More Pennies

[alfnail]

Thanks for this Jerry.

I was thinking along the same lines, but didn't think that the Royal Mint would have allowed a Master die with the obvious DFF defect to then be used to produce several working dies.

Shouldn't a Master die have been pretty perfect? I have no idea how stringent they would have been about this sort of thing.

I have just closely examined the REG colon position on the two 1844's, and the 1843 (all DFF's) and I'm sure they are all in slightly different locations.......the two 1844's definitely are!

 

 

[Peckris 2]

8 hours ago, alfnail said:

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?

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

Surely both coins have had the I of FID repaired? They both have a pronounced curve underlying the left hand side of the upright, which can't be an aspect of the font I'd have thought.

Yes I agree about the die flaw in relation to the date of strike, so it would definitely seem to be two dies. That would point to the punch used - not the master - having the flaw?

The top coin - being later - could also have a slightly more worn die, which would account for the difference in the F, which can also be seen on the D as well.

[jelida]

20 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.

I wonder if the die, having been annealed to soften for repair,  might have had the developing die crack filled and polished at the same time that the ‘I’ was re-punched -a bit high, as you say -and perhaps colon repairs also? Thus two different stages in the life of a single die, though why wouldn’t the damaged ‘E’ be repaired as well….……?

A damaged ‘E’ punch could have been used creating the ‘F’, but it would have had to be used separately while undertaking die repairs in 1843 and 1844, unless the 1843 die was skilfully filled and altered to 1844, assuming the master die was undamaged.

The damaged ‘E-F’ looks so distinctive and similar that it is difficult to believe that it arose independently on different dies.

I find this all rather confusing. Time for a beer- it’s the bellringers Christmas do tonight, much cheaper in January.

Jerry
 

 

[Coinery]

1 hour ago, jelida said:

Time for a beer- it’s the bellringers Christmas do tonight, much cheaper in January.

Jerry
 

 

Ahhhh, campanology…I had a spell of this in my local village during my twenties. Such a wonderful and ancient sound, it makes my soul sing to hear those time-honoured peels across the English countryside.

[alfnail]

13 hours ago, jelida said:

The damaged ‘E-F’ looks so distinctive and similar that it is difficult to believe that it arose independently on different dies.

Agree with that Jerry, so I guess I’m trying to find a way to explain the die flaws looking very similar on both coins (but not exact same locations), also the REG colons in different locations (the other ones may be the same).

Looking again at the FID pictures there are so many things that look the same, making it difficult to believe that they are struck from different dies, particularly bearing in mind the blocked E in DEF.

Zooming in at the borders of these two coins I now find that the teeth, and the gaps between them, seem to be identical in their shape and size. If, for example, you examine the gaps highlighted in red in the attached pictures then the one highlighted on the left does NOT have a completely curved top to it (unlike the others), and the one highlighted towards the right has a line running through the top of the gaps. This is the only gap (out of 12) where that line is obvious…..and it is on both coins! Surely that is too much of a coincidence to be on 2 different dies.     

Perhaps, as you indicated, the events were that:-

a)      the obvious flaw, seen on the top coin, was removed from the die.

b)      this would have led to the I of FID needing to be repaired, but they entered it too high (as shown in the bottom coin).

c)      the flaw later returned, as it is an inherent weakness in the die, but it returned in a slightly different location e.g. where it exits top right of F of FID.  

Am I again missing something? I missed the bulge on the left of the I of FID because I was looking so closely at the protrusion at the bottom…..but Chris thankfully pointed that out.

[jelida]

2 hours ago, alfnail said:

Agree with that Jerry, so I guess I’m trying to find a way to explain the die flaws looking very similar on both coins (but not exact same locations), also the REG colons in different locations (the other ones may be the same).

Looking again at the FID pictures there are so many things that look the same, making it difficult to believe that they are struck from different dies, particularly bearing in mind the blocked E in DEF.

Zooming in at the borders of these two coins I now find that the teeth, and the gaps between them, seem to be identical in their shape and size. If, for example, you examine the gaps highlighted in red in the attached pictures then the one highlighted on the left does NOT have a completely curved top to it (unlike the others), and the one highlighted towards the right has a line running through the top of the gaps. This is the only gap (out of 12) where that line is obvious…..and it is on both coins! Surely that is too much of a coincidence to be on 2 different dies.     

Perhaps, as you indicated, the events were that:-

a)      the obvious flaw, seen on the top coin, was removed from the die.

b)      this would have led to the I of FID needing to be repaired, but they entered it too high (as shown in the bottom coin).

c)      the flaw later returned, as it is an inherent weakness in the die, but it returned in a slightly different location e.g. where it exits top right of F of FID.  

Am I again missing something? I missed the bulge on the left of the I of FID because I was looking so closely at the protrusion at the bottom…..but Chris thankfully pointed that out.

I think this has to be the most likely scenario, your work on the teeth does seem to confirm the dies being the same.  Now, you need to find non DFF examples with the same distinctive border features!

Jerry

[blakeyboy]

On 11/30/2024 at 4:46 PM, Rob said:

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

 

I just noticed this  - hmm....is it the same "disturbance in the field" that told Darth that Obi-wan was dead?

[alfnail]

On 1/17/2025 at 10:42 AM, jelida said:

I think this has to be the most likely scenario, your work on the teeth does seem to confirm the dies being the same.  Now, you need to find non DFF examples with the same distinctive border features!

Jerry

It would have been good to also have a detailed picture of FID on the 1843 DFF, to compare against the 1844 pictures above.

Unfortunately I sold my example to Mike Hopkins several years ago, so the picture below is the best I have got from that piece. Can't really examine the teeth, but it looks like the I of FID is in line with F and D, and that it has not been repaired. Also, possibly, the start of a flaw exiting top right hand side of the F.

Does anyone else have a high grade 1843 DFF example they could picture.......maybe Richard has one?

   

[secret santa]

Here you go.

[alfnail]

Many thanks Richard, thought you would have one!!

I have taken your picture, rotated it, and positioned same as my top 1844 DFF above. These two coins are now shown below.

It is difficult to compare those border gap features with the pixels available on the 1843.

It does seem to me, however, that the die flaw can just about be seen on your coin in the same position......... also the small protrusion above the F.

First impressions, therefore, are that this points to a single reverse DFF die used on both the 1843's and the 1844's.

If you reduced the size of your picture to get it within the forum 500Kb limit then please could you email me the original thanks?

If you can get same picture with more pixels so that border teeth can be seen more clearly that would also be great.

 

    

[secret santa]

An exciting Ebay listing for penny collectors seeking the 1863 with die numbers - the first example with minus 1 (-1)  under the date.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/356491300476?itmmeta=01JJ5H9EW45WNYWTVKMXTG816F&hash=item5300898e7c:g:Oy4AAOSwWS1nj~eK&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwHoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKlmKrLpByFK3NCH5LpfdrzNdV8QOMQvZOkA9KHBdFYpZf%2B22CKYOwtY5SzdG41OU5lzTamqMvLWCKwCT%2B5o6Ubr7WzTw4bib88BMHIRH689xsTWKwFjwupAPGchYDWdjDFknqaecWQTY90QZbrnYTIhoZEUzBGa9vKJC5sl5z%2FGWgn0FZdKwgRvaOksMKux0sckksjF0TGMpqC445MhuNGbBaQRGOdWSeV4gjRN8RxZFg%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR5jupbGRZQ

[terrysoldpennies]

I cant work out if your being serious or not Richard ,  it has to be a die crack running right through the 6 .  Its not April fools day yet 😂 

Some of us remember your Uncirculated narrow date 1877 !!!

Edited January 22, 2025 by terrysoldpennies

[secret santa]

40 minutes ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Some of us remember your Uncirculated narrow date 1877 !!!

There's a rumour that it's coming to market again in a few weeks......

[terrysoldpennies]

1930 missing sea. as far as I know undiscovered and unlisted  .   One for Richards list  ! Maybe .

[secret santa]

Thanks Terry

Maybe weak sea rather than missing, but I've not seen it on 1930 coins.(Can you "not see" what isn't there ??)

[PWA 1967]

One thats arrived today off eBay and much better than most.

1909 DOT.

[blakeyboy]

On 2/7/2025 at 1:39 PM, secret santa said:

Thanks Terry

Maybe weak sea rather than missing, but I've not seen it on 1930 coins.(Can you "not see" what isn't there ??)

The tide went out.

Wait 6 hours, and look at it again.

[Coinery]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

One thats arrived today off eBay and much better than most.

1909 DOT.

Blimey, Pete…considering the number of eyes that fall upon the eBay pennies, you certainly manage to winkle out your fair share of the gems! 

[PWA 1967]

1826 Penny, Rev A, purchased from the Huddersfield coin fair.

[PWA 1967]

If anyone has a coin from "The Alderley Collection" and happy to share which one and when you bought it, please message me.

Pete.

[terrysoldpennies]

A very strange thing happened on ebay this evening . A 1863 Narrow 3 came up for auction at 6 o,clock with a starting price of 5£ . I straight away placed it in my favorites box , but also copied the pictures . I looked in a couple of times during the evening to see if any bids had been place , and none were. Then again I looked in at 10.30 , and to my surprise it took me to an 1861 coin .

Now, I know I'm getting on a bit but I'm not that senile just yet. On my favorites it still says 1863, and to prove it the pictures are below.

 

Edited March 13, 2025 by terrysoldpennies

[terrysoldpennies]

Obverse

[secret santa]

That's definitely a 4th example - somebody must have nipped in and got it at a bargain price.

[The Bee]

Maybe they arranged to buy it privately

[Martinminerva]

I am sure they did as it was an auction listing rather than a buy-it-now (I saw it too and took screenshots also, so you're not going mad, Terry). Changing the image and the title is a way for the seller and buyer to avoid others noticing - though they did - and to avoid a hefty eBay fee to boot. Wonder who got it and for what actual price??