Peck: 1618, 1627 & 1636 Any Images Available?

[Flash]

I'm working on a troublesome Victorian Bun-head penny which "may" be a trail as noted by Garside. Essentially it's a faint obverse strike, blank reverse, measures 1.106" which is closer to 1.2" than 1.213" and has a distinct sharp vertically milled edge. Not to forget the "65" deeply scratched onto each side.

I know, where's the image. I'll get round to it, but I handle thousands of pennies each month so am fully aware that we shouldn't jump at shadows.

[Accumulator]

I'm working on a troublesome Victorian Bun-head penny which "may" be a trail as noted by Garside. Essentially it's a faint obverse strike, blank reverse, measures 1.106" which is closer to 1.2" than 1.213" and has a distinct sharp vertically milled edge. Not to forget the "65" deeply scratched onto each side.

I know, where's the image. I'll get round to it, but I handle thousands of pennies each month so am fully aware that we shouldn't jump at shadows.

A photo would be nice. Apart from the references in Peck, and the fact that they are presumably still in the BM, I have never come across any of these 3 coins.

[Flash]

Thanks, I'll get round to a photo today probably but if nobody has seen the BM examples or there are no images available then I can't see any image of mine will help.

[Flash]

Denomination = Penny (UK)

Diameter = 29.20mm (1.149â€)

Weight = 8.60gms

Material = Presumably bronze

Edge = Vertically milled.

Initial thoughts.

To be honest my initial, initial thought was throw it away it's a load of tat but then a distant memory of something from “English, copper, tin and bronze coins in the British Museum, Peck†(ref; second edition) surfaced.

P 420 notes a few specimens of Pennies, halfpennies & farthings 1860 to 1868 having two numbers scratched on the field of the obverse. According to Garside this relates to first impressions submitted for approval therefore making each one unique. Peck goes onto note three examples in the BM;

1618 (63)

1627 (40)

1636 (99)

After emailing xxxxxxx I was pointed in the direction of the BM collection online but sadly there was limited information and no images. The only additional information gained was a weight range for the three of 9.54gms to 9.85gms. This may eliminate my item as being related to those however, the mention of first impressions or trials by Garside “may†reconcile the fact that this coin is poorly struck on the obverse, not struck on the reverse, undersize (although the earliest suggestion for the bronze penny was 1.200†according to Peck and this is very close) and underweight. It has a sharp vertically milled edge which the 1860 to 1967 issue of Pennies did not. Could it possibly be a trial of a different edge type which was not adopted?

I think the only progression could be made by comparison of the numbers scratched onto the three mentioned above with the images of mine. Note I'm assuming it's “65†but I suppose it could be “59â€

[Flash]

I'm trying very hard but this image upload thing is beyond me - last go!

[Colin G.]

I'm trying very hard but this image upload thing is beyond me - last go!

The coin shown appears to have the portrait of a colonial coin such as a Straits Settlements cent. The coins referred to in Peck between 1860-1868 which show numbering are much fainter in terms of the scratching and are explained in detail by Gouby (images can be seen on his website..I think).

[Flash]

The coin shown appears to have the portrait of a colonial coin such as a Straits Settlements cent.

Ahh that will explain it then - thanks hugely

[davidrj]

The coin shown appears to have the portrait of a colonial coin such as a Straits Settlements cent.

Reeded edge - almost certainly Straits

[Rob]

Denomination = Penny (UK)

Diameter = 29.20mm (1.149â€)

Weight = 8.60gms

Material = Presumably bronze

Edge = Vertically milled.

Initial thoughts.

To be honest my initial, initial thought was throw it away it's a load of tat but then a distant memory of something from “English, copper, tin and bronze coins in the British Museum, Peck†(ref; second edition) surfaced.

P 420 notes a few specimens of Pennies, halfpennies & farthings 1860 to 1868 having two numbers scratched on the field of the obverse. According to Garside this relates to first impressions submitted for approval therefore making each one unique. Peck goes onto note three examples in the BM;

1618 (63)

1627 (40)

1636 (99)

After emailing xxxxxxx I was pointed in the direction of the BM collection online but sadly there was limited information and no images. The only additional information gained was a weight range for the three of 9.54gms to 9.85gms. This may eliminate my item as being related to those however, the mention of first impressions or trials by Garside “may†reconcile the fact that this coin is poorly struck on the obverse, not struck on the reverse, undersize (although the earliest suggestion for the bronze penny was 1.200†according to Peck and this is very close) and underweight. It has a sharp vertically milled edge which the 1860 to 1967 issue of Pennies did not. Could it possibly be a trial of a different edge type which was not adopted?

I think the only progression could be made by comparison of the numbers scratched onto the three mentioned above with the images of mine. Note I'm assuming it's “65†but I suppose it could be “59â€

The numbers in the field on coins from 1860-1868 are only very lightly scratched whereas your example has been mutilated. The halfpenny below is typical of the condition in which they occur and is consecutively numbered with the example used by Michael Gouby. The implication of this is that for every ton of coins, a new scratched coin was made meaning there could be 600 or more of them in existence. It is unlikely that all have survived though.