More Pennies

[1949threepence]

3 hours ago, Bernie said:

If you stare at the space below the two eights long enough I do see a boxlike section. Could be my imagination !

If you stare long enough at any smooth part of the exergue/field, you can make something out.

 

[VickySilver]

I can't make out definitively an "H" or residua in the two pictures. I will try to find pictures if I can.

[blakeyboy]

I looked at a lot of H examples and they all appear to have the H in the middle or slightly to the right.

This one seems, I say seems, to have an 'H' type shape slightly left of centre...

The weak '2' is unusual as well....

Edited October 8, 2021 by blakeyboy
speling

[Martinminerva]

Had a bit more of a play using the original London Coins image...

There does seem to be something there, even though I agree it's not conclusive either way. But I wouldn't be happy to have paid a large sum for it. My money would still be on removal or die fill.

 

[VickySilver]

Nice work. My Apple does touchups that I don't trust! LOL.

The left upright seems to possibly show with a dumbbell surmount....

 

What is the consensus, would it be possible to accept a specimen as no "H" if no trace is visible? I would logically think so even at the risk of alienating the "pigeonholers".

[Peckris 2]

5 hours ago, Bernie said:

If you stare at the space below the two eights long enough I do see a boxlike section. Could be my imagination !

Also, the 2 looks a bit suspicious, with a definite vertical change in colour to the left. Given the expertise with which machinists can drop a 3 into the last digit of a 1933 penny - often with little or no sign of disturbance - it's not too big a stretch to think it could be done with a 2, especially given the monetary value involved (reworked 1933s only fetch a few hundred..).

Martin's negative picture is of interest too.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, VickySilver said:

Nice work. My Apple does touchups that I don't trust! LOL.

The left upright seems to possibly show with a dumbbell surmount....

 

What is the consensus, would it be possible to accept a specimen as no "H" if no trace is visible? I would logically think so even at the risk of alienating the "pigeonholers".

Only if virtually mint state as in the one shown on the previous page, or it's clearly the correct die pairing. 

Otherwise, even if legit, there will always be an element of doubt. 

[Mr T]

14 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Otherwise, even if legit, there will always be an element of doubt. 

For me there would always be the element of doubt - mintmarks are one of those tiny areas that are prone to die fill.

[VickySilver]

The thing is, if there is no mintmark there is no mintmark which is my point about the 1922 "Plain" cent with no D mintmark. We are virtually certain all 1922 cents were struck at Denver and all were struck by dies that probably originally had "D"s on them (although that point can not be proven of a certainty), just that one or two dies were struck by dies with the "D" filled or worn off or possibly not applied to begin with I suppose. These are readily accepted and bring strong prices.

I also am not convinced by the converse: only one die set was used to strike coins sans "H". That seemingly would be impossible to prove, and given the paucity of "no H" specimens of the "correct" die type that it makes it doubly hard to prove. Rather, I would think logic dictates that the accepted die type is indeed "no H" but would not exclude that other no "H" coins might have been legitimately struck by another die combination(s). And metallurgic matching would not necessarily exclude the latter as of course the possibility and even likelihood is that other "no H" coins would come from different batches of metal. BTW, are all accepted "no H" coins matched metallurgically?

And so if a coin leaves the mint with "no H" that it is "no H", and horror of horrors would be so whether struck at London or Heaton. Now that is rather a sacrilegious statement! If it takes a microscope to present even ambiguous attribution of an "H", that seems excessive as conclusive exclusion would IMO require unambiguous exclusion.

[VickySilver]

Upcoming DNW sale has some Brit copper, was hoping for a 19H improvement but alas not to be...The 1926ME looks quite passable for anybody interested. I am not involved with this sale in any way. The 1862 proof florin is mildly interesting but has an abundance of what appears to be cabinet friction, esp. the obverse..

[1949threepence]

6 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Upcoming DNW sale has some Brit copper, was hoping for a 19H improvement but alas not to be...The 1926ME looks quite passable for anybody interested. I am not involved with this sale in any way. The 1862 proof florin is mildly interesting but has an abundance of what appears to be cabinet friction, esp. the obverse..

Indeed. The Ian Sawden collection has a lot of copper.

It also has a 1797 excessively rare gold penny. One of only two known. Needless to say it's very very expensive and it'll be interesting to see what it fetches. 

[Peckris 2]

12 hours ago, VickySilver said:

The thing is, if there is no mintmark there is no mintmark which is my point about the 1922 "Plain" cent with no D mintmark. We are virtually certain all 1922 cents were struck at Denver and all were struck by dies that probably originally had "D"s on them (although that point can not be proven of a certainty), just that one or two dies were struck by dies with the "D" filled or worn off or possibly not applied to begin with I suppose. These are readily accepted and bring strong prices.

I also am not convinced by the converse: only one die set was used to strike coins sans "H". That seemingly would be impossible to prove, and given the paucity of "no H" specimens of the "correct" die type that it makes it doubly hard to prove. Rather, I would think logic dictates that the accepted die type is indeed "no H" but would not exclude that other no "H" coins might have been legitimately struck by another die combination(s). And metallurgic matching would not necessarily exclude the latter as of course the possibility and even likelihood is that other "no H" coins would come from different batches of metal. BTW, are all accepted "no H" coins matched metallurgically?

And so if a coin leaves the mint with "no H" that it is "no H", and horror of horrors would be so whether struck at London or Heaton. Now that is rather a sacrilegious statement! If it takes a microscope to present even ambiguous attribution of an "H", that seems excessive as conclusive exclusion would IMO require unambiguous exclusion.

Au contraire: the very few examples of London Mint "no H" 1882 pennies surely proves that only one die set was used. Moreover, the examples extant could quite possibly have been struck in order to test the new electronic minting apparatus; given that the entire mintage for pennies had been 'farmed out' to Heatons, there would have to be a special reason for striking a few pennies at London. Testing the equipment seems as good a reason as any, and once struck, the few examples for testing would have been released into circulation as no-one would have thought then that the existence or otherwise of a mintmark would have been of interest. (!)

If a coin leaves the Mint with no H , then it is definitely a "no H " wherever struck. But given the very large number that appear on eBay (worn), it's clear they left the Mint WITH an H  and it has been worn or filed away; however if such an example with the wrong dies is in high enough condition e.g. VF, one would then - in all reasonable suspicion - look to the expertly created 1933 penny fakes and strongly suspect that a machinist had been at it.

As for 1922 cents with no D caused by die fill, fetching large sums, I guess that indicates the gulf between US and UK collecting. We had a 1961 halfcrown variety with the designer initials "EF" missing on the reverse; initially this was thought to be a die error and examples fetched a pretty modest premium over book price. Once it was discovered that the 'error' was caused by die fill, interest fell away quite quickly, to the extent that you will find no reference to them now.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Peckris 2

[oldcopper]

21 hours 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??

It's in his BNJ 1967 Addendum:

https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/PDFs/1967_BNJ_36_26j.pdf

[secret santa]

22 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

t's in his BNJ 1967 Addendum:

https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/PDFs/1967_BNJ_36_26j.pdf

I'd not seen that - many thanks for the link. Really interesting.

Richard

[VickySilver]

Peck, I think you missed the point about evidence - a small population makes it difficult to make judgements other than there is a small population. That would not of necessity prove anything. We have no idea if there were different dies trialed and especially if in scant numbers,  if more were struck and then destroyed, lost (or ? whatever). Obviously many alternative hypotheses may be advanced.

What would be the point of a die trial in any case? We can only infer. Why, if the hypothesis of trials is advanced, can it be excluded that more than one die combination was trialed? Numbers extant alone would not be proof of either motive or event.

[VickySilver]

Here is one:

 

Sorry this is an old enlargement photograph - however I remember not seeing any evidence of adjustments. This one was a bit like one or two others I have seen

Edited October 9, 2021 by VickySilver
Clarify content

[Martinminerva]

4 hours ago, secret santa said:

 

4 hours ago, oldcopper said:

t's in his BNJ 1967 Addendum:

https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/PDFs/1967_BNJ_36_26j.pdf

I'd not seen that - many thanks for the link. Really interesting.

 Richard

 

Hear, hear! Thanks for that link. I shall print it out and store it in the back of my Peck !

[Martinminerva]

12 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Here is one:

 

Sorry this is an old enlargement photograph - however I remember not seeing any evidence of adjustments. This one was a bit like one or two others I have seen

Is that not the same coin as the London Coins one?? The diagonal scratch from north west to south east from the exergue line above the second 8 would suggest so...

[VickySilver]

I don't believe so but I would imagine it possible. The overall metal by recall was a bit streaky - like a bad alloy mixture and can be seen in this photo just a bit right across the middle of the coin and also the metal flaw to the right of the "2".

[copper123]

I never realised there was only one Gs over 1874 farthing known till the late sixties , acording to peck

There must be at least 20 floating around now very rare but not unobtainable

[secret santa]

How about this one ?

[PWA 1967]

Maybe some could be a tooled 3 from an 1883 made into a 2 which would not have the H there anyway.

[1949threepence]

7 hours ago, secret santa said:

I'd not seen that - many thanks for the link. Really interesting.

Richard

It is very interesting and worth keeping.

I'm intrigued by item No 20, the 1887 penny with a "grained edge". Whilst I've never seen one I have noted varying opinions regarding their mint authenticity, ie: whether they were engraved post mint or not.

Naturally, the thicker edged copper coins lent themselves far more readily to edge graining.   

[PWA 1967]

2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Maybe some could be a tooled 3 from an 1883 made into a 2 which would not have the H there anyway.

Talking to myself 😃

Having a look the 1882 No H is F112 which is 11+ N and the 1883 (No H) F116 also 11 + N ,they are the same date width centre to centre ,so there must be a chance that someone has worked on a 3.

The top half of the 3 is almost identicle and in exactly the same place ,so maybe its not just to see if the H is missing but the 3 been altered at the bottom.

Although i have never looked at them properly before and never bought one ,so may be wrong and just an idea.

[VickySilver]

Good thinking "outside the box". Richard's has a very thick base on the "2". I tried playing with the image to see the "2" on the one I presented and will try to post it from my iPhone as I can't from the laptop.