More Pennies

[SilverAge3]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

I've sent both.

Could I request you forward this to me, too, please? Thanks in advance.

 

As I said yesterday, I got called into work, so completely missed the whole thing, sadly.

Edited November 20, 2024 by SilverAge3

[VickySilver]

I realize insiders know, but wonder if indeed as has been stated that one collector vacuumed up the majority or a large number of the "better" pieces....I can not compete in these leagues [anymore] but at one time knew a bit more. An older and now non-entity nowadays! LOL.

[SilverAge3]

2 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

That would be great appreciated.

If you can include the PDF downloads of the catalog I would appreciate it too.  I was only able to download the first part. I got an error message on parts 2 & 3.

Thanks all.

 

 

Are there three parts?

[secret santa]

1 hour ago, SilverAge3 said:

Are there three parts?

There were only 2 parts for Bernie's sale; the other part may be the rest of the coins in the auction ?

[secret santa]

1 hour ago, SilverAge3 said:

Could I request you forward this to me, too, please?

I've sent you a message.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

I've sent both.

Email Received..

Thank you

[secret santa]

I'm adding the pattern pennies to my rarest penny site for completion (on a single page).

[Martinminerva]

6 hours ago, secret santa said:

8 hours ago, SilverAge3 said:

Could I request you forward this to me, too, please?

I've sent you a message.

Hi Richard. I wonder if you could be really kind as to send me too your spreadsheet of prices realised? I'll PM you my email address now... Cheers!

[secret santa]

2 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

Cheers!

Done, with pleasure.

[blakeyboy]

On 11/20/2024 at 12:34 PM, VickySilver said:

I realize insiders know, but wonder if indeed as has been stated that one collector vacuumed up the majority or a large number of the "better" pieces....I can not compete in these leagues [anymore] but at one time knew a bit more. An older and now non-entity nowadays! LOL.

I sometimes wonder whether, if I won the lottery and bought a big pile of rarities at an auction, which lets face it, is rather easy to do,  I would get half the pleasure that I get from  finding a worn rarity at the bottom of an old tin of crap like has happened on occasion......

...and I can show off the found gem on here, instead of just hiding a pile of expensive bronze in a bank vault where no-one can see them.....

[Bernie]

3 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

I sometimes wonder whether, if I won the lottery and bought a big pile of rarities at an auction, which lets face it, is rather easy to do,  I would get half the pleasure that I get from  finding a worn rarity at the bottom of an old tin of crap like has happened on occasion......

...and I can show off the found gem on here, instead of just hiding a pile of expensive bronze in a bank vault where no-one can see them.....

Problem is, those "occasions" can be very rare.

[blakeyboy]

Ah- but isn't that where the real fun is?

[Bernie]

24 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

Ah- but isn't that where the real fun is?

I agree, but my own patience to have a collection is short! can't wait forever.

[Rob]

Tantalising. Was it or wasn't it? There's a disturbance in the field in the correct position.

[secret santa]

I've bought several like this hoping it was a number - perhaps even the fabled number 1 - but it never is !

[Rob]

11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I've bought several like this hoping it was a number - perhaps even the fabled number 1 - but it never is !

It wasn't bought in hope as it's part of a large collection I bought recently, just that the toning is the right shape and size for a filled and repurposed die. On the assumption that number 1 must have existed at some time, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the die was filled and used for currency pieces. The only reason I posted is because there is a slight disturbance at that point. When dies are filled, the surface is never completely flat, hence an open mind is useful. Unfortunately I no longer have ready access to an electron microscope.  

[Bernie]

4 hours ago, secret santa said:

I've bought several like this hoping it was a number - perhaps even the fabled number 1 - but it never is !

It would be more frustrating if a die 7 turned up!!🤣

[SilverAge3]

5 hours ago, Rob said:

Tantalising. Was it or wasn't it? There's a disturbance in the field in the correct position.

Vaguely looks like a 3. Too uncertain, though.

[alfnail]

1847 Font Variation

I am currently cataloguing an excellent Victoria ‘Young Head’ Penny collection for a colleague, about 150 coins in total. I have reached his 1847’s, and this has reminded me of something which I spotted in my own collection quite a few years ago, although my colleague does not have an example of his own.

For the YH penny series Gouby has documented many date variations, particularly in the 1850’s. These include overdates and font types as well as date widths and repaired numerals. He has not, however, currently documented any 1847 date variations.

To date I have found that 5 different obverse dies have been used in 1847, with date variations which include repaired 1’s and 4’s. The most interesting date feature, however, is that one of these obverse dies has a different fatter 7 font. This die is paired with the DEF Close Colon reverse, and it is easily identified by the die flaw after the 2^nd A of GRATIA.

Having checked past results at London Coin auctions I can see that, out of the 13 images of 1847 DEF Close Colons, there has been one other coin like this, sold by them in June 2018.

A single example from 13 makes this quite a rare variety.

Both my own piece and the one at LCA are high grade, so I am confident that the fatter numeral 7 is not due to ‘flattening’ through wear.

This font can be seen below, alongside the normal 7 used in 1847 , and the LCA piece is also shown below for reference.

I hope this is interesting for the Victorian penny collectors.   

[secret santa]

Interesting, I'll add this to my varieties site, Ian, though it would be very easy not to notice this at first and second glance !

Edited December 6, 2024 by secret santa
addition

[Coinery]

Sometimes with the crowns of the Edward pennies it’s often easier to look at what’s not there, namely the shapes of the spaces inbetween the fleurs. In this example, looking at the space enclosed by the upper section of the 7 makes it much easier to see.

Nice coin!  

[alfnail]

When I first started to collect Victorian Copper pennies, I thought that Bramah’s 1843 and 1844 DFF (varieties 3b and 4b) must only occur on a single reverse die. 

Several years ago, however, I managed to obtain a decent example of an 1843 DFF; this allowed me to see that the colon positions on this 1843 DFF were surprisingly in slightly different positions to the 1844 DFF which I already owned. Since then, I have been left wondering how the minting process has repeated such an exact defect in 1844 as had occurred on the 1843 issue…..but on two different reverse dies. 

On closer examination of my own collection, I now find that I seem to have two different 1844 DFF reverse dies. These two 1844 DFF’s have die flaws running through FID which appear to be slightly different. I attach pictures of these flaws, note in particular the point at which the flaw exits the right hand side of the I of FID. The flaws are very similar, but not exactly the same, and I think must prove they are struck from different reverse dies. Again, there are some slight differences in colon positions, which further confirms they are two different 1844 reverses.  

I would be grateful if any member can shed some light on how this particular ‘blocked die’ defect could appear on at least 3 different reverses, and look exactly the same on all of them? Is it possible perhaps that a Master die had this defect and that it was transferred to working dies? I am not an expert in that area, so would appreciate thoughts please.

 

[Peckris 2]

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

[alfnail]

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

Thanks for your reply Chris, appreciated.

The top coin does not have the I of FID repaired so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the repaired bottom coin must have been struck at a later date.

However, the top coin has a much more developed die flaw than the bottom coin so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the top coin must have been struck at a later date.

The conclusion must surely be that the two coins were struck from different reverse dies. Do you agree please?

If so, then I am still wondering how the DFF for DEF ‘blocked’ die defect could appear to be exactly the same on multiple 1844 reverse dies…….and the 1843 too.

Here are close up F’s of these two 1844’s.

[jelida]

Could there have been a chipped master die, from which two (or more) working dies were struck? Had its use spanned 1843/44 production, that would explain die’s for both dates and differing die cracks.

Jerry