More Pennies

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, alfnail said:

Hi Richard,

Well spotted.

All examples of 1858/6 which I have seen have a die flaw running from between two border teeth to the top of the C of VICTORIA. Later strikes, like the one pictured top left, have a more developed flaw.

Once you know that the 1858/6 is paired with a single reverse die you can then check for the reverse ‘features’, some of which are pictured below. You already mentioned the mis-aligned colon after DEF; the other colons (particularly after REG, see picture) are also mis-aligned. When examining all 4 sets of colon dot positions they become a good indicator of type.

The 1858/6 reverse also has some additional ‘features’ which provide further confirmation of type; some of these are illustrated below e.g., detached clover, botched repair to G of REG, and protrusions around some letters in the legend (e.g., NN of BRITANNIAR). There are a couple of others which are less obvious.  

 

Clearly if the ebay pictures are half decent one can also see that date, and at least be able to see that the coin is a ‘smaller numerals’ variety. This in itself significantly narrows down the possibility that it may be an 8/6.   

BUT BEWARE!! – See Post Below

Indeed, well spotted Richard. I must admit, I hadn't even started to look. Immediately checked mine which also has the die crack running from the C of VICTORIA to the rim, between teeth (but not horizontally as on the example above). Also, the detached clover is present.

The logical presumption with the 8/6 is that it has to be based on the dies used for small date 1856's. I checked my PT small date and OT 1856's. The very noticeable clue is that the detached clover is present on the OT 1856 (which are all small dates), but the clover remains attached on the PT small date 1856. 

Should add that my OT 1856 is only fine, but thedetached clover is very clear.     

 

[secret santa]

Great work as always, Ian.

[secret santa]

21 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Should add that my OT 1856 is only fine, but the detached clover is very clear.    

Just checked my 1856 OT - detached clover is there but NOT the misaligned colon after DEF.

[alfnail]

On 6/26/2023 at 8:48 PM, blakeyboy said:

I am very pleased to point out that my reaction to this post has made Alfnail's points total equal the number of listings.- 692/692.

A full reaction point for every posting is a hell of an achievement, and just shows the quality of his postings.

Thanks Blake, not really sure what that means, but it sounds like a compliment....much appreciated.

[1949threepence]

39 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Just checked my 1856 OT - detached clover is there but NOT the misaligned colon after DEF.

In fact I'm not sure the detached clover is a reliable indicator as there are a number of other varieties and dates which also have it, including my 1860/59, several 1858's and going back, even my 1853 proof penny has a detached clover. 

My 1856 OT does seem to have a misaligned colon.

For me, the die flaw between the rim and C of VICTORIA seem totally unique to the 1858/6. 

[secret santa]

3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

In fact I'm not sure the detached clover is a reliable indicator as there are a number of other varieties and dates which also have it, including my 1860/59, several 1858's and going back, even my 1853 proof penny has a detached clover. 

Ditto for me - I agree that the die crack looks to be a definitive identifier for the obverse. I'll look a little more at the reverse.

Edited June 28, 2023 by secret santa

[Kipster]

You boy's knowledge is always an amazement to me. Learn something new almost every day. Thank you.

[alfnail]

Agree that detached clover on it's own is not sufficient, there are definitely other dies which exhibit that. The clover is just a useful additional thing to check to give extra confidence after first looking for the obverse flaw and 4 colon positions on reverse. Those are usually the easiest things to see anyway. 

As you say Richard, the die flaw is the unique definitive identifier.

Just one other thought,  on the 8/? (similar die to 8/6), I have noticed that all 3 examples I have owned have the flaw clearly exiting bottom left of the C of VICTORIA. This is probably easier to see than whether the flaw starts between teeth or centre of a tooth, so should help members to identify the obverse die.....assuming it's always present!?

Picture below illustrates

 

[oldcopper]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

In fact I'm not sure the detached clover is a reliable indicator as there are a number of other varieties and dates which also have it, including my 1860/59, several 1858's and going back, even my 1853 proof penny has a detached clover. 

My 1856 OT does seem to have a misaligned colon.

For me, the die flaw between the rim and C of VICTORIA seem totally unique to the 1858/6. 

Missing/incomplete stems in the floral exergue is presumably caused by die blockage. You'd expect fine line engraving to be the most vulnerable to blocking, see Charles II halfpenny date numerals. In proofs I've seen it on some 1831 pennies but not on others. Same with the George IV 1825 copper proofs. So this factor most likely develops on the die during use ie some will show it and some won't.

In this case it's a reused die overstamped, so it will be diagnostic if the blocked stem was already there when the overdating was done, which it probably was (unless anyone finds an example with full stems). 

Edited June 28, 2023 by oldcopper

[1949threepence]

From asking a fairly random question, I feel I've learned quite a lot - thanks Gents.  

[blakeyboy]

So have I, and I don't collect copper!

Fascinating meticulous research.

[Peckris 2]

11 hours ago, alfnail said:

Thanks Blake, not really sure what that means, but it sounds like a compliment....much appreciated.

If you look under your profile (on the left) you'll see the total number of posts you've made. Above it, with a green circle with a + in it, shows how many of your posts have been liked.

[alfnail]

Thanks, it seems to be the sum of the❤, 😀 and 🏆 symbol scores, which I see I'm now at 697, one ahead of my 696 content score. Knowing me I will now start watching this, so not sure you've done me a favour!!

I guess that no one will react to this post though, so you will be dragging me down to 697/697 😉

[secret santa]

Very rare 1881H F103 sold on Ebay today for £1420 - a reasonable price for a genuine rarity with fewer than 10 examples on my website.

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

Very rare 1881H F103 sold on Ebay today for £1420 - a reasonable price for a genuine rarity with fewer than 10 examples on my website.

Damn, missed it completely. 

[1949threepence]

Finally managed to get a decent grade 1856 OT. Obviously not the absolute apex, but orders of magnitude better than the one I've got. I'd say toned EF/NEF. No issues.

This is lot 401 from the recent Baldwin's auction. Was chased all the way for it as well. 

Baldwins refer to "intermittent lustre", but I can't see any lustre at all.

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by 1949threepence

[secret santa]

I also bought a coin in this auction - an 1859 small date with what Ian Fall calls a "narrow" 9. It's taller with a larger and oval loop. I've been looking for one of these for a while so I think they must be scarce.

Ian's comparison:

[alfnail]

Yes, not easy to find those Richard. The Gouby Date Style A variations are far more common than either of the 9 fonts in my picture which you have shown above. The style that I called 'New Style X / Narrow 9' is also a perfect fit with the protrusions that can be seen on the 1860/59, see picture now attached. When I described it as 'narrow' it was because the entire date is only 9 teeth wide, which is less than all style A variations I have ever seen, and also half a tooth narrower than Gouby Style B (with the smaller numeral 9). I wasn't meaning that the numeral 9 is narrow in itself!! Hope that makes sense.

It's another year that I must try to do some stats on from my 5-year ebay study. Problem is my wife keeps wanting holidays! 😉 

Edited July 8, 2023 by alfnail

[Kipster]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

 

This looks far nicer in your pictures than it did on the Baldwins site. No idea how they image their coins, but I've never liked them.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Kipster said:

This looks far nicer in your pictures than it did on the Baldwins site. No idea how they image their coins, but I've never liked them.

Thanks.

Yes it's odd isn't it. Superior photography (such as the photos Noonan's provide) can be a real selling point and attract buyers. You'd think an organisation with Baldwin's experience would pay more attention to this. 

The pic I've done is pretty much how the coin looks in hand. For example the colour is identical.

[Kipster]

34 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes it's odd isn't it. Superior photography (such as the photos Noonan's provide) can be a real selling point and attract buyers. You'd think an organisation with Baldwin's experience would pay more attention to this. 

Agree completely.

With the funds at their disposal, a decent camera setup, or failing that, a coin microscope, would make it look more appealing, instead of looking like it's been scanned on the photocopier.

[secret santa]

3 hours ago, alfnail said:

I wasn't meaning that the numeral 9 is narrow in itself!!

Right, I'll update my descriptions.

[1949threepence]

I think my 1859 small date is (by pure default) one of the taller 9 with oval loop. When purchased, it wasn't even touted as a small date, just date only.

I haven't got close up photographic equipment (must get), but here is the best I could do with an ordinary pic. Not sure it will be good enough to discern the difference.

  

[alfnail]

Yes, that's the narrow 9 date style Mike, and a nice looking example too, well done 👍

[1949threepence]

28 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Yes, that's the narrow 9 date style Mike, and a nice looking example too, well done 👍

Thanks Ian. Got it from Cambridgeshire Coins, who often tend to be careless and have let some high value coins go for peanuts - not checked.