More Pennies

[alfnail]

15 minutes ago, Iannich48 said:

This coin looks like an 8/7. Do you agree folks?

I believe this is Plain Date Gouby Style Ad. Later strikes on this variety develop the die flaw which can be seen on your own piece (nice coin by the way) running through the VIC legend. This flaw also runs through the bottom of a repaired V in VICTORIA as shown below.

 

[alfnail]

Repaired V in VICTORIA on 1848Ad

[Iannich48]

2 hours ago, alfnail said:

I believe this is Plain Date Gouby Style Ad. Later strikes on this variety develop the die flaw which can be seen on your own piece (nice coin by the way) running through the VIC legend. This flaw also runs through the bottom of a repaired V in VICTORIA as shown below.

 

Interesting, thanks Alfnail. But the bottom right inside corner of the second 8 does seem to have a straight line at an angle of about 30 degrees from vertical. Tbh, it is the p1496 from a certain website that we like.😁

[secret santa]

4 hours ago, alfnail said:

….and the DEI legend features

Yes, mine has those, too.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by secret santa

[alfnail]

16 hours ago, Rob said:

My minor contribution. Doesn't agree with any of D to Dd for various reasons, nor G.

This is the variety which MG described in the Spinks May 2010 circular as most likely being an 1858/2.

It is distinctive by the die flaws which commence along the bottom of the numerals, and then further develops along the top and also towards the border. I have never seen one without any numeral flaws, so would be interesting to know if anyone has one like that. 

[secret santa]

7 hours ago, alfnail said:

This coin looks like an 8/7. Do you agree folks?

I do have 2 photos of that coin and one does suggest an underlying 7 but the other doesn't. I'm sure it's not there. Trick of the light. Angles and lighting can make such a difference.

Edited June 11, 2020 by secret santa
Correction.

[terrysoldpennies]

2 hours ago, alfnail said:

This is the variety which MG described in the Spinks May 2010 circular as most likely being an 1858/2.

It is distinctive by the die flaws which commence along the bottom of the numerals, and then further develops along the top and also towards the border. I have never seen one without any numeral flaws, so would be interesting to know if anyone has one like that. 

Another way to distinguishing this type I have noticed is by a couple of cracks running through the word VICTORIA , and as they appear on the top and bottom crack across the date type, and on the examples with the single crack running along the bottom of the date, it may be the case that the Victoria crack precedes  the cracks through the date , and as such it may be a good feature to look out for in finding a very early example of this 8 over 2 type 

[Iannich48]

5 hours ago, secret santa said:

I do have 2 photos of that coin and one does suggest an underlying 7 but the other doesn't. I'm sure it's not there. Trick of the light. Angles and lighting can make such a difference.

Thanks Richard, definitely a trick of the light with the first pic.  

[1949threepence]

8 minutes ago, Iannich48 said:

Thanks Richard, definitely a trick of the light with the first pic.  

Optical illusion. 

Happens a lot with coin pics, unfortunately

[Rob]

8 hours ago, alfnail said:

This is the variety which MG described in the Spinks May 2010 circular as most likely being an 1858/2.

It is distinctive by the die flaws which commence along the bottom of the numerals, and then further develops along the top and also towards the border. I have never seen one without any numeral flaws, so would be interesting to know if anyone has one like that. 

I know it is what MG calls 8/2. I'm not saying he's wrong because I can't prove otherwise, but the 8 over 2 is problematic insofar as we can't be sure what a 2 would look like, being the only number not used on a copper penny (or at least not since 1827). On the image I posted, there is a line going through the top loop of the 8 approximately level with half way up the lump at the side - difficult to image with the microscope, but starts on the tip of the black mark RHS in the top loop. At the top of the protruding section is a small lump, which has a companion raised lump on the left hand side of the top loop at the same level, which may be an indicator of a filled die. There is no corresponding mark on the right side of the loop. The other interesting bit is the shape of the 5, the loop of which appears to join higher up the vertical. Plus there is a significant raised mark on the top bar. What was that?

Going off on a tangent, there is also a flat topped 3 punch available as used on the 1839 penny and the IOM penny of the same date which is slightly smaller than the other 3 digits.

If that is floating around within the number punches, it can't be discounted as being used in error.

This is the smallest flaw I've had. Barely a trace on the 8 and similarly around Victoria.

.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Rob

[Iannich48]

9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Optical illusion. 

Happens a lot with coin pics, unfortunately

It certainly does. I have an 1863 penny, and from one angle it looks like an open 3, but not from other angles.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Iannich48 said:

It certainly does. I have an 1863 penny, and from one angle it looks like an open 3, but not from other angles.

Absolutely, and I'd cite the endless number of times last year I spent trying to decide whether a penny was a F164A, for example, or a 169. Colon to tooth, but only from some angles.  

[1949threepence]

8 hours ago, Rob said:

I know it is what MG calls 8/2. I'm not saying he's wrong because I can't prove otherwise, but the 8 over 2 is problematic insofar as we can't be sure what a 2 would look like, being the only number not used on a copper penny (or at least not since 1827). On the image I posted, there is a line going through the top loop of the 8 approximately level with half way up the lump at the side - difficult to image with the microscope, but starts on the tip of the black mark RHS in the top loop. At the top of the protruding section is a small lump, which has a companion raised lump on the left hand side of the top loop at the same level, which may be an indicator of a filled die. There is no corresponding mark on the right side of the loop. The other interesting bit is the shape of the 5, the loop of which appears to join higher up the vertical. Plus there is a significant raised mark on the top bar. What was that?

Going off on a tangent, there is also a flat topped 3 punch available as used on the 1839 penny and the IOM penny of the same date which is slightly smaller than the other 3 digits.

If that is floating around within the number punches, it can't be discounted as being used in error.

This is the smallest flaw I've had. Barely a trace on the 8 and similarly around Victoria.

.

Yes, I think the 8/2 is problematic as well, although I hasten to add I've not yet read the numismatic circular in which MG espouses the theory. 

The idea of 8/2 may be flawed because, as you say, no 2's had been used since 1827. Bramah, at pages 104 - 105, does mention the fact that according to the 1852 parliamentary return of the Mint that year, 236,424 pennies were struck, but none were ever seen. The Mint authorities "can only conjecture that they were all brought in again to be melted, but were they ever issued?" (Montagu). Or were they all struck from the previous year's dies. That sounds the more realistic scenario, since, as Bramah rightly speculates, even if only a very limited number of 1852's got out into circulation, at least a few would have turned up and been retained by collectors. As per 1952 and 1954, with one each. Although it is possible that if they were dated 1852, every single one was accounted for and melted. 

Conversely, the figure three would have been readily available, and in different sizes as per the ones used in 1853. We know that overstrikes of 8/7, and 8/6 also occurred, so by logical extension, it makes sense that 8/3 was also used - all using dies from the 1850's. 

Not presuming to be so arrogant as to say I'm right, far from it. At the end of the day Gouby has many orders of magnitude more numismatic knowledge and experience than I have (or ever will), but it doesn't do any harm to play Devil's advocate and start asking awkward questions now and again.  

Finally, what the heck is a Bramah 25c? Sounds like an over something, over something else !!     

[secret santa]

54 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Finally, what the heck is a Bramah 25c?

No-one knows.

[alfnail]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, I think the 8/2 is problematic as well, although I hasten to add I've not yet read the numismatic circular in which MG espouses the theory. 

I could put a copy of the article on here if someone in authority could confirm I wouldn't be in breach of any copyright

[Rob]

34 minutes ago, secret santa said:

No-one knows.

If that is what purports to be a Bramah 25c then a halfpenny 9 would be a pretty good fit. Top loop would superimpose fairly well on the top loop of the 8, back of the 9 would fit the line joining the two loops and the tail of the 9 is slightly narrower than the loop with the end curled back as above.

[alfnail]

This date style was discussed in another forum back in 2009, picture of the actual date now removed but text makes interesting reading

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=712566&STARTPAGE=1

 

 

[Rob]

Here's a halfpenny 9

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

If that is what purports to be a Bramah 25c then a halfpenny 9 would be a pretty good fit. Top loop would superimpose fairly well on the top loop of the 8, back of the 9 would fit the line joining the two loops and the tail of the 9 is slightly narrower than the loop with the end curled back as above.

Actually that would work. Maybe it is a 9.

 

[alfnail]

I think that when MG was suggesting a small 9 back in the 2009 discussion he was probably thinking of the small numeral 9 on the penny, i.e. his 1859B as per this image....but the halfpenny 9 may perhaps be an equally good bet!

[Rob]

5 minutes ago, alfnail said:

I think that when MG was suggesting a small 9 back in the 2009 discussion he was probably thinking of the small numeral 9 on the penny, i.e. his 1859B as per this image....but the halfpenny 9 may perhaps be an equally good bet!

I'd say better given the small lump below the centre line of the 8. The 5 in this image looks to be the same punch as the halfpenny 5

Edited June 12, 2020 by Rob

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, alfnail said:

This date style was discussed in another forum back in 2009, picture of the actual date now removed but text makes interesting reading

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=712566&STARTPAGE=1

 

 

 

That's a really interesting discussion, Ian, with some familiar names.  

ETA: the last post from MG, if I've read it correctly, appears to suggest that it might in fact be a 9/8, rather than an 8/9 - which actually makes more sense. 

Maybe the RM's intention was to make the coin read as an 1859, but because the 9 was weakly punched and the 8 covered a greater area, the 9 was in effect negated - the date still effectively appearing as an 1858.   

Edited June 12, 2020 by 1949threepence

[alfnail]

Sorry, I think I have been an idiot.

The picture of the 1858 which Richard showed above is the same as the type pictured on MG's website which he names CP 1858 G.

I now think that I have mistakenly given the link to the other forum, saying that it discussed this date variety, when in fact it was discussing another very similar, but DIFFERENT 1858 overdate...….. which is the one often seen paired with the re-cut large rose reverse variety. That date also has a distinct 1/1 whereas the CP 1858 G does not.

Unfortunately the pictures on that discussion have now been removed as it was so long ago (2009).

In an effort to try to redeem myself I show below the two different 1858 overdates, so we can again discuss 9/8's, 8/3's or whatever.

 

[Iannich48]

No worries, i still enjoyed reading that other discussion, and it looks a bit like the tail of a 9 (or small 9) on the Cp1858G imo, but more like part of a 1 or 7 to the right. Makes no sense, unless it is a double overstrike.

[1949threepence]

27 minutes ago, Iannich48 said:

No worries, i still enjoyed reading that other discussion, and it looks a bit like the tail of a 9 (or small 9) on the Cp1858G imo, but more like part of a 1 or 7 to the right. Makes no sense, unless it is a double overstrike.

seconded - very interesting reading.