LCN- Rare Pennies

[Colin88]

There a some rare old pennies in the September auction....has someone off loaded a collection...or some duplicates?

[RLC35]

There a some rare old pennies in the September auction....has someone off loaded a collection...or some duplicates?

Not me...must be someone else!

[Bernie]

I have read that the owner of most of the pennies and halfpennies were from the Michael Cole collection.

[Peckris]

I have read that the owner of most of the pennies and halfpennies were from the Michael Cole collection.

I'm an owner that comes from the Peckris collection - though I do find sleeping curled up in a cabinet a bit cramped

[Colin88]

I have read that the owner of most of the pennies and halfpennies were from the Michael Cole collection.

Bernie.....what do you think of the 1882?...is it just a weakly struck 2 or has it been molested?...thanks

[Bernie]

I'm sorry but I just don't know. The coin is of reasonable grade and therefore should be easy to give a definite answer... but unfortunately on this occasion I would not want to publicly knock the coin. Over the years, a number of 12+N coins have appeared with apparently no "H". Some others have appeared with a weakly struck "H".

It is not impossible that this coin is completely authentic. The royal Mint say they have no record of any pennies struck by them in 1882 but clearly a number were struck without "H" possibly to test dies in 1881 or struck without "H" at the Heaton Mint. Luckily most 1882 pennies can be easily identified due to the unique die pairing 11+N with date 1882.

My opinion is only another opinion, no better on this particular coin than anybody else's opinion. Sorry :(

[VickySilver]

Good points there Bernie. I too am of the opinion that it certainly remains possible that MORE than one type of reverse, or combo obi/rev was used. I do not think or see that the Royal Mint has operated always on a logical basis - this to me at least calls into question some of the other conclusions about their "products" based on assumption.

[Colin88]

I think I'll pass on it.....personally, I'm not over happy with that flakey looking "2".

Thanks for your views anyway.

[Rob]

If you play around with the contrast and brightness there is a possible H shape, but I don't know if this agrees with the other 1882H dies. Somebody will be more au fait than me on the penny dies. I can have a look at it in a couple weeks at Wakefield if I remember.

[PWA 1967]

In my opinion appears to be an H thanks rob

[Rob]

Another consideration is that they are intended to be no H after being returned from Heatons, the H filled and the die used by the Royal Mint so that what you see is a trace from inadequate smoothing. I know they corrected errors and repaired dies by filling and recutting because I have an 1862/26 halfpenny, so filling only is hardly a great leap into the unknown.

Trying to prove which is an 1882H filled with debris as opposed to filled at the mint because it was struck in London rather than Birmingham might be a tad problematic.

[Colin88]

If you play around with the contrast and brightness there is a possible H shape, but I don't know if this agrees with the other 1882H dies. Somebody will be more au fait than me on the penny dies. I can have a look at it in a couple weeks at Wakefield if I remember.

Good shot....looks like an H to me......definitely not going for it.....thanks

[PWA 1967]

The thing that i am not sure about.Looking at michael gouby book BP1882 Aa the coin does have the right reverse and 14 teeth ?.

[Rob]

I'm surprised nobody raised the question of the two 1860/59 pennies in this sale. One has an inverted die axis while the other is conventional. The inverted one is cleaned, the normal one is quite a good example with only the barest friction to a few high points, and by that I do mean only a trace of wear.

The inverted one raises a few questions, not least, why does it exist? The reverse also has Britannia with an unusually full right breast as this is normally quite flat. The colons are a different size and the legend at BRITANNIAR is somewhat spindlier on one compared to the other. The earhole is a bit different. The obverse beads are a little bulkier. The obverse legend is thicker on the inverted one. There is a raised dot below the ear on the inverted one which is not on the normal one. If this is a rust spot then the inverted one must be later. The second fillet has a pair of parallel lines whereas the normal one doesn't.

Not sure what to think other than it seems a little odd and flags up a potential problem. Are all these struck from the same die pair as far as is known? The two examples in this sale would appear not to be.

[Colin G.]

There appear to be two die combinations for the farthings, with different Reverse designs. I have not yet looked through all the library images I have, to confirm or check ratios, however I am fairly confident from the images that there are two clear Reverse types.

[Rob]

I'm surprised nobody raised the question of the two 1860/59 pennies in this sale. One has an inverted die axis while the other is conventional. The inverted one is cleaned, the normal one is quite a good example with only the barest friction to a few high points, and by that I do mean only a trace of wear.

The inverted one raises a few questions, not least, why does it exist? The reverse also has Britannia with an unusually full right breast as this is normally quite flat. The colons are a different size and the legend at BRITANNIAR is somewhat spindlier on one compared to the other. The earhole is a bit different. The obverse beads are a little bulkier. The obverse legend is thicker on the inverted one. There is a raised dot below the ear on the inverted one which is not on the normal one. If this is a rust spot then the inverted one must be later. The second fillet has a pair of parallel lines whereas the normal one doesn't.

Not sure what to think other than it seems a little odd and flags up a potential problem. Are all these struck from the same die pair as far as is known? The two examples in this sale would appear not to be.

Anyone with any ideas on this? Given the anomalies and the hefty price tag likely, I thought there might be some interest.

[Peckris]

I'm surprised nobody raised the question of the two 1860/59 pennies in this sale. One has an inverted die axis while the other is conventional. The inverted one is cleaned, the normal one is quite a good example with only the barest friction to a few high points, and by that I do mean only a trace of wear.

The inverted one raises a few questions, not least, why does it exist? The reverse also has Britannia with an unusually full right breast as this is normally quite flat. The colons are a different size and the legend at BRITANNIAR is somewhat spindlier on one compared to the other. The earhole is a bit different. The obverse beads are a little bulkier. The obverse legend is thicker on the inverted one. There is a raised dot below the ear on the inverted one which is not on the normal one. If this is a rust spot then the inverted one must be later. The second fillet has a pair of parallel lines whereas the normal one doesn't.

Not sure what to think other than it seems a little odd and flags up a potential problem. Are all these struck from the same die pair as far as is known? The two examples in this sale would appear not to be.

Anyone with any ideas on this? Given the anomalies and the hefty price tag likely, I thought there might be some interest.

You see, this is what happens when people post a topic like this and don't include a link. I have Googled in vain and the only reference to LCN pennies auction is this thread which is first in the Google list. Nothing else.

PLEASE people, if you're going to post things like this, POST A LINK WITH IT.

[Rob]

I'm surprised nobody raised the question of the two 1860/59 pennies in this sale. One has an inverted die axis while the other is conventional. The inverted one is cleaned, the normal one is quite a good example with only the barest friction to a few high points, and by that I do mean only a trace of wear.

The inverted one raises a few questions, not least, why does it exist? The reverse also has Britannia with an unusually full right breast as this is normally quite flat. The colons are a different size and the legend at BRITANNIAR is somewhat spindlier on one compared to the other. The earhole is a bit different. The obverse beads are a little bulkier. The obverse legend is thicker on the inverted one. There is a raised dot below the ear on the inverted one which is not on the normal one. If this is a rust spot then the inverted one must be later. The second fillet has a pair of parallel lines whereas the normal one doesn't.

Not sure what to think other than it seems a little odd and flags up a potential problem. Are all these struck from the same die pair as far as is known? The two examples in this sale would appear not to be.

Anyone with any ideas on this? Given the anomalies and the hefty price tag likely, I thought there might be some interest.

You see, this is what happens when people post a topic like this and don't include a link. I have Googled in vain and the only reference to LCN pennies auction is this thread which is first in the Google list. Nothing else.

PLEASE people, if you're going to post things like this, POST A LINK WITH IT.

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2666&f=o&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2666&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2667&f=o&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2667&f=r&s=l

The lack of interest could be that pennies are old hat having been discussed to death.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Rob

[Paulus]

The catalogue description for the inverted example (lot 2666, the first 2 links Rob posted) states:

"Penny 1860 60 over 59 Copper as Peck 1521 but with inverted die axis, previously unseen by this cataloguer and possibly unique, NEF perhaps once cleaned now almost fully retoned, sold to the vendor by Colin Cooke for £380, on meeting Colin at Spink Auction 23/3/1989 after the vendor purchased the other 1860 Copper Penny in this sale"

Perhaps Neil has some info on it in the CC archives?

[Rob]

The catalogue description for the inverted example (lot 2666, the first 2 links Rob posted) states:

"Penny 1860 60 over 59 Copper as Peck 1521 but with inverted die axis, previously unseen by this cataloguer and possibly unique, NEF perhaps once cleaned now almost fully retoned, sold to the vendor by Colin Cooke for £380, on meeting Colin at Spink Auction 23/3/1989 after the vendor purchased the other 1860 Copper Penny in this sale"

Perhaps Neil has some info on it in the CC archives?

It has definitely been cleaned. The worrying thing for me is that the teeth on the 2 obverses are nothing like the same. Given they both have to be derived from the same obverse die given the clash below the chin and the flaw below the bun, why are they so different when there is very little apparent wear? Does anyone know how many dies were used for this date, or are there any other examples with the features of the inverted axis coin?

Chingford?

[Paulus]

The catalogue description for the inverted example (lot 2666, the first 2 links Rob posted) states:

"Penny 1860 60 over 59 Copper as Peck 1521 but with inverted die axis, previously unseen by this cataloguer and possibly unique, NEF perhaps once cleaned now almost fully retoned, sold to the vendor by Colin Cooke for £380, on meeting Colin at Spink Auction 23/3/1989 after the vendor purchased the other 1860 Copper Penny in this sale"

Perhaps Neil has some info on it in the CC archives?

It has definitely been cleaned. The worrying thing for me is that the teeth on the 2 obverses are nothing like the same. Given they both have to be derived from the same obverse die given the clash below the chin and the flaw below the bun, why are they so different when there is very little apparent wear? Does anyone know how many dies were used for this date, or are there any other examples with the features of the inverted axis coin?

Chingford?

Bizarre indeed ... here are the 2 lots side by side for ease of comparison (inverted lot 2666 on the left, conventional lot 2667 on the right):

[Colin G.]

Worth noting that there is a slightly misaligned tooth above the R in Victoria, even on the one with the thicker teeth this would seem to be the case, so it may just be planchet thickness or grease causing the tooth anomaly

[VickySilver]

How about the pattern of three marks below the back of Vick's head - identical, thats a bit interesting as well....Gonna take at some reference bits later on today.

[MACKSILKY.]

And the marks under vics chin.

[Paulus]

And the marks under vics chin.

How about the pattern of three marks below the back of Vick's head - identical, thats a bit interesting as well....Gonna take at some reference bits later on today.

Rob makes the point that these marks are a die clash and die flaw, so would be on both coins if the same die was used? And assuming that's the case, why are there some clear differences on the obverses?