More Pennies

[Peckris 2]

"With no precise record of the number minted, and with the coin having been struck to ordinary circulation standard, it is entirely possible that one might turn up in everyday use."

One wonders what the "everyday use" of a predecimal penny might be, let alone one dated 1933..

[1949threepence]

On 3/11/2022 at 11:26 PM, Peckris 2 said:

"With no precise record of the number minted, and with the coin having been struck to ordinary circulation standard, it is entirely possible that one might turn up in everyday use."

One wonders what the "everyday use" of a predecimal penny might be, let alone one dated 1933..

Everyday use of a pre decimal penny

[Rob]

Thoughts please. There is also a raised line crossing the bottom loop just below half way - just visible. Intriguingly it stops halfway across the left hand section of the loop

Edited March 30, 2022 by Rob

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Thoughts please. There is also a raised line crossing the bottom loop just below half way - just visible. Intriguingly it stops halfway across the left hand section of the loop

 

No idea what the raised line you refer to is, but the coin is certainly is an 1858/?

Some say it's an 8/9, others an 8/3.

Not attributed by Peck, but Bramah (page 107) describes as follows:-

Quote

25c. ALTERED DATE.    O - As the obv . of No 25 but the last figure of date has been altered, though it is not obvious from what. At left base of 8 is a knob , like the lower terminal of a 3 or a 5, protruding slightly inside the loop. Higher, inside same loop, are two dots, as the remains of a line. But on right side of 8, between its loops, is a shallow vertical stroke, irreconcilable with a 3 or a 5.  

This type is not especially rare, although I've never yet made out the two dots referred to. The knob and vertical line are clearly very obvious.    

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

I'll defer to those better acquainted with the series and its intricacies.

However, although it defies conventional wisdom and logic, to me at least, it looks most like a 8/9.

Much as Bramah states (in extrapolation), the most likely source of the line to the right between the upper and lower loops of the 8 would be an underlying 9.  The knob within the lower loop on the left side, although potentially from either a 3 or a 5, could also be from a 9. The slight curved line within the upper loop lower right side, could be from a 3, but also and to me, more likely a 9.

A strange conundrum to have an earlier year recut over a later year, yet not impossible.

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Edited March 30, 2022 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[copper123]

Looks like a 9 to me

[Zo Arms]

Only a thought but could it not be a fault with the 8 punch and not an underlying digit at all.

If all the old dies had been used up, to meet the unforeseen delay prior to change over to bronze, a hastily made or altered 8 punch could create the anomaly directly on to a new die?

Just throwing it out there.

[secret santa]

Well known variety but no decisive/definitive description.

[Peckris 2]

my vote would be for a 3

[Rob]

I was hoping someone might have come to a conclusion since it was last discussed.

The first thing I had considered in hand was a 4 as a possibility based on relief, but looking from multiple angles I am on balance still inclined to the halfpenny 9 punch theory. In the absence of the right digital skill set for drawing lines and annotating, I'll print off a picture and mark it up to demonstrate what I mean.

[Rob]

Red lines are commensurate with a 4, purple with a 9.

[Rob]

And a comparison between this 8 and a halfpenny 9. It's a very good fit, particularly the distance between the knob and the arc at the top inside the lower loop.

[Coinery]

I’d have to go with some kind of 4 involvement myself. Is there any way of ruling out (or in) any of the theories by looking back over the dies with regards to that distinctive bead below the 5?

[Coinery]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

And a comparison between this 8 and a halfpenny 9. It's a very good fit, particularly the distance between the knob and the arc at the top inside the lower loop.

The 4 is much more up for debate in your example

[PWA 1967]

IMO and having looked at plenty its been corrected / repaired / overstruck more than once on some ,so there are different types having the bit within the bottom loop of the nine.

I havent got any pictures but the one coutesy of Michael goubys site appears different than Robs above ,it does not look to have the straight line to the right of the loops.

So what appears to look like something on one coin may not on another and thats why i think nobody has been able to give a definative attribution.

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by PWA 1967

[PWA 1967]

9 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Only a thought but could it not be a fault with the 8 punch and not an underlying digit at all.

If all the old dies had been used up, to meet the unforeseen delay prior to change over to bronze, a hastily made or altered 8 punch could create the anomaly directly on to a new die?

Just throwing it out there.

Yes i agree that it could just be a broken 8 on some possibly overstruck but not hard enough at a slightly different angle.

Edited March 31, 2022 by PWA 1967

[alfnail]

14 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

This type is not especially rare, although I've never yet made out the two dots referred to. The knob and vertical line are clearly very obvious.    

Hi Mike, I think that it references the protrusion highlighted in the pictures on this thread from January last year. It was when I also thought, like Rob, that the top of the underneath numeral/s looked like a 4. There are also some other high-definition pictures on that thread which may be a useful reference for some members.

1858/3 Penny - British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries - British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

 

[Rob]

There is always the option of an 1854 die filled and recut with a 9 punch before the mistake was recognised and corrected with an 8. That would keep everyone happy. 

[1949threepence]

52 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Hi Mike, I think that it references the protrusion highlighted in the pictures on this thread from January last year. It was when I also thought, like Rob, that the top of the underneath numeral/s looked like a 4. There are also some other high-definition pictures on that thread which may be a useful reference for some members.

1858/3 Penny - British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries - British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

 

Hi Ian - yes that was a really interesting, if still totally inconclusive discussion. 

I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

[Rob]

I think it is important to keep all options on the table, even the improbable. When you already have 8/2, 8/3, 8/6 and 8/7 as accepted variants, there is nothing to exclude the possibility of 8/4 and 8/5 also coming into the equation. At a time when they were clearly reusing every available die, it is also not inconceivable that an 1840s obverse could have been repurposed if they found one.

Probably not relevant if all they wanted to keep was an example of the ww and no ww dies, but FWIW Hocking only lists the 18- die and an 1859.

[alfnail]

The 1860/59 clearly has the zero over the narrow date style of numeral 9, as the 'overlay' picture (RHS) below demonstrates; perhaps the same style of numeral 9 was also used for 1858's.

Bearing in mind that no 1858 overdates are seen on type without WW, doesn't this imply that it must be a 9/8....... not an 8/9? Several have mentioned 8/9, but wouldn't an over-dated 1859 already have the WW on the truncation?  

 

[Rob]

Given the fact it is impossible to reconcile some overpunches, even the seemingly impossible/improbable cannot be ruled out. If the wrong punch was used, you could get any possible combination in any year as any punch (including letters) could be used. Most of the time the correct character punch would inevitably be used, but this can't be guaranteed. e.g. a 9 instead of an 8 is only a case of picking a punch from the adjacent bin, or choosing one that was replaced in the wrong bin. All options must be on the table.

 

[Peckris 2]

"Ok Smith. Time to start work on the punches for 1859."

[A little later ]

"Damn. Sorry Guv'nor, I've used the halfpenny 9 in error"

"Ah. Well, overpunch with an 8, no-one will notice. At least, not for 150 years."

[A little later ]

"Looks all right. Go ahead and use it. Oh, and there's some unused 1854 dies - use it on those if you have to. And then start work on the 1859 punches but don't mess it up this time."

[1949threepence]

I knew I'd heard about this before, but couldn't remember where or when. It concerns the rumour, started in the late 19th century, that a gold ingot had been accidentally added to the metal mix for the 1864 penny blanks, and that consequently some 1864 pennies had gold in them. It became a craze which spread over to as late as 1907. David Pickup wrote an excellent article about it in the July 2021 edition of Coin News, if anyone is interested in reading about it.

 

[VickySilver]

I thought that was the 1875 Heaton penny? Regardless, I like the 1864s even without micro-varietals......