1922 Penny, Reverse Of 1927!

[RLC35]

My latest acquisition...a 1922 Penny with 1927 Reverse!

[RLC35]

My latest acquisition...a 1922 Penny with 1927 Reverse!

The Obverse...

[Paulus]

My latest acquisition...a 1922 Penny with 1927 Reverse!

The Obverse...

Blimey Bob, did you happen to find any hens' teeth while you were about it?!!

[declanwmagee]

Nice score, Bob! That looks remarkably like the one that John Jerrams was selling...tell-tale scratchette on the cheek.

[Accumulator]

Nice one Bob. I'm guessing it was the eBay coin as Declan suggests? Is that for stock or your collection?

[Accumulator]

P.s. just checked it doesn't have the ME obverse, as I think the specimen(s) do. Michael Freeman published an update to his book for the 1922/26/27 pennies in the BNJ, as I recall. I have a copy somewhere!

Edit: It may be in the Spink Circular, rather than the BNJ. I will check when I have a chance.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Accumulator

[RLC35]

Nice one Bob. I'm guessing it was the eBay coin as Declan suggests? Is that for stock or your collection?

Accumulator, It seems like they all start out in my collection, but where they end up is another matter! Ha,Ha. I don't know at this time, but I like having it. You are right...it is not a M.E.

[VickySilver]

Think I may be able to find an image of the specimen somewhere & have a look as well. My recall is also ME obverse though...

[Accumulator]

Freeman's update:

[Peckris]

That's a great posting - thanks!

However, I think Freeman is wrong in asserting "it was a surprise to learn..." etc. There's absolutely no evidence as to when exactly those mules were created or even struck. They could have used a 1922 date punch, for example, to test out new reverses in - say- 1925. There would presumably have been no intention to release any of them, and they are extremely rare.

[davidrj]

Odd that Freeman describes the 1922 "rev C" with the long border teeth the same as the 1927 "rev C" considering the trouble he took to identify miniscule differences in the George VI ship halfpenny reverses

What lennth are the teeth in the 1926, his F196A?

Are there any legend/bead pointing differences?

[RLC35]

Freeman's update:

Thanks Steve, interesting stuff!

[VickySilver]

1922 specimen with OE type bust.

[davidrj]

Odd that Freeman describes the 1922 "rev C" with the long border teeth the same as the 1927 "rev C" considering the trouble he took to identify miniscule differences in the George VI ship halfpenny reverses

What length are the teeth in the 1926, his F196A?

Are there any legend/bead pointing differences?

I've just looked at Accumulator's pictures on his site - I can't see any pointing differences but no way his 1922 is the same die as his 1927 on the right - look at Brittania's hand and the ball atop the trident shaft. Bob's coin looks to be the same die as Accumulator's

[url=http://s593.photobucket.com/user/microtome/media/hands.jpg.html][

/URL]

So the question remains - which die was used for F192B and F196A?

Edited November 16, 2013 by davidrj

[Peckris]

Odd that Freeman describes the 1922 "rev C" with the long border teeth the same as the 1927 "rev C" considering the trouble he took to identify miniscule differences in the George VI ship halfpenny reverses

What length are the teeth in the 1926, his F196A?

Are there any legend/bead pointing differences?

I've just looked at Accumulator's pictures on his site - I can't see any pointing differences but no way his 1922 is the same die as his 1927 on the right - look at Brittania's hand and the ball atop the trident shaft. Bob's coin looks to be the same die as Accumulator's

[url=http://s593.photobucket.com/user/microtome/media/hands.jpg.html][

/URL]

So the question remains - which die was used for F192B and F196A?

The other massive difference which is instantly noticeable, is the width of the rim - it's nearly twice as wide on the 1922 as on the 1927.

[DaveG38]

And the border teeth, albeit less obvious than the rim.

Edited November 16, 2013 by DaveG38

[VickySilver]

But just what is Rev. of 1927 - would the Rev, dies of that year (1927) all come from the same master matrix, etc.?

[davidrj]

But just what is Rev. of 1927 - would the Rev, dies of that year (1927) all come from the same master matrix, etc.?

I've pinched these images from Acculator's site - as they are the same size with virtually identical illumination

The rare 1922 reverse is NOT the same die as used in 1927

Edited November 16, 2013 by davidrj

[Accumulator]

But just what is Rev. of 1927 - would the Rev, dies of that year (1927) all come from the same master matrix, etc.?

I've pinched these images from Acculator's site - as they are the same size with virtually identical illumination

The rare 1922 reverse is NOT the same die as used in 1927

Strangely, Michael Freeman states this in his article: "About 1980, it was discovered that a few pennies of 1922 also exist with the normal, early, high relief large effigy paired with what is, in essence, the modified reverse of 1927-36. The border teeth are a little longer and the head of Britannia a fraction smaller, but it is, otherwise, the later reverse." From the photos you show, David, these differences are very obvious (look at the size of Britannia's head for example), and enough to warrant the reverse for 1927 being denoted 'D'. I'm surprised that Freeman decided not to do this when he suggested his catalogue re-write for 1922-27.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Accumulator

[Peckris]

But just what is Rev. of 1927 - would the Rev, dies of that year (1927) all come from the same master matrix, etc.?

Yes, but not the same as the 1922 reverse, which would be experimental only.

Strangely, Michael Freeman states this in his article: "About 1980, it was discovered that a few pennies of 1922 also exist with the normal, early, high relief large effigy paired with what is, in essence, the modified reverse of 1927-36. The border teeth are a little longer and the head of Britannia a fraction smaller, but it is, otherwise, the later reverse." From the photos you show, David, these differences are very obvious (look at the size of Britannia's head for example), and enough to warrant the reverse for 1927 being denoted 'D'. I'm surprised that Freeman decided not to do this when he suggested his catalogue re-write for 1922-27.

Yes, that is a bit weird, given his enthusiasm for minutiae in the bun bronzes. I can only think that his passion was waning a bit by the time he wrote that up, or else it was only a provisional write-up. Yet I would say - purely from observation - that the 1922 reverse is more distinct than any differences between the 1911-26 reverse and 1927-36 reverse. It's instantly recognisable.

[davidrj]

Having reread Freeman's article - I think a revised listing for George V pennies now looks something like

This ignores proofs. off metal strikes and the 1922 trident dot

Edited November 17, 2013 by davidrj

[RLC35]

Nice list David, Thanks for sharing!

[Accumulator]

That looks right to me David. Thank you!

[AardHawk]

Shouldn't the F195A in your list actually be F196A?

[Peckris]

Excellent list!

One small criticism of the Gouby classifications : the 'recessed ear' variety of 1915 and 1916 is a properly issued experimental obverse that was abandoned after 2 years' use. It's more distinctive than the differences between Obverse 1 1911-13 and Obverse 2 1913-21. It had as much proper exposure as the first ME obverse of 1926-27. It should have its own obverse.