More Pennies

[Peckris 2]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I knew I'd heard about this before, but couldn't remember where or when. It concerns the rumour, started in the late 19th century, that a gold ingot had been accidentally added to the metal mix for the 1864 penny blanks, and that consequently some 1864 pennies had gold in them. It became a craze which spread over to as late as 1907. David Pickup wrote an excellent article about it in the July 2021 edition of Coin News, if anyone is interested in reading about it.

Yes, I would. Are you able to scan the article and post it here? (Nothing comes up about it on Google).

[Michael-Roo]

Me too please.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

The article in question...

[Michael-Roo]

Thank you. 

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

The article in question...

Thanks Gary.

[Peckris 2]

Entertaining account of an urban myth!

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks Gary.

Thanks for pointing out where to find it...

[Rob]

How common or rare is BP1882Ha given it isn't in Freeman or Spink which only list the 2/1?

And a second question. How many date widths are there for 1869? I've got an 11.5 here and Gouby only lists 10.5

Edited April 8, 2022 by Rob

[Rob]

And another one. 1864 crosslet. Again a different number of teeth. Given the last digit was added later, surely all dates should have multiple varieties of widths even if they aren't listed? And does anybody care, or is it only for specific dates?

[blakeyboy]

Be careful to not overload the Hive Brain that is 'Predecimal' , Rob, with too many linked questions.

 

This forum was the inspiration for the Borg in Star Trek, after all....

[alfnail]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

How common or rare is BP1882Ha given it isn't in Freeman or Spink which only list the 2/1?

And a second question. How many date widths are there for 1869? I've got an 11.5 here and Gouby only lists 10.5

Gouby says that the 1882Ha is 'Rare', and that the 2/1 variety (same obverse/reverse) is 'Extremely Rare'. I think that pretty much ties in with my own experience. I regularly try to spot 1882 types  with fewer reverse teeth on ebay (Gouby's Reverse P), and then try to determine the obverse type if I find the right reverse. Clearly you need a decent ebay picture to have a chance of spotting the 2/1 overdate, which is seen on both Gouby (P+p) F111 and Gouby (R+p) F114..................with the 2/1 on the F114 being particularly difficult to see. 

I have also seen, and think I have pictures of, 1869's and 1864's with several different date widths.  

[Peckris 2]

9 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Gouby says that the 1882Ha is 'Rare', and that the 2/1 variety (same obverse/reverse) is 'Extremely Rare'.

This opens up the whole subject of what exactly did Heatons do - did they produce punches for whole dies from master matrices issued by London? Or did they get sent dies that just needed the final digit and mintmark punched in?

Given that the reverse dies for 1882 are different between London and Birmingham, that implies the former. However, it could equally be that Heatons were sent quantities of a particular reverse design, and that the London reverse was produced separately solely for the purposes of testing the electronic presses. Since Heatons needed to produce pennies dated both 1881 and 1882, it's entirely possible that they decided to repunch a single 1881H die, especially given the large quantities of 1882 required. They would never have been sent the London reverse (which perhaps was done after the bulk of the issue had already been done by Heatons?) which of course makes identifying a genuine London 1882 easier.

Over to the predecimal hive mind...

[1949threepence]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

And another one. 1864 crosslet. Again a different number of teeth. Given the last digit was added later, surely all dates should have multiple varieties of widths even if they aren't listed? And does anybody care, or is it only for specific dates?

I've never counted the number of teeth on an 1864 crosslet, but the last 4 can appear in different places. Most notably as slightly more distant from the remainder of the date, faint and somewhat blurry, like this one. I have actually seen one worse than that. 

I don't think anybody but the most ardent specialist would care, especially given the general rarity of these coins in high grade anyway.  

 

[Rob]

Thanks for all the above replies. Next.

Apologies in advance for any visual offence caused. I know it needs binning, but will at least act as a teaching aid for the time being

I assume it ought to be obverse C, but I keep getting a nagging feeling that something isn't quite right. Comparing the distance from B to the back of the head looks closer in Gouby. There is a gap in the beading by the Garter legend which doesn't show up in the Gouby publication images. The gap below the bust to the beads looks to be greater on this coin compared to the book. 

I don't know if this is due to the die being polished heavily resulting in a loss of angled relief, hence the wider gaps. The reverse is Gouby a, and so Freeman 1 refers? Thoughts please.

[blakeyboy]

10 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Be careful to not overload the Hive Brain that is 'Predecimal' , Rob, with too many linked questions.

 

This forum was the inspiration for the Borg in Star Trek, after all....

I was joking...!

[secret santa]

10 hours ago, alfnail said:

Gouby says that the 1882Ha is 'Rare', and that the 2/1 variety (same obverse/reverse) is 'Extremely Rare'.

I should probably include the 2 1882H over 1 varieties on my rare penny website. Could I ask collectors to email me photos of their examples please.

[Rob]

8 hours ago, Rob said:

Thanks for all the above replies. Next.

Apologies in advance for any visual offence caused. I know it needs binning, but will at least act as a teaching aid for the time being

I assume it ought to be obverse C, but I keep getting a nagging feeling that something isn't quite right. Comparing the distance from B to the back of the head looks closer in Gouby. There is a gap in the beading by the Garter legend which doesn't show up in the Gouby publication images. The gap below the bust to the beads looks to be greater on this coin compared to the book. 

I don't know if this is due to the die being polished heavily resulting in a loss of angled relief, hence the wider gaps. The reverse is Gouby a, and so Freeman 1 refers? Thoughts please.

Looks like picture didn't load for some reason.

[1949threepence]

4 hours ago, secret santa said:

I should probably include the 2 1882H over 1 varieties on my rare penny website. Could I ask collectors to email me photos of their examples please.

Richard, would you be interested in the one we talked about in this post from April 2020?

ETA: although if there is any protrusion, it's certainly not top left, as with Ian's example, more top right. 

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by 1949threepence

[jelida]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Looks like picture didn't load for some reason.

My F1, F6 and F7 obverses all have the slight gap in the beads below the garter. All the letter alignments are as normal, and the B to head gap seems OK to me. I suspect that it is the standard obverse C. 

Jerry

[Rob]

thanks

[secret santa]

1 hour ago, jelida said:

My F1, F6 and F7 obverses all have the slight gap in the beads below the garter. All the letter alignments are as normal, and the B to head gap seems OK to me. I suspect that it is the standard obverse C. 

Obverse C for sure

[secret santa]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Richard, would you be interested in the one we talked about in this post from April 2020?

Thanks Mike, now added.

[Peckris 2]

On 4/8/2022 at 11:02 PM, Peckris 2 said:

This opens up the whole subject of what exactly did Heatons do - did they produce punches for whole dies from master matrices issued by London? Or did they get sent dies that just needed the final digit and mintmark punched in?

Given that the reverse dies for 1882 are different between London and Birmingham, that implies the former. However, it could equally be that Heatons were sent quantities of a particular reverse design, and that the London reverse was produced separately solely for the purposes of testing the electronic presses. Since Heatons needed to produce pennies dated both 1881 and 1882, it's entirely possible that they decided to repunch a single 1881H die, especially given the large quantities of 1882 required. They would never have been sent the London reverse (which perhaps was done after the bulk of the issue had already been done by Heatons?) which of course makes identifying a genuine London 1882 easier.

Over to the predecimal hive mind...

No thoughts at all?

[blakeyboy]

I wish I could reply, but I find the whole arcane process of masters and dies and negatives and positives utterly bamboozling,

along with things like some letters etc double struck, which is then explained by die movement,

when obviously everything would be double, not just one bit....

Don't get me started on why only the waves disappear when dies get filled, not any other areas...that's just mad to me....

[VickySilver]

I suppose the dies were not necessarily even produced at the same time. Who knows, so much controversy. IMO, I do not things always ticked as smoothly as a good clock at the Royal Mint in the good ole days and I never understood how it was that only one reverse might be used for the 1882 (London) coins when it seems at least to me that 2 or three different reverses made at different times could have been made. Always curious to me what gets accepted as dogma, even on occasion without concrete evidence.

I was referring to 1882 of course....

Edited April 10, 2022 by VickySilver
clarity