it's down to the existing exergue varieties, but there's room for doubt.

[azda]

My 1940 Single line

Edited August 15, 2012 by azda

[Accumulator]

My 1940 Single line

I thought you sold it!

[azda]

Its there in fleabay

[Accumulator]

Its there in fleabay

Are you sure?

[Peckris]

My 1940 Single line

Unfortunately, the way the light falls on the 4's downstroke, that doesn't add much to the discussion either way. (I'm assuming that was the reason you posted it, Dave?)

[azda]

Yes Peck, i posted it to aid the topic. Did you just buy that Mr Accumulator? cos its gone now

Edited August 15, 2012 by azda

[Accumulator]

Yes Peck, i posted it to aid the topic. Did you just buy that Mr Accumulator? cos its gone now

Yes, I'm a sucker for lustre and it certainly has more than mine!

[azda]

Lol. It shall be posted morgen, und danke für ihren Kauf

[Peckris]

Yes Peck, i posted it to aid the topic. Did you just buy that Mr Accumulator? cos its gone now

Yes, I'm a sucker for lustre and it certainly has more than mine!

I have a near BU example that cost me £4:50. In 1978 Mind you, considering it wasn't a widely known variety back then, it was probably still quite a good price

[seuk]

Looks ok to me - have tried to merge (50%) both pairs of pictures seperate and don't find much difference for single versus double exergue (below). However the 'high left' clearly makes a double 4 when merged with the normal example (above).

[Peckris]

Looks ok to me - have tried to merge (50%) both pairs of pictures seperate and don't find much difference for single versus double exergue (below). However the 'high left' clearly makes a double 4 when merged with the normal example (above).

On the face of it, that's pretty conclusive. However, it leaves a further puzzle. On the 'high left 4' pair, the 4 is clearly offset and so it shows up (as you've demonstrated). However, on that merged pair, the 0 shows no difference between the two coins; yet if you compare it with the other merged pair, there's a big difference : the first pair shows a 0 that is smaller, squatter, and further from the teeth than on the second pair. But as one of the coins in the first pair is supposedly 'normal', you'd expect the 0 to show a different overlay just like the 4 does.