More Pennies

[Martinminerva]

13 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Changing the subject completely, what does anybody know about the history of the 1858 "large rose" penny? As in when was the variety discovered, and who discovered it?

Clearly wasn't Bramah or Peck as neither make any mention of it, and I wouldn't have thought it would have been regarded as a "minor variety" by either.

They can't be that scarce as I've seen a fair few on offer and a number already sold. Also I've just managed to get one for £40.99 - admittedly in not great condition, but still. 

Thanks in advance.

Picture: side by side - large rose above, small rose below

 

 

Well, blow me, Mike - it was me you have bought it from! Didn't recognise the full name when I came to packet it up for posting. Anyway, really pleased it is going to a good home. I managed to get hold of a better one a few weeks ago so was moving this one on. You now need to look out for a large rose but with a small date! These are MUCH rarer it seems... I have one in rather low grade and have seen maybe only two more. For a long while, London Coins were selling these larger date ones as small date, but they are certainly not! I think they have sold one genuinely small date one for quite a sum. I'll see if I can locate their image of it now...

Enjoy the coin! Posted yesterday (Monday) so hopefully you'll get it today or tomorrow.

 

[1949threepence]

6 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

Well, blow me, Mike - it was me you have bought it from! Didn't recognise the full name when I came to packet it up for posting. Anyway, really pleased it is going to a good home. I managed to get hold of a better one a few weeks ago so was moving this one on. You now need to look out for a large rose but with a small date! These are MUCH rarer it seems... I have one in rather low grade and have seen maybe only two more. For a long while, London Coins were selling these larger date ones as small date, but they are certainly not! I think they have sold one genuinely small date one for quite a sum. I'll see if I can locate their image of it now...

Enjoy the coin! Posted yesterday (Monday) so hopefully you'll get it today or tomorrow.

 

Thanks a lot, Martin. Looking forward to seeing it.

Thanks also for the heads up on the large rose, small date variety. I didn't know about these.

As far as the small date specifically, I've already noticed a number of large dates being touted as small dates. I think there's a few dealers who can't really tell the difference. But of course a genuine small date will be instantly visible as such, alongside a large date.  

[Martinminerva]

7 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

Well, blow me, Mike - it was me you have bought it from! Didn't recognise the full name when I came to packet it up for posting. Anyway, really pleased it is going to a good home. I managed to get hold of a better one a few weeks ago so was moving this one on. You now need to look out for a large rose but with a small date! These are MUCH rarer it seems... I have one in rather low grade and have seen maybe only two more. For a long while, London Coins were selling these larger date ones as small date, but they are certainly not! I think they have sold one genuinely small date one for quite a sum. I'll see if I can locate their image of it now...

Enjoy the coin! Posted yesterday (Monday) so hopefully you'll get it today or tomorrow.

 

Found it : Auction 137, 3/6/12, Lot 478. Sold for £600. The diagnostic feature of the genuinely small date is a die crack running up through the 5 of the date. 

Think this is the only one sold by London Coins - as I say, their other ones are mistakenly called this small date when they are not. I have a low grade one also with the die crack and think I have seen a picture somewhere on this forum (where??) of another. Any more known by anyone?

 

[PWA 1967]

[mrbadexample]

Enough with the washers Pete, haven't you got a decent one to share? 

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, mrbadexample said:

Enough with the washers Pete, haven't you got a decent one to share? 

Yeah, the right breast has worn away. Appalling.

 

[mrbadexample]

2 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Yeah, the right breast has worn away. Appalling.

 

I don't think I've got a common date that nice! 

[1949threepence]

4 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

I don't think I've got a common date that nice! 

It's certainly a very nice problem free specimen. Shame the series has that weakness with the right breast wearing away so quick. I bought an UNC 1848 which has a superb obverse but an almost breastless reverse. So whether it's actual wear or die wear, or both, I don't know. It's something Derek noted as actual wear in his grading book.

[mrbadexample]

1 minute ago, 1949threepence said:

It's certainly a very nice problem free specimen. Shame the series has that weakness with the right breast wearing away so quick. I bought an UNC 1848 which has a superb obverse but an almost breastless reverse. So whether it's actual wear or die wear, or both, I don't know. It's something Derek noted as actual wear in his grading book.

I'd have said not fully struck up, or you'd see the wear elsewhere too.

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, mrbadexample said:

I'd have said not fully struck up, or you'd see the wear elsewhere too.

In many cases I think it has to be, as the coins concerned are otherwise immaculate.

 

[PWA 1967]

Its wear to the REV die and not the coin  i think ,the die was recut to form the rose so probably an old die.

[Cliff]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

Its wear to the REV die and not the coin  i think ,the die was recut to form the rose so probably an old die.

Am I correct in assuming that the Rev die clash, showing to the left of her right forearm on Pete and Martin's earlier pics, is on all small date, large rose examples (as well as the 5 die crack)? If so, die clash may have something to do with the apparent worn right breast?

Edited August 4, 2020 by Cliff
Finger trouble

[PWA 1967]

42 minutes ago, Cliff said:

Am I correct in assuming that the Rev die clash, showing to the left of her right forearm on Pete and Martin's earlier pics, is on all small date, large rose examples (as well as the 5 die crack)? If so, die clash may have something to do with the apparent worn right breast?

Not sure about that Cliff as the detail is incuse on the die so i dont think a die clash would of caused it .

[damian1986]

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

It's certainly a very nice problem free specimen. Shame the series has that weakness with the right breast wearing away so quick. I bought an UNC 1848 which has a superb obverse but an almost breastless reverse. So whether it's actual wear or die wear, or both, I don't know. It's something Derek noted as actual wear in his grading book.

 

2 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

I'd have said not fully struck up, or you'd see the wear elsewhere too.

My 1848 unaltered date penny reverse. The right breast plate is a bit flat but otherwise quite a minty coin so can't see it being wear from circulation. 

[Cliff]

48 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Not sure about that Cliff as the detail is incuse on the die so i dont think a die clash would of caused it .

Good point Pete. Left pondering if die clash is on all 1858 LR SD, 5 die crack? You may be able to identify and help from all those you've got tucked away!!!!

[1949threepence]

47 minutes ago, damian1986 said:

 

My 1848 unaltered date penny reverse. The right breast plate is a bit flat but otherwise quite a minty coin so can't see it being wear from circulation. 

I think there may well be two separate factors at work here. The first is undoubtedly wear. As Derek Allen says at page 110 of his book "The standard guide to grading British Coins":-

Quote

EF: Helmet and fingers show early wear as does the rose in the exergue, but the area which undoubtedly erodes first is the right breast.  

That is common to the entire series. You can't miss it. Affects even pennies with much lustre still on them.

The second factor is a weak strike on coins which are otherwise uncirculated. Just co-incidental that the same area is affected.

Another obvious consideration is that if the breast is weakly struck to start with, it will wear quicker anyway. A vicious circle.  

 

[PWA 1967]

33 minutes ago, Cliff said:

Good point Pete. Left pondering if die clash is on all 1858 LR SD, 5 die crack? You may be able to identify and help from all those you've got tucked away!!!!

Thing with the copper pennies Cliff is that both dies were often swapped .So although the REV die may be the same on two different coins the OBV has been changed ,this happens frequently with overdates ,repairs etc. So although i cant remember looking the REV may be the same for both date types and the 5 die crack being on the OBV just the small date. The same theory with the 1848 that is mentioned different dies for both the OBV & REV that were swapped around.

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by PWA 1967

[Cliff]

10 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Thing with the copper pennies Cliff is that both dies were often swapped .So although the REV die may be the same on two different coins the OBV has been changed ,this happens frequently with overdates ,repairs etc. So although i cant rember looking the REV may be the same for both date types and the 5 die crack being on the OBV just the small date. The same theory with the 1848 that is mentioned different dies for both the OBV & REV that were swapped around.

 

Thanks Pete. Cap off to you (an expression oft used on here in the past but can't remember who by - not seen for a while!).

[damian1986]

7 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I think there may well be two separate factors at work here. The first is undoubtedly wear. As Derek Allen says at page 110 of his book "The standard guide to grading British Coins":-

That is common to the entire series. You can't miss it. Affects even pennies with much lustre still on them.

The second factor is a weak strike on coins which are otherwise uncirculated. Just co-incidental that the same area is affected.

Another obvious consideration is that if the breast is weakly struck to start with, it will wear quicker anyway. A vicious circle.  

 

Can we see the UNC 1848 for comparison?

[Martinminerva]

47 minutes ago, Cliff said:

Good point Pete. Left pondering if die clash is on all 1858 LR SD, 5 die crack? You may be able to identify and help from all those you've got tucked away!!!!

Hi, Cliff. Just looked at my low grade one and yes, the die clash is there. Looks like that is another good diagnostic as well as the die crack through the 5. Apologies for poor quality pics here from crappy iPad, but you should be able just to make out both clash and die crack. They are both much clearer in hand.

 

[alfnail]

45 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Thing with the copper pennies Cliff is that both dies were often swapped .So although the REV die may be the same on two different coins the OBV has been changed ,this happens frequently with overdates ,repairs etc. So although i cant remember looking the REV may be the same for both date types and the 5 die crack being on the OBV just the small date. The same theory with the 1848 that is mentioned different dies for both the OBV & REV that were swapped around.

 

The 1858 Large Rose reverse which is paired with the small date obverse I believe is a completely different die to the Large Rose reverse which is paired with the large date obverse. Pictures of both reverses are attached, where the first obvious difference to note is the colon dot positions. There are also other differences to individual letters in the legends, which can be seen with close up pictures.

The Obverse 1858 with large numerals (some think a 9/8), apart from being interesting because of it's peculiar overdate, has the added interest of being seen paired with 3 different reverse dies; the large rose reverse being the second of those. I can provide further details about this if anyone wants more information.  

 

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, damian1986 said:

Can we see the UNC 1848 for comparison?

Surely.

Apologies though, I think I got a bit carried away in describing it as UNC. Looking at it again with a more critical eye, it's actually much closer to GEF/EF. Although if you look at the breast area you could be forgiven for thinking it's a lower grade than that on the reverse. Nonetheless, I think it makes the point very well about the worn breasts. 

 

 

[PWA 1967]

Thanks Ian as i mentioned i wasnt sure if i had ever looked or not and no doubt you have pointed it out to me previously ,i knew from memory i had seen some with the thicker rim around ten past 👍

Edited August 4, 2020 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

42 minutes ago, alfnail said:

The 1858 Large Rose reverse which is paired with the small date obverse I believe is a completely different die to the Large Rose reverse which is paired with the large date obverse. Pictures of both reverses are attached, where the first obvious difference to note is the colon dot positions. There are also other differences to individual letters in the legends, which can be seen with close up pictures.

The Obverse 1858 with large numerals (some think a 9/8), apart from being interesting because of it's peculiar overdate, has the added interest of being seen paired with 3 different reverse dies; the large rose reverse being the second of those. I can provide further details about this if anyone wants more information.  

 

The position of the colon on the first example (large rose/small date) is in pretty much the same position as the intermediate colon (Peck 1503) on the 1853. ETA as well as the two stops being smaller and further away from each other.

Edited August 4, 2020 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence]

Anyway, thanks gents. I've learnt a lot today, as no doubt have others.