More Pennies

[PWA 1967]

[alfnail]

This one, on an F16, has always intrigued me. Ghosting of Victoria's face can be seen (as it often does) above Britannia's left knee, but there is also something strange going on with the border teeth.

The series of pictures at the bottom show an overlay picture of border teeth, from the same coin, which I have made gradually transparent from 0% to 100% as go from left to right hand side. This shows that the marks through Britannia's knees are clearly from border teeth.

I bought this coin at Heritage in 2013 (MS63 Slabbed), and it took me a long time to find another F16 like this, to prove that it must have occurred during the minting process.......rather than the coin being hit with something post-minting.

I will show the pictures of that other coin immediately below, as this picture uses up my 500Kb allowance!!

  

[alfnail]

[absence of uniformity]

17 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

This is just about the most extreme example I have come across !!!   An 1862 penny

Note the half circle on Victoria's back , its the shield from the reverse side . The extra ribbons are created from the folds in Britannia's. dress 

Thanks ! Interesting coin.

[absence of uniformity]

10 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

 

10 hours ago, alfnail said:

This one, on an F16, has always intrigued me. Ghosting of Victoria's face can be seen (as it often does) above Britannia's left knee, but there is also something strange going on with the border teeth.

The series of pictures at the bottom show an overlay picture of border teeth, from the same coin, which I have made gradually transparent from 0% to 100% as go from left to right hand side. This shows that the marks through Britannia's knees are clearly from border teeth.

I bought this coin at Heritage in 2013 (MS63 Slabbed), and it took me a long time to find another F16 like this, to prove that it must have occurred during the minting process.......rather than the coin being hit with something post-minting.

I will show the pictures of that other coin immediately below, as this picture uses up my 500Kb allowance!!

  

How do you think the edge of the die clashed almost central? Are the two dies not on a fixed axis?

[mick1271]

My most extreme die clash .Apologies, not a penny (1696 Halfpenny) .

[Martinminerva]

Spectacular, but not a die clash. This has been completely struck twice and rotated in the dies between striking.

[mick1271]

1 hour ago, Martinminerva said:

Spectacular, but not a die clash. This has been completely struck twice and rotated in the dies between striking.

Yes, wrong words used lol. double struck .I'm sure this type is noted in Peck , so not a one off.

[Rob]

8 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:

 

How do you think the edge of the die clashed almost central? Are the two dies not on a fixed axis?

It looks to me as if there was nearly a brockage, as the raised detail of the teeth is the incuse detail on the die. If a coin is not properly expelled between strikes, it will act as the die and leave an incuse detailed impression, because a die has the inverted relief, ie incuse is raised an vice versa, so to have raised 'incuse detail', it had to be a wrong-un, because the die would not have changed its relief and would strike normally, albeit off-centre. With several examples known, the detail must have been from a trapped coin. 

[Paddy]

This 1915 Penny looks very much to be a recessed ear variety, but seems to lack the broken tooth. Any thoughts?

(Screenshot from online so no sharper image possible.)

[Martinminerva]

It's good. I have recessed ear 1915 pennies both with and without broken tooth. Without seems rarer. Haven't yet seen a 1916 without broken tooth though.

[secret santa]

I personally can never see much difference between recessed and non-recessed ear varieties.

[Paddy]

I agree - I find these very difficult to sport generally. I was fortunate this time that the next image was a 1916 in similar condition and the difference in the ears stood out, even to me! Here is the 1916:

[secret santa]

12 hours ago, Paddy said:

the difference in the ears stood out

Help me please - what exactly stood out ?

I still can't see any significant differences in my own recessed and non-recessed coins.

[Paddy]

For me it is the "trench" around the ear that struck me. The actual design of the ear is unchanged, but as the name suggests, it is recessed into a hollow.

I am very poor at identifying all these varieties. Even "colon to gap" and "colon to tooth" often leaves me puzzling which I am looking at!

[Peckris 2]

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

Help me please - what exactly stood out ?

I still can't see any significant differences in my own recessed and non-recessed coins.

It's a weird one - I remember when I was searching through bank bags as a schoolkid in the late 60s; now and again I'd see 1915 or 1916 pennies where the head just 'looked weird', especially around the ear. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I did notice each one when it appeared. It may be that the difference is more obvious on a more worn penny than on one that's EF or better? In other words, the ear is less worn than it should be and seems a bit more sunk than on normal examples.

[secret santa]

3 hours ago, Paddy said:

For me it is the "trench" around the ear

Around the right hand side like this ?

[Paddy]

That one is more worn, but doesn't look the same. On the one I posted before the trench is more noticeable down the left side and around the lobe.

[Avocet]

If you think of the ear as an ellipse, the feature I find most readily identifiable is a crease running along the line of the shortest axis. Well-worn examples of a 1915 and a 1916 to illustrate:

Both of these pass the broken tooth test. Note that the tip of the ear remains distinct despite the considerable wear.