More Pennies

[secret santa]

Yes, my 1839 prof cost £250 in 2001 and my 1853 copper proof cost £300 on 2000. Since then they've gone through the roof.

[1949threepence]

7 hours ago, jelida said:

Chris Finch of DNW asked me to look at the 1882 no H penny at the MCF yesterday. There is no visible evidence of the ‘H’ under the loupe but I also felt it was a little ‘dished’ under the date.  No recent shenanigans, but as it is one of those coins that has considerable surface patination it is quite possible that the ‘H’ might have been lost. Either that, or a filled die, as the obverse is clearly ‘wrong’ for the ‘no H’ as we recognise it, though I don’t know that can be entirely written in stone.

My advice was that if they do try to sell it,  an explanation of the reservations about its authenticity would have to be included in the description, then the punters can make up theit own minds. Not one for me.

The links can be found above.

Jerry

Plus, if it's the one I'm thinking of, wasn't it the wrong obverse for a F112, Jerry? 

[jelida]

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Plus, if it's the one I'm thinking of, wasn't it the wrong obverse for a F112, Jerry? 

Yes, that was the main indicator of the doubt, and what DNW didn’t seem to get to grips with at first but I think Chris does now.  I think that whatever the (historic) cause of the dishing of the flan below the date,  the end result is the removal of the ‘H’. It looks to me like a coin that may have been in the ground at one time, and when cleaned on recovery a thin layer of patina was rubbed off, along with the mintmark.

But I have seen several ‘no H’ with the wrong obverse offered for sale, including by LCA. What would it take, I wonder, for this combination too to be considered a true variety?

Jerry

[1949threepence]

51 minutes ago, jelida said:

Yes, that was the main indicator of the doubt, and what DNW didn’t seem to get to grips with at first but I think Chris does now.  I think that whatever the (historic) cause of the dishing of the flan below the date,  the end result is the removal of the ‘H’. It looks to me like a coin that may have been in the ground at one time, and when cleaned on recovery a thin layer of patina was rubbed off, along with the mintmark.

But I have seen several ‘no H’ with the wrong obverse offered for sale, including by LCA. What would it take, I wonder, for this combination too to be considered a true variety?

Jerry

A really good specimen that left you in absolutely no doubt. 

[jelida]

31 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

A really good specimen that left you in absolutely no doubt. 

But even then the absent ‘H’ could be due to die fill. If it wasn’t for the unique (for 1882) die pairing, would we be so confident with the agreed ‘no H’ variety?  The couple of ‘no H’ 1876 are generally accepted as die fill. I suppose a reasoned judgement published by a top expert , a Freeman or Gouby equivalent,  would have to be the determining factor in the absence of contemporary records.

Jerry

[VickySilver]

I agree that there is a bit of dogma in the approach to this date and somewhat slavish mentality about there being only one obverse. I just don't see how that can be proved, though I do agree that many purported "no H" examples on close inspection appear to be "weak H" or possibly moved metal.  I have seen a couple that looked good to me under scope - as far as the  lack of "H" mintmark. And if the die was filled or worn? So what, if it doesn't appear that metal has been (re)moved then it is a "no H" much like the USA 1922 "no D" cent coin...

[PWA 1967]

Slavish seems to be the IN word at the moment ,i will have to try and find out what it means.

Slavish ..........

[oldcopper]

It means Russian of course.

16 hours ago, secret santa said:

Yes, my 1839 prof cost £250 in 2001 and my 1853 copper proof cost £300 on 2000. Since then they've gone through the roof.

 

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Slavish seems to be the IN word at the moment ,i will have to try and find out what it means.

Slavish ..........

I shall presume that you will research it's definition and usage "slavishly".

[PWA 1967]

18 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

I shall presume that you will research it's definition and usage "slavishly".

The problem is Gary ,when i typed in Slavish the words they used to explain the meaning i didnt know what they meant either 

Edited May 14, 2019 by PWA 1967

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

15 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

The problem is Gary ,when i typed in Slavish the words they used to explain the meaning i didnt know either 

Nothing to do with "slavish", but I just 'love' (said sarcastically) when HIGHLY TECHNICAL terms are used to explain a merely TECHNICAL term, which in itself may have used to explain something merely SIMPLE.

I've lost track of how many times I've had to look up an explanation of a definition or something else of that ilk....

Gobbledygook begets more gobbledygook.  Probably makes the user feel superior in some inferior way.

 

PS: Spellcheckers don't help without proper proofreading either.......

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Paddy]

I picked up another 1875 penny over the weekend - I believe Dies 8+H (Gouby Ja) F80. The question is do I keep this one, or the present incumbent in the subsequent post?

Here is the new one:

 

[Paddy]

... and this is the one currently holding the space:

 

[1949threepence]

Marginally more detail on your new one, Paddy. Most noticeable around. Britannia's head and helmet IMO. 

[Paddy]

1 minute ago, 1949threepence said:

Marginally more detail on your new one, Paddy. Most noticeable around. Britannia's head and helmet IMO. 

Yes - I liked the better detail, but this is offset by the damage to the rim and below the bust...

 

[1949threepence]

3 hours ago, Paddy said:

Yes - I liked the better detail, but this is offset by the damage to the rim and below the bust...

 

Indeed, there is that. But then your first one looks as though there are some edge knocks as well, albeit not as glaring. 

At the end of the day it's a personal judgement call. 

[will1976]

3 hours ago, Paddy said:

I picked up another 1875 penny over the weekend - I believe Dies 8+H (Gouby Ja) F80. The question is do I keep this one, or the present incumbent in the subsequent post?

Here is the new one

You could keep both Paddy for the time being until a better specimen comes along. I don't collect pennies so I don't know your outlay

[Cliff]

Isn't your new one, Britannia with the long neck hair, Gouby reverse J and your old one, with the short neck hair, reverse ja?  I tend to get confused as the bottle empties!

[Paddy]

43 minutes ago, Cliff said:

Isn't your new one, Britannia with the long neck hair, Gouby reverse J and your old one, with the short neck hair, reverse ja?  I tend to get confused as the bottle empties!

I am still battling with all these varieties, but as I understand it a reverse J (as opposed to Ja) on an 1875 penny would be an as yet unrecorded combination. This according to @secret santa 's website. So I would be delighted if one of them is a J! 😁

 

[Paddy]

1 hour ago, will1976 said:

You could keep both Paddy for the time being until a better specimen comes along. I don't collect pennies so I don't know your outlay

Yes I could keep both - but I already have a third 8+H in a lesser grade that I ought to move on! 

As to outlay, the new one cost me only £7 including commission, so I think I did OK either way.

[Cliff]

39 minutes ago, Paddy said:

I am still battling with all these varieties, but as I understand it a reverse J (as opposed to Ja) on an 1875 penny would be an as yet unrecorded combination. This according to @secret santa 's website. So I would be delighted if one of them is a J! 😁

 

Whooops - cap in hand, I've misread and misunderstood my Gouby, for which I apologize. I was going off the two different hair lengths your two 1875s 'appear' to have and jumping the gun.

[PWA 1967]

I dont think you are getting confused Cliff and think your right to say they are two different reverse with the second one Ja.

Although that may mean we are both wrong 

Edited May 14, 2019 by PWA 1967

[secret santa]

14 hours ago, Cliff said:

Isn't your new one, Britannia with the long neck hair, Gouby reverse J and your old one, with the short neck hair, reverse ja?  I tend to get confused as the bottle empties!

They are both reverse ja - in my opinion, the long/short hair is a red herring and just happened to be shorter on the specimen that Michael Gouby  pictures in his book. On good specimens, the hair is only slightly shorter. For me the key differentiators are the size of the dome of the helmet (larger on ja) and the lower rear of the helmet (convex with a rim on ja).

rev j on left; rev ja on right

[Michael-Roo]

24 minutes ago, secret santa said:

They are both reverse ja - in my opinion, the long/short hair is a red herring and just happened to be shorter on the specimen that Michael Gouby  pictures in his book. On good specimens, the hair is only slightly shorter. For me the key differentiators are the size of the dome of the helmet (larger on ja) and the lower rear of the helmet (convex with a rim on ja).

rev j on left; rev ja on right

Differences in the angle of throat and jaw are pretty obvious in those photos too.

[PWA 1967]

Trying to learn as i have looked at a few of this reverse ( 1874 ) on the two pictures Paddy put up the second one is as i thought Ja.

The first picture of Paddys though i am still not sure and maybe i am getting it wrong and still think its J

The single plume on Ja is straight / thinner and falls downwards but on Paddys first picture it is slightly curved ?

I had also looked at both helmets and the hair and thought the first one was J ,only because the first picture the helmet looks off set rather than more upright and straight.

Edited May 15, 2019 by PWA 1967