More Pennies

[oldcopper]

21 hours ago, Rob said:

I bought this and wasn't wholely convinced it was a proof. A view shared by the person I sold it to as well. It was ex Peck and Norweb and has subsequently gone through another sale, but don't have the details. 

It was sold by Colin Cooke in 2018 for ~£5K. Norweb did point out it had a silght edge knock which wasn't mentioned in the later sale. I have to say it looks rather dull from the photos.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by oldcopper

[alfnail]

On 9/6/2022 at 4:09 PM, 1949threepence said:

That's not to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that the 1857 we've recently been discussing on here........

Seeing we have been discussing 1857's recently would you, or anyone else, be interested in seeing some close ups of the different types of numeral 7 fonts (definite and possible) which I have recorded for 1857's in my own collection?  

[1949threepence]

7 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Seeing we have been discussing 1857's recently would you, or anyone else, be interested in seeing some close ups of the different types of numeral 7 fonts (definite and possible) which I have recorded for 1857's in my own collection?  

Well very much so Ian, yes - and thank you.

[Bruce]

3 hours ago, alfnail said:

Seeing we have been discussing 1857's recently would you, or anyone else, be interested in seeing some close ups of the different types of numeral 7 fonts (definite and possible) which I have recorded for 1857's in my own collection?  

yes, love to, thanks Ian

[scott]

so some talk on a facebook group about Edward I class 1c pennies, and punctuation, led to me photographing mine, posted all in a group, mainly to compare and was informed of something, (they are quite knowledgeable) I own 4 1c's as part of my Edward I collection, this one I bought a few years ago and only went for it due to the the reverse N's being different. I was informed it was a class 1C/D mule, which is logical after its mentioned, as the 1D pennies had larger lettering, as this reverse does, from what I am told about this particular variation is that there only ONE other example known, in the British Museum, has anyone seen any more of these... anywhere?

 

[alfnail]

On 9/8/2022 at 12:40 PM, 1949threepence said:

Well very much so Ian, yes - and thank you.

That’s nice thanks Mike / Bruce.

I will attach two sets of 4 pictures, in two posts due to limit of 500MB (i.e. 8 different coins in total). These have all been taken at 140x mag. and by slipping different coins under the lens without changing any microscope settings.

You will see that I have indicated the Gouby Date Style, where known, and also measured the height of the different looking numeral 7’s.

I have not pictured Gouby Date Style B because I believe the numeral 7 to be same font style as Gouby Date Style A, it just has numerals 5 and 7 closer together. I can add a further picture of Gouby Date Style B, however, if you wish to see…..please ask.

Things which I have noted in first group of pictures:-

·         On Gouby website, for Date Style C, he says “The 7 has no down tooth at end of top bar”. My picture indicates, however, that there may be a tiny down tooth, perhaps the remains of a once longer tooth. The other thing I have noted is that Date Style C appears paired with both PT and OT reverses, and these are from 2 different obverse dies with slightly differing numeral spacings, and repairs to numeral 8. Again, I can add full date pictures for both PT and OT Date Style C’s if anyone wishes to see these. Date Style C’s are quite difficult to find.

·         I am unsure how to classify the picture bottom right, hence the Gouby ? Thoughts welcomed.

[alfnail]

Things which I have noted in second group of pictures:-

·         Date Style E is the only ‘7’ font which has a different height, at 1.75mm, instead of 1.64mm for all the others. I believe this is the variety recorded by Peck as P1514 (Smaller Date) and Bramah as B24a (Date in much smaller figures). Gouby, however, says “long ‘down’ leg with a short top bar. Possibly scarcer date font type to the other shorter squatter types of 7’s”. Personally, I prefer Gouby’s description, and find the Peck / Bramah ‘smaller’ references to be a bit misleading, even though the 7 is clearly ‘narrower’ on this font. I call it the ‘longer or slender 7’.

·         The bottom two pictures show coins which I don’t feel fit any of the recorded types. These coins do not have a down tooth which tapers to a point, but are rather a more rectangular shape with a flat end to the ‘tooth’. I have not found these types to be particularly uncommon, so you may well be able to find one if interested in adding to your own collection.

[secret santa]

I would add that Style E has the base of the 7 pointing to either a tooth (with the 5 over a gap) or a gap (with the 5 over a tooth).

 

[alfnail]

Yes, Richard I agree with your own findings. I was just trying to focus on the 7 fonts in the earlier post, not the full date numeral locations.

I have actually found 5 slightly different numeral locations on the 1857 Date Style E's. These 5 obverse dies also have die flaws in different locations; that is what helped me realise there must be several obverses with this font, and then go on to examine the minor date differences. I had previously thought that the 'Long 7' variety was rarer than it is. Below are some initial stats from my '5 year' ebay study from yonks ago. I did it just to obtain Long 7 stats, and still need to do some work on other types of 1857, but you can also see the OT/PT split.    

 

1857 Volume Analysis (5 Years all ebay listings)
	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5		TOTALS
OT	27	33	42	43	43		188		32.36%
PT	62	62	66	102	101		393		67.64%
Cannot See Trident	9	4	2	13	13		41
PT Split
Long 7	9	10	7	17	23		66		11.36%
Cannot See Date	5	2	1	0	7		15
Other Date Types	48	50	58	85	71		312

[1949threepence]

Ian, thanks so much for providing such detailed knowledge on the 1857 "7's", and thanks also to Richard for the additional information. 

Really interesting - and given none of them are overly scarce, definitely worthwhile pursuing the various types as an addition to any collection.  

[Bruce]

11 hours ago, alfnail said:

Things which I have noted in second group of pictures:-

·         Date Style E is the only ‘7’ font which has a different height, at 1.75mm, instead of 1.64mm for all the others. I believe this is the variety recorded by Peck as P1514 (Smaller Date) and Bramah as B24a (Date in much smaller figures). Gouby, however, says “long ‘down’ leg with a short top bar. Possibly scarcer date font type to the other shorter squatter types of 7’s”. Personally, I prefer Gouby’s description, and find the Peck / Bramah ‘smaller’ references to be a bit misleading, even though the 7 is clearly ‘narrower’ on this font. I call it the ‘longer or slender 7’.

·         The bottom two pictures show coins which I don’t feel fit any of the recorded types. These coins do not have a down tooth which tapers to a point, but are rather a more rectangular shape with a flat end to the ‘tooth’. I have not found these types to be particularly uncommon, so you may well be able to find one if interested in adding to your own collection.

Thank you Ian for the detailed explanation and demonstration of 185"7".  I only had 2 examples on hand, both are Type D, 1 OT and 1 PT, per my record.  But i am unable to turn on my old PC to double confirm with pictures on hand, as it's broken down in past weeks.  For those unrecorded, it's interesting, and will check the market from now on.  Thanks again for your study and info. 

10 hours ago, secret santa said:

I would add that Style E has the base of the 7 pointing to either a tooth (with the 5 over a gap) or a gap (with the 5 over a tooth).

 

Thank you for the additional info regarding Long 7, i am still looking to have a decent example of Long 7.

 

The forum is always a good place to learn 👍.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Bruce

[1949threepence]

18 hours ago, alfnail said:

Things which I have noted in second group of pictures:-

·         Date Style E is the only ‘7’ font which has a different height, at 1.75mm, instead of 1.64mm for all the others. I believe this is the variety recorded by Peck as P1514 (Smaller Date) and Bramah as B24a (Date in much smaller figures). Gouby, however, says “long ‘down’ leg with a short top bar. Possibly scarcer date font type to the other shorter squatter types of 7’s”. Personally, I prefer Gouby’s description, and find the Peck / Bramah ‘smaller’ references to be a bit misleading, even though the 7 is clearly ‘narrower’ on this font. I call it the ‘longer or slender 7’.

·         The bottom two pictures show coins which I don’t feel fit any of the recorded types. These coins do not have a down tooth which tapers to a point, but are rather a more rectangular shape with a flat end to the ‘tooth’. I have not found these types to be particularly uncommon, so you may well be able to find one if interested in adding to your own collection.

 

Of course Bramah got the information on the "smaller" 7 from the Spink Numismatic circular of March 1895, which the Fitzwilliam Museum sent me a copy of in September 2020, and which I'll link to here 

[secret santa]

Ian, is it OK for me to add your splendid pictures to my varieties site (with appropriate accreditation, of course) ?

[alfnail]

Thanks all, and 'yes' of course Richard please feel free. If you want them modified in any way plz email me. 

 

[VickySilver]

Ok, probably not exciting but here is a 1964 penny. Notice anything?

[Iannich48]

19 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Ok, probably not exciting but here is a 1964 penny. Notice anything?

Double reverse?

 

[VickySilver]

lol.   yep

[Rob]

Did they identify it as such, or just as a 1967 1964 penny?

[Peckris 2]

Can you see the edge through the plastic tomb? Just to rule out it being a sawn in half pair...

[VickySilver]

No edge issues. AU58 grade. This of course was from an era of great mint sport, so presume it also as such. I did buy a 1970 two-sided reverse penny that was an extremely well done fake however, and bought it bidding at major UK auction.

[1949threepence]

What do you reckon chaps, 1865/3 or just plain 1865?

 

 

[secret santa]

Not the greatest photo but I see no trace of a 3.

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

What do you reckon chaps, 1865/3 or just plain 1865?

 

 

I'd say a plain 1865. The 3 isn't fully curved, it's the type with two straight lines for the upper, so a 5/3 shows a straight line angling down from the top right to where the 5 begins to curve. I see no trace of that. However, it's a very nice 1865.

[1949threepence]

32 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Not the greatest photo but I see no trace of a 3.

 

18 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I'd say a plain 1865. The 3 isn't fully curved, it's the type with two straight lines for the upper, so a 5/3 shows a straight line angling down from the top right to where the 5 begins to curve. I see no trace of that. However, it's a very nice 1865.

Precisely my thoughts. But Colin Cooke are asking £1750 for it as a 5/3. Also mentions that it's a Satin 56c. Not sure if that makes any difference, as I don't have a Satin, unfortunately.

I think the one above it, for £975, definitely is a 5/3, but like you, I don't see any trace of a 3 in the expensive specimen.

link 

[PWA 1967]

Yes its an 1865/3 ,just not very clear on the picture.

The coin was mine and the Satin type of which there are four was confirmed by John Jerrams for me a few years ago.