alfnail Posted September 17, 2021 Posted September 17, 2021 Of course Richard, please feel free. Quote
1949threepence Posted September 17, 2021 Posted September 17, 2021 2 hours ago, mrbadexample said: Surely not Mike? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/123939606539?hash=item1cdb60500b:g:AhkAAOSwBLlVAWXk Proves the point perfectly Jon. Quote
Peckris 2 Posted September 19, 2021 Posted September 19, 2021 On 9/17/2021 at 9:54 AM, alfnail said: ........and here is the extra (11th) leaf in case weren't sure where to find it!! LMAO. The extra (fig) leaf appears to be on the reverse... Quote
secret santa Posted October 6, 2021 Posted October 6, 2021 Just watched the unc 1882 F112 sell for £30,000 plus commission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 6, 2021 Posted October 6, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, secret santa said: Just watched the unc 1882 F112 sell for £30,000 plus commission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely no surprise whatsoever. Wonder if it stayed in the UK. ETA: did you notice what the 1860/59 went for Richard? It was a very nice specimen. Edited October 6, 2021 by 1949threepence Quote
Peckris 2 Posted October 6, 2021 Posted October 6, 2021 4 hours ago, secret santa said: Just watched the unc 1882 F112 sell for £30,000 plus commission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not surprised - it must be as rare as the 1933, if not rarer! 1 Quote
secret santa Posted October 6, 2021 Posted October 6, 2021 2 hours ago, 1949threepence said: ETA: did you notice what the 1860/59 went for Richard? It was a very nice specimen. £4,500 plus commission 1 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 6, 2021 Posted October 6, 2021 1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said: Not surprised - it must be as rare as the 1933, if not rarer! Definitely in that condition. Of course the great thing about it being in that mint state is that you know immediately the H hasn't been worn or tooled away. 4 Quote
oldcopper Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 16 hours ago, 1949threepence said: Definitely in that condition. Of course the great thing about it being in that mint state is that you know immediately the H hasn't been worn or tooled away. Isn't it a unique die combination as well for an 1882 penny? Excuse my ignorance as I haven't got any coin book to hand. Quote
1949threepence Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 5 hours ago, oldcopper said: Isn't it a unique die combination as well for an 1882 penny? Excuse my ignorance as I haven't got any coin book to hand. It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway. 1 Quote
oldcopper Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 6 minutes ago, 1949threepence said: It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway. yes, that would be a reassurance! Quote
secret santa Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 3 hours ago, 1949threepence said: It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway. But it can be difficult to distinguish exact obverse/reverse on very worn specimens. Quote
1949threepence Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 1 hour ago, secret santa said: But it can be difficult to distinguish exact obverse/reverse on very worn specimens. Very true, and if I recall correctly this has caused questions on here at some point as to the die pairing on an allegedly no H 1882. Quote
blakeyboy Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 Yes, I remember that too- so there is definitely only one pairing for the 'No H' type? Quote
VickySilver Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 You know, that is dogma, but I really am not all that sure of it - However, I must bow to the true experts here. Personally I do not understand why another die or set of dies might not have been employed for a few. Also, in that there are very "weak H" coins out there would it not be possible that there are some where there is absolutely no sign even under magnification of an "H"? As readers know, this is precisely what happened with some of the 1922 D cents from the USA where there were weak and then also absent mint marks that are collected as 1922 "Plain" specimens.... Quote
Peckris 2 Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 1 hour ago, VickySilver said: You know, that is dogma, but I really am not all that sure of it - However, I must bow to the true experts here. Personally I do not understand why another die or set of dies might not have been employed for a few. Also, in that there are very "weak H" coins out there would it not be possible that there are some where there is absolutely no sign even under magnification of an "H"? As readers know, this is precisely what happened with some of the 1922 D cents from the USA where there were weak and then also absent mint marks that are collected as 1922 "Plain" specimens.... On the other hand, if the only "no H " specimens that aren’t that die combination are extremely worn, then it's too much of a coincidence to think that no better example exists anywhere; I'm happy to believe the H on these has worn right away. 1 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 2 hours ago, blakeyboy said: Yes, I remember that too- so there is definitely only one pairing for the 'No H' type? hmmm....well...probably, but in essence the jury's still out. 2 Quote
VickySilver Posted October 7, 2021 Posted October 7, 2021 Peck, I have in the past seen a couple of specimens in VF(ish) condition that had absolutely no sign of "H", even under 5x magnification. To find even the anointed type in VF is as you know a very rare occurrence. Quote
secret santa Posted October 8, 2021 Posted October 8, 2021 11 hours ago, 1949threepence said: Very true, and if I recall correctly this has caused questions on here at some point as to the die pairing on an allegedly no H 1882. An 1882 F115 with apparently no H was sold by London Coins in 2014 2 Quote
1949threepence Posted October 8, 2021 Posted October 8, 2021 1 hour ago, secret santa said: An 1882 F115 with apparently no H was sold by London Coins in 2014 That may well have been the one we discussed. There's certainly no trace whatever of any underlying disturbance. Another interesting question arising, is whether the no H pennies were produced at the London Mint. Or at the Heaton Mint and one or two errant dies minus the H were produced, but given the extreme rarity, quickly identified. Or maybe both for different reasons. One intentional, the other an accidental omission. Quote
oldcopper Posted October 8, 2021 Posted October 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, 1949threepence said: That may well have been the one we discussed. There's certainly no trace whatever of any underlying disturbance. Another interesting question arising, is whether the no H pennies were produced at the London Mint. Or at the Heaton Mint and one or two errant dies minus the H were produced, but given the extreme rarity, quickly identified. Or maybe both for different reasons. One intentional, the other an accidental omission. Peck thought the RM produced them in December of that year, as the Mint had been closed for 10 months from Feb for reconstruction, as a small issue to "tide over till the following year". Quote
Bernie Posted October 8, 2021 Posted October 8, 2021 8 hours ago, secret santa said: An 1882 F115 with apparently no H was sold by London Coins in 2014 If you stare at the space below the two eights long enough I do see a boxlike section. Could be my imagination ! 1 Quote
Martinminerva Posted October 8, 2021 Posted October 8, 2021 I agree that this is NOT a no ' H '... If one inverts the image to a negative (often a good way of revealing hidden detail) IMO there is a definite vestige of an H - either removed or not struck up well due to die fill. Does anyone have pictures of the two specimens @VickySilver mentions above? Surely VF condition would be good enough to be conclusive? Quote
Martinminerva Posted October 8, 2021 Posted October 8, 2021 7 hours ago, oldcopper said: Peck thought the RM produced them in December of that year, as the Mint had been closed for 10 months from Feb for reconstruction, as a small issue to "tide over till the following year". I thought these were a famous Peck "miss" ? Certainly not in his original book - 1882 he logs as numbers 1726 - 1729 and all have an H mint mark. Or did he pass comment in a later work?? Quote
secret santa Posted October 8, 2021 Posted October 8, 2021 1 hour ago, Martinminerva said: I thought these were a famous Peck "miss" ? Certainly not in his original book - 1882 he logs as numbers 1726 - 1729 and all have an H mint mark. Or did he pass comment in a later work?? My 1970 edition contains the numbers you mention. No mention of missing H and I don't think there's a later edition ? 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.