1893 penny Broken 1 in date

[Accumulator]

very interesting indeed

i am more of a silver collector personally but have decided to have a go at pennies starting with bun heads first and il see how i feel later on

back to the 1893 penny itself though i have a numerous amount of them and realise theres the elusive 3/2 so i decided to take a photo of the dates and compare

have attached a different looking one.

what do you think? (this one is a penny this time )

The 1893/2 penny is so difficult to spot that it is no wonder that it went unnoticed for so long. I can be shown a close-up of one and STILL probably won't see it.

I don't even know what we're supposed to be looking for on an 1893/2, as I've never seen one. I know there is a pic of one in Michael Gouby's "The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1901†Victoria specialised edition book, but I haven't got it, so I've never seen one. I also know there are different font 3's for that year, which add to the confusion.

It would be very interesting to see one, and to be aware exactly what to look for. The threes look totally different on the two that I have.

Better late than never:

My 1893/2 (they really are hard to spot!)

[Peter]

Nope

I can't see it.

[Accumulator]

Nope

I can't see it.

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'.

[Peckris]

Nope

I can't see it.

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'.

Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

[1949threepence]

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator.

Excellent pic, actually.

Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

It would be an odd die flaw, surely ?

[Peckris]

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator.

Excellent pic, actually.

Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

It would be an odd die flaw, surely ?

Odd, yes. But not much odder than a teensy remnant of a 2?

[Accumulator]

Nope

I can't see it.

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'.

Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

Michael Gouby describes this possible overdate in his book and includes photos showing the central 'spike'. He overlays a normal 3 and 2 with Photoshop to produce an identical result to the potential overdate. He's as sure as he can be, but certainly not 100%.

[Peter]

Hmm

Now that is pushing the whole variation scene beyond with what I could be comfortable with.

[declanwmagee]

Hmm

Now that is pushing the whole variation scene beyond with what I could be comfortable with.

That one's a piece of cake - try and distinguish the 3 kinds of 1958 halfpennies!

[Peckris]

Hmm

Now that is pushing the whole variation scene beyond with what I could be comfortable with.

That one's a piece of cake - try and distinguish the 3 kinds of 1958 halfpennies!

You mean 1858, Declan? If not, then what on earth are the 1958 varieties??

[Nick]

Hmm

Now that is pushing the whole variation scene beyond with what I could be comfortable with.

That one's a piece of cake - try and distinguish the 3 kinds of 1958 halfpennies!

You mean 1858, Declan? If not, then what on earth are the 1958 varieties??

No, he wrote what he meant - 1958. There are three different reverses characterised by the width of the rim and by the shape and length of the border teeth. The exact differences are shown in David Groom's Bronze book.

[declanwmagee]

...also in Freeman, 479, 480, and 481. I made the decision very early on not to try and distinguish those 3. I do try and cover most of them, but not them.

[Peckris]

...also in Freeman, 479, 480, and 481. I made the decision very early on not to try and distinguish those 3. I do try and cover most of them, but not them.

"Rarity" C, C5, C16 - right, they are off my Xmas pressy list then

[1949threepence]

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator.

Excellent pic, actually.

Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

It would be an odd die flaw, surely ?

Odd, yes. But not much odder than a teensy remnant of a 2?

So the jury is still out for you on the question ?

[Peter]

Each to their own.OK it is published but I get a serious slabbing from the Peter family if I get exited without a serif on my B.

[Peckris]

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator.

Excellent pic, actually.

Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

It would be an odd die flaw, surely ?

Odd, yes. But not much odder than a teensy remnant of a 2?

So the jury is still out for you on the question ?

Well, not really, ii bow to the experts on this. But I will say that it is one of the most obscure and hard-to-spot varieties of all time, and therefore it's questionable how many collectors would be interested. Even the also-quite-hard-to-see-at-times 1865/3 is a clear overdate, as all the diagonal downstroke of the 3 is there to see, not just a tiny little spur of it.

[declanwmagee]

Well, not really, ii bow to the experts on this. But I will say that it is one of the most obscure and hard-to-spot varieties of all time, and therefore it's questionable how many collectors would be interested. Even the also-quite-hard-to-see-at-times 1865/3 is a clear overdate, as all the diagonal downstroke of the 3 is there to see, not just a tiny little spur of it.

Did any one see this one?

I did bid all I had, but all I had wasn't much at the time so I got my arse justifiably kicked. Is it what it says it is?

[Peckris]

Well, not really, ii bow to the experts on this. But I will say that it is one of the most obscure and hard-to-spot varieties of all time, and therefore it's questionable how many collectors would be interested. Even the also-quite-hard-to-see-at-times 1865/3 is a clear overdate, as all the diagonal downstroke of the 3 is there to see, not just a tiny little spur of it.

Did any one see this one?

I did bid all I had, but all I had wasn't much at the time so I got my arse justifiably kicked. Is it what it says it is?

It doesn't really matter - the winning bid of around £20 was a pretty spectacular bargain even if it was the bog standard 1865! Wish I'd seen it, but I don't go to Australia eBay

Edited December 6, 2012 by Peckris

[1949threepence]

Well, not really, ii bow to the experts on this. But I will say that it is one of the most obscure and hard-to-spot varieties of all time, and therefore it's questionable how many collectors would be interested. Even the also-quite-hard-to-see-at-times 1865/3 is a clear overdate, as all the diagonal downstroke of the 3 is there to see, not just a tiny little spur of it.

Did any one see this one?

I did bid all I had, but all I had wasn't much at the time so I got my arse justifiably kicked. Is it what it says it is?

It doesn't really matter - the winning bid of around £20 was a pretty spectacular bargain even if it was the bog standard 1865! Wish I'd seen it, but I don't go to Australia eBay

I was just thinking the same thing ~ and yes, I'm almost certain it is a 5/3.

Note to self: drop in on e bay Australia now and then

[Accumulator]

Well, not really, ii bow to the experts on this. But I will say that it is one of the most obscure and hard-to-spot varieties of all time, and therefore it's questionable how many collectors would be interested. Even the also-quite-hard-to-see-at-times 1865/3 is a clear overdate, as all the diagonal downstroke of the 3 is there to see, not just a tiny little spur of it.

Did any one see this one?

I did bid all I had, but all I had wasn't much at the time so I got my arse justifiably kicked. Is it what it says it is?

It doesn't really matter - the winning bid of around £20 was a pretty spectacular bargain even if it was the bog standard 1865! Wish I'd seen it, but I don't go to Australia eBay

I was just thinking the same thing ~ and yes, I'm almost certain it is a 5/3.

Note to self: drop in on e bay Australia now and then

Nice spot! Sometimes I get little time to check eBay uk, let alone Australia. I must be more vigilant too!

Edited December 8, 2012 by Accumulator