More Pennies

[Coinery]

8 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

8 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

The best narrow date i found ,which is photographed in a flip.

 

This could be a lighting phenomenon on this one but, yes, it looks over a tooth, but different to all the others, in that the 0 appears tilted backwards?

In the original 4 example images I noted that the gap in the waves appeared to sit over the top of the 0 like a hat on the narrow date (hopefully you can see the fine red lines in the image), unlike all the others, which were either off centre or under a differently-shaped wave gap entirely (circled).

So, in your example it ‘looks’ as though it’s over a tooth, yet sitting under the wave-gap like a wide date, if you know what I mean?

Edited January 8, 2024 by Coinery

[PWA 1967]

Think its just my picture as using a magnifier looks the same as the top one and over a tooth.

The third picture is a single exergue not double and from the ones i have looked at are all the same.

[Coinery]

I’ve just been looking at the two links PWA initially put up of the narrow dates he’d found, just to take a closer look at the waves, wondering if it was wear/strike that was affecting the shape? Anyway, again it could lighting, but I wonder if the hem of the drape/dress is also potentially different?

[Coinery]

4 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Think its just my picture as using a magnifier looks the same as the top one and over a tooth.

The third picture is a single exergue not double and from the ones i have looked at are all the same.

Ah, OK, that makes sense. Quick work in acquiring a top grade example

[jelida]

This is the best one I could find, again from the USA. If you look at EBay ‘sold’ 1940 pennies, there’s definitely been a flurry of ‘narrow date’ sales! I found one well circulated example on EBay UK, and four or five from the USA. At a very rough estimate, 1 to 2% of pennies of the date available when Terry made his post.

Thanks Terry for making us aware of the type, I suspect rare rather than extremely rare in high grade but always nice to have something new to look for.

Jerry

[secret santa]

4 hours ago, jelida said:

This is the best one I could find

That 4 looks on the slant to me - or am I seeing things ?

[mick1271]

Pete posted about these on Facebook yesterday . Managed to pick this one up.. 

[jelida]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

That 4 looks on the slant to me - or am I seeing things ?

I’ll let you know when it arrives.

Jerry

[alfnail]

A recent find, now on Richard's site as the 8th known example.

As I already have a better example I will be selling this piece; if any member is interested please PM me with a sensible offer.

It is a little better than Example 7 (which was also my coin), and definitely better than Example 5, both of which were sold for £160.

 

 

[secret santa]

Michael Gouby sent me a photo of another 1861 F27 ! I've added it to the rare penny site.

They're still out there !!!!

[alfnail]

I bought an 1858/6 during the week, mainly because of the accompanying note written by Charles Wilson Peck, which I found quite interesting.

Members will know that the 1858/6 was neither recorded by Bramah (1929), or Peck (1964). It is a reasonably difficult coin to find, particularly in a better grade, but I have always found it rather surprising that neither of these authors recorded this variety. I do not regard it as very rare, and it is also a fairly obvious type once you see one ‘in the hand’.

Anyway, the letter from Peck (which I bought with the coin) was as attached, with my own yellow highlighting now added.

You will note that the letter is dated Nov’66, which is just over a year before Peck passed away, in April 1968.

Fortunately, I was also able to contact the seller of the coin, through ebay, and he replied as follows:-

“the coin had been in my possession since I bought it in 1966. It wasn’t listed as an overstrike but I noticed it and had it confirmed by Peck who was the leading authority of English copper at the time."

I think this letter is a nice bit of history, and it also contains a couple of interesting comments, for example Peck’s thoughts on minor date widths. I found it particularly interesting that he mentioned someone called Bressett, a name which I had not come across before. I now see that the American author, Kenneth Bressett wrote several editions of a book called ‘A Guide to English Coins’, starting in the early 1960’s (Peck was aware of the contents of the first edition).

This made me wonder if I could find the edition in which he may have first recorded the 1858/6. If anyone reading this has a later edition then perhaps you wouldn’t mind looking to see if the 1858/6 penny has been noted. 

P.S. £10 in 1966 is now worth £230!  

[Peckris 2]

the letter is almost more of a collectors' piece than the coin itself.

[Rob]

Bresset doesn't list it in the 1965 (4th ed.) book, so I suspect the following year is your best bet, unless conveyed verbally/letter.

[alfnail]

21 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

the letter is almost more of a collectors' piece than the coin itself.

 

20 hours ago, Rob said:

Bresset doesn't list it in the 1965 (4th ed.) book, so I suspect the following year is your best bet, unless conveyed verbally/letter.

Indeed Peckris, although I think I probably won't lose any money when I sell the coin, fingers crossed. Then I would have a free letter, which is the bit I wanted anyway.

Thanks for looking at the 4th edition Rob, just need to find someone with 5th edition or later! 

[secret santa]

Gary Schindler wanted these pages added to this post:

 

 

Edited January 15, 2024 by secret santa

[alfnail]

Presumably Bressett Richard (as $ are used), but did Gary say which editions? I see the pages have different information, so must be two different ones. 

[alfnail]

Gary has now written to me and advised that the top image is 8th edition in 1975, and bottom image is 9th edition in 1982. Bressett had 1858/6 as 'Rare' in 1975; I'm thinking that its first appearance must have been before that, in 5th to 7th editions. Thanks to Gary for the additional information, also interesting to see some of the $ movements in those seven years e.g. the 1860/59

[Rob]

If Peck knew that Bressett had written about it and reiterated this in a letter dated 1966, it only leaves 2 options. Either it is included in the 1966-7 edition of Bressett, or whenever the next edition was published depending on whether he knew before the 5th edition went to print. I'm assuming the advice was by letter or telephone given the letter is dated 1966. There is a fifth edition listed on ebay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325963803688?hash=item4be4f4ec28:g:3XsAAOSwelpgwTTb&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4CXC1kcT8Pgn1wofpXIBaezimKqcb6r7OGnowqU63xVmOPug4KwnR%2BB2ThsmfVuWW4c%2B%2FUKYvKV9MgUg8LLPt4su2pT8a7u%2Fvtj9FOHdW%2FkrbQNiZyTnz7Z15qR95dLHdyWtYkHlIipAtdgOmvmEG%2BOHQoyr1opQUqeT01UpEauZPvPTfETWUus5OK7oluY3Kbu2W4XFEdFGuigXLF%2BkS4AYhK7HGwVhoYnqWLM0oKKjPL8bHUf5Jo3iPmYMgJk4EUFSGzQ7uJtv1vftp68aRv2wLuMwm1%2FBOmqjLjbzNj6d|tkp%3ABFBMsobV-aFj

[mick1271]

Quote

 

The 6th edition was issued in 1968 .I picked one up from a UK seller on ebay for a couple of quid .Should have it in a day or two.

[oldcopper]

Fascinating letter. I see the 58/3 described as 59/8 in the later edition. Never thought of that before - I wonder if that makes sense for Bramah's other 58/3 variety with the hump coming out of the left of the lower 8 and the vague straight mark in the middle right join of the 8. Normally overstriking give a stronger overstrike than understrike but I don't know if that's the case here if it really is 9/8.

Peck didn't put the 1858/6 variety in his Addenda to 2nd edition of 1967 (BNJ) which confirms he wasn't sure of it being a 6, as he says, or else he had submitted or finished his paper by the time of this correspondence.

Dave Craddock sold a D/U 1825 farthing several years ago now with a confirmatory letter from Peck, and that got into his 1967 article, so he was more certain about that one.

Edited January 16, 2024 by oldcopper

[secret santa]

14 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

I wonder if that makes sense for Bramah's other 58/3 variety with the hump coming out of the left of the lower 8 and the vague straight mark in the middle right join of the 8?

[oldcopper]

42 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Thanks! A very strange 9 if it is one with a sharp top. I think there was a thread on this overstrike a while ago with people going over this in far more detail.

[Mr T]

Not in the 3rd edition (1964) of A Guide Book of English Coins.

[Coinery]

On 1/16/2024 at 10:12 AM, secret santa said:

So what do they do, then, with the old digit ‘hole’ left on the old die, before striking in a new digit? With hammered coins the old digit is just crudely overlaid as best as is able.

Now, the reason I ask is because, according to the lighting, I see digits at three distinct depths, the 8 at the intermediate (middle) depth, a higher (deeper on the die) bottom section of a three (but having the wrong serif when briefly looking at other 1853s), and lower (shallow on the die) diagonal stroke, extending out of the eight, not correlating with very much, except maybe a seven? 

Was there ever a satisfactory outcome to this overdate or has it remained a mystery? 
 

[secret santa]

It remains a mystery.