Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

This is where I've lost the plot. I would feel embarrassed asking for a higher price for a natural die degradation feature. Maybe a spectacular flaw would warrant a bit extra, but die fill? Or more accurately in this case, the removal of a bit of die within the 2. Crazy.

Couldn't agree more, regardless of denomination or year ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I've lost the plot. I would feel embarrassed asking for a higher price for a natural die degradation feature. Maybe a spectacular flaw would warrant a bit extra, but die fill? Or more accurately in this case, the removal of a bit of die within the 2. Crazy.

Couldn't agree more, regardless of denomination or year ...
But it's what they go for! Is it any different to a two-pronged trident?

I do confess it's not for me, unless I was close to gathering the whole series of something, and a particular coin got added into an addenda or revised edition of a book, or similar, as a definite type? But this wouldn't happen to me, as I have an interest in too many areas...fortunately! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so true Stewie.

My coin interests make me a coin slag.

I'm just not coin faithful.

Dinner is now on I don't reckon to survive another 12 hours. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I've lost the plot. I would feel embarrassed asking for a higher price for a natural die degradation feature. Maybe a spectacular flaw would warrant a bit extra, but die fill? Or more accurately in this case, the removal of a bit of die within the 2. Crazy.

Couldn't agree more, regardless of denomination or year ...
But it's what they go for! Is it any different to a two-pronged trident?

I do confess it's not for me, unless I was close to gathering the whole series of something, and a particular coin got added into an addenda or revised edition of a book, or similar, as a definite type? But this wouldn't happen to me, as I have an interest in too many areas...fortunately! :)

No, two-pronged tridents are just as silly. Unless it was engraved using a specifically intended two pronged trident, then it was just a defective tool.

Although discussed before, this opens up a whole can of worms because you then have to consider the various development stages of the variety raising the salient point of when can a variety be said to exist? How do you price the intermediate stages and why are they so defined? Die fill and breakage are two continually evolving states which are virtually impossible to quantify until complete, or the die has fallen apart setting the maximum limit.

I suspect the main driver for including a variety in a price list is the owner and definer of said variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of a 1922 filled die penny. Any picture available ??

I know of 1920 penny with filled die. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I've lost the plot. I would feel embarrassed asking for a higher price for a natural die degradation feature. Maybe a spectacular flaw would warrant a bit extra, but die fill? Or more accurately in this case, the removal of a bit of die within the 2. Crazy.

Couldn't agree more, regardless of denomination or year ...
But it's what they go for! Is it any different to a two-pronged trident?

I do confess it's not for me, unless I was close to gathering the whole series of something, and a particular coin got added into an addenda or revised edition of a book, or similar, as a definite type? But this wouldn't happen to me, as I have an interest in too many areas...fortunately! :)

No, two-pronged tridents are just as silly. Unless it was engraved using a specifically intended two pronged trident, then it was just a defective tool.

Although discussed before, this opens up a whole can of worms because you then have to consider the various development stages of the variety raising the salient point of when can a variety be said to exist? How do you price the intermediate stages and why are they so defined? Die fill and breakage are two continually evolving states which are virtually impossible to quantify until complete, or the die has fallen apart setting the maximum limit.

I suspect the main driver for including a variety in a price list is the owner and definer of said variety.

Finally someone who feels like how I feel about varieties. I felt the same way when I first came across the fish tail or the dot pennies. However as most people have pointed out the future drivers of penny variants is die anomalies and tooth spacings. Personally I would not bend backwards for variants but when I come across a penny that is XF plus and is a minor variant I can’t resist :) That said I am also guilty of going after low grade BP1890Aa http://imgur.com/0M09dzx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the 1860 penny no colon dots after D in F:D?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that the 1860 missing colon dot pennies were due to the die being clogged by the bronze, but deliberate filling of the working die or more likely the erasing of the dots on the working hub. At lease two different die pairs have been used for producing the known examples of these missing colon dot pennies. There are quite a few variations of colon spacing and colon positioning of these Obverse 4 pennies, probably due to the missing colon working dies being punched by hand with colon dots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes you wonder - if what Rob calls 'natural die degradation' is now so "desirable" and "collectable", then isn't it about time the 1961 'designer initials missing' halfcrown made a spectacular comeback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only it was that clear cut...it seems this topic always gets dragged down to a level that is too simplistic. I agree that a "two pronged trident" or a "filled 2" might not be a "variety" as we typically define one. But what does constitute a variety? It is not that easy a question to answer when you try and establish a set of rules that apply across a series/denomination. Are the punctuation differences in the James I and Charles I farthings a true variety? How about the Charles II pattern farthings, where legend position is the indicator. The varieties of 1881H farthing which are predominantly established through the style/position of the H. Would the "rounded top" lighthouse variety of 1881H farthing be worthy of inclusion?

Why are we happy to define a minor tweak to the main design, a grained edge, a change in alignment or material used as a type or variety, but if the same thing happens in relation to other aspects, such as the legend or date it is dismissed so easily. When does a different strike material become an error or a different type? It is a subject that is a lot more complicated than people think at first glance. When you actually try and catalogue a list of varieties, using a defined set of parameters it becomes exceedingly difficult.

I am not saying that anyone is necessarily right or wrong, but I would always be willing to listen to someone's opinion and read how or why they established the parameters they have before dismissing it as not following the "norm"

It is often by studying these features that additional knowledge on die sequencing and coin production/design becomes apparent. Defining the two Reverse designs for the copper Victorian Farthing series was only possible through cataloging and studying the design intensively and establishing a recurring pattern. Any of the individual features allocated to the identification could have been dismissed as being insignificant reworking of the dies, however as a collective group of features they help establish a new design type.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the term 'die-collectors' rather than variety collectors, as this seems more of a catch-all to me?

Most in-depth studies ultimately head back towards the dies, and occasionally their progressive stages, or perhaps a deteriorating punch?

I think this is the best part about it, it's what separates numismatics from whimsies! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another penny

I have been studing some of my beaded border pennies and I came across this strange one.

It is not a Gouby Obv A or B as the bust is clear of the beads. Yet I am not certain it is a Gouby C either because it has a very thick rim in comparison to all the other beaded obverses that I have (8 or 9 in VF+ condition)

Though the first 10 or so beads below the bust seem to stick to each other the linear circle terminates only after the 3rd bead below the bust so it can't be a C1 either.

Could I have missed something? Please provide your valuable input. Any help much appriciated.

http://i.imgur.com/yn16k61.jpg

Prax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do so wish Steve wasn't so busy at the moment, he'd love all this!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only it was that clear cut...it seems this topic always gets dragged down to a level that is too simplistic. I agree that a "two pronged trident" or a "filled 2" might not be a "variety" as we typically define one. But what does constitute a variety? It is not that easy a question to answer when you try and establish a set of rules that apply across a series/denomination. Are the punctuation differences in the James I and Charles I farthings a true variety? How about the Charles II pattern farthings, where legend position is the indicator. The varieties of 1881H farthing which are predominantly established through the style/position of the H. Would the "rounded top" lighthouse variety of 1881H farthing be worthy of inclusion?

Why are we happy to define a minor tweak to the main design, a grained edge, a change in alignment or material used as a type or variety, but if the same thing happens in relation to other aspects, such as the legend or date it is dismissed so easily. When does a different strike material become an error or a different type? It is a subject that is a lot more complicated than people think at first glance. When you actually try and catalogue a list of varieties, using a defined set of parameters it becomes exceedingly difficult.

I am not saying that anyone is necessarily right or wrong, but I would always be willing to listen to someone's opinion and read how or why they established the parameters they have before dismissing it as not following the "norm"

It is often by studying these features that additional knowledge on die sequencing and coin production/design becomes apparent. Defining the two Reverse designs for the copper Victorian Farthing series was only possible through cataloging and studying the design intensively and establishing a recurring pattern. Any of the individual features allocated to the identification could have been dismissed as being insignificant reworking of the dies, however as a collective group of features they help establish a new design type.

I concur that it is always difficult to define what constitutes a variety. I think you have to consider each feature as a stand-alone and assess it in the context of the day. Hammered and milled clearly operate under different sets of rules. Milled coins being struck using dies that have been produced from a multi-stage process involving matrices and master punches are always going to be different to hammered coins where the details are hand-cut on the end of a piece of die stock by a man who may have had his own set of punches, each set being different from the next man's. Away from the main centres, a single moneyer was often the norm in Saxon times. In the Civil War period, some engravers had to follow the troops around because they needed the ability to coin in various locations. The wholesale reworking of old dies was the norm before milled coins, but since then the ability to produce a consistent product has resulted in dies of the same design being used for many years with only a date change required for the most part.

I think we all agree there is no right or wrong definition, but this is in part due to the fact that we don't have all the facts. It is also driven by the collector's desire to have more boxes to tick. Various people have written articles categorising coins of a type of reign down the years, but very few have been able to tie in the stop arrangements or punches to certain individuals or events. As I have shown elsewhere, I can do that for a couple engraver on Civil War coinage but most coins defy analysis at present. As hammered dies were rubbed down and re-engraved (by hand), it is illogical to treat traces of the former legend as varieties, nor can the placement of letters be of any importance. With milled coinage, the latter would be significant because of the way in which dies were/are produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another penny

I have been studing some of my beaded border pennies and I came across this strange one.

It is not a Gouby Obv A or B as the bust is clear of the beads. Yet I am not certain it is a Gouby C either because it has a very thick rim in comparison to all the other beaded obverses that I have (8 or 9 in VF+ condition)

Though the first 10 or so beads below the bust seem to stick to each other the linear circle terminates only after the 3rd bead below the bust so it can't be a C1 either.

Could I have missed something? Please provide your valuable input. Any help much appriciated.

http://i.imgur.com/yn16k61.jpg

Prax

Preax

Do you have a pic of the reverse. There is an established set of combinations for C1.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary,

Thanks for responding. Been under the weather a bit so could not respond earlier.

I have attached 2 more pics one of reverse and of the coin side by side with the obverses showing of this coin and a normal Gouby C.

http://i.imgur.com/rEAxYJu.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rghabDj.jpg

Thanks for the help.

Regards,

Prax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeline different but R touches E of REG - Obverse B ??

EDIT changed my thoughts, it's essential to compare coins of similar grade, such as my F6 on the left below

bb.jpg

looks the same to me

Edited by davidrj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a Freeman 6, dies 1+B (Gouby 1860E dies C+B)

Edited by Bernie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added better pics of the 1912 penny as promised. 7EKWKpz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LPTIW0c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks more die flaw than overstrike to me. But still interesting.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed as above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×