More Pennies

[Peckris 2]

16 hours ago, VickySilver said:

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....

I believe only one die was produced for the 1882 London penny, so that the new electronic presses could be tested? They picked up an obverse die from what had been used for 1881, perhaps preferring to reserve the new obverse dies to send to Heatons; as for the reverse, maybe they sent ready made 1882 dies to Heatons with just the mintmark to be punched in - in which case they could use one of those for a limited strike before sending it off to Birmingham for an H to be added.

One thing's for sure, we'll never know!

[1949threepence]

22 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

No thoughts at all?

My own bet is that Heatons produced their own dies in 1882, just as they almost certainly did in 1874 and 1876. 

1874 was a mixed London mint/Heaton mint year, yet reverse I was clearly unique to Heatons. Plus they were the first to use obverse 8 (Freemans 77 & 78), an obverse not used by the London mint in 1874. So did they produce this and London were sufficiently impressed with it to adopt it themselves from 1875 to 1879.

Reverse K was also used solely by Heatons in 1876, and then only fleetingly by the London Mint in 1879.

As you say though we'll never know for sure.

  

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

My own bet is that Heatons produced their own dies in 1882, just as they almost certainly did in 1874 and 1876. 

1874 was a mixed London mint/Heaton mint year, yet reverse I was clearly unique to Heatons. Plus they were the first to use obverse 8 (Freemans 77 & 78), an obverse not used by the London mint in 1874. So did they produce this and London were sufficiently impressed with it to adopt it themselves from 1875 to 1879.

Reverse K was also used solely by Heatons in 1876, and then only fleetingly by the London Mint in 1879.

Clearly Heatons didn't design the pennies themselves - they must have used either matrices or punches supplied by the Mint (I'd love to know the technological trail behind the 'farming out' of issues to subcontractors).

Might it be possible, with designs not used by the Mint until after Heatons, that they were using their subcontractors as guinea pigs to try out new designs, using dies supplied by the Mint? Though it would seem odd, considering the changes involved were - to the layman - rather trivial and not something the Mint would be afraid to experiment with. The alternative is to suppose that Heatons had their own engraver(s) - which they certainly must have, considering they produced coins for other customers. However, there must have been liaison with Leonard Wyon or his successor, in order to make the necessary (quite small) changes to the designs.

[1949threepence]

9 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Clearly Heatons didn't design the pennies themselves - they must have used either matrices or punches supplied by the Mint (I'd love to know the technological trail behind the 'farming out' of issues to subcontractors).

Might it be possible, with designs not used by the Mint until after Heatons, that they were using their subcontractors as guinea pigs to try out new designs, using dies supplied by the Mint? Though it would seem odd, considering the changes involved were - to the layman - rather trivial and not something the Mint would be afraid to experiment with. The alternative is to suppose that Heatons had their own engraver(s) - which they certainly must have, considering they produced coins for other customers. However, there must have been liaison with Leonard Wyon or his successor, in order to make the necessary (quite small) changes to the designs.

It would be great if we could uncover some record of what went on at the time, just so as to clarify the situation. 

I looked at that link which was supplied recently, giving the Royal Mint annual reports from 1870 onwards. Sadly absolutely nothing about design and variety.

[alfnail]

On 4/8/2022 at 6:04 PM, Rob said:

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

I wanted to dwell on this 1882 Obverse / Reverse pairing, and get some more views. Just to recap:-

Gouby has the pairing as 1882Ha (P + p), plus overdate types 1882Ka (P + p) and 1882Kb (P + p)

Freeman has the same die pairing as F111 (11 + M), but goes on to say in his footnote 23 that

“All specimens of no. 111 believed to be 2/1. Only small sections of the ‘1’ are visible , as it seems to have been partially erased from the die”

I have just spent a bit of time checking my previous sales of this die pairing, and find that I have owned 3 examples of Gouby type 1882Kb (P +p).  

Below are high-definition pictures of the overdates on 2 of these 3 coins, which I believe is an exact match with the small picture bottom right on Page 78 of MG’s book:-

The red arrow shows an extra bit of the underneath 1 which I think can sometimes be seen on better examples. Whilst I do not have a high-definition picture of the 3^rd piece which I have owned (now sold) I can still see that the bit I have highlighted in yellow (on the Alderley piece) can be seen on all 3 coins, and I feel this is a distinctive / fairly obvious feature of this type.

I can also see from my past sales that I have sold many more examples of 1882 (11 + M) which have no evidence of an underlying numeral 1.  Bearing in mind that the overdate is, in my opinion, fairly easy to see I am very surprised that Freeman believed there were no examples that did not have the overdate. If he had a number of 1882’s in his sample, with this die pairing, then surely some would not have had the overdate.

Gouby, on the other hand, has 1882Ha as Rare and 1882Ka/b as Extremely Rare, which I think reflects my own observations.

 

My second thought on this type is regarding 1882Ka; a full date picture can again be found on Page 78 of Gouby’s book.

Whilst Gouby does not show a full date picture of his type 1882Kb I can see by examining my own pieces that the position of the numerals (and H) on my examples of 1882Kb seem to be in identical locations to the example of his 1882Ka. I also notice that the 1882Ka on Page 78 has all numerals (and H) doubled, and that there is additionally some ‘flawing’ between the base of the numeral 2 and the outer curve. This has left me thinking that Ka and Kb may both have been struck from the same die, but that Ka is just struck later after the die has become ‘flawed’, and that this flawing perhaps gives a false impression of a different (second) 2/1 amended die.

I have looked at Richard’s ‘englishpennies’ website but see that he does not distinguish between Ka and Kb types. I am wondering if a member a) actually owns the Ka piece pictured in Gouby’s book or b) thinks they may have an example of this Ka variety.

Apologies to any member who does not own Gouby’s book for reference!

[PWA 1967]

Just arrived yesterday and not the best picture 😀

1853 Small date P.T. and scarce.

 

[jelida]

On 4/13/2022 at 10:40 AM, alfnail said:

I wanted to dwell on this 1882 Obverse / Reverse pairing, and get some more views. Just to recap:-

Gouby has the pairing as 1882Ha (P + p), plus overdate types 1882Ka (P + p) and 1882Kb (P + p)

Freeman has the same die pairing as F111 (11 + M), but goes on to say in his footnote 23 that

“All specimens of no. 111 believed to be 2/1. Only small sections of the ‘1’ are visible , as it seems to have been partially erased from the die”

I have just spent a bit of time checking my previous sales of this die pairing, and find that I have owned 3 examples of Gouby type 1882Kb (P +p).  

Below are high-definition pictures of the overdates on 2 of these 3 coins, which I believe is an exact match with the small picture bottom right on Page 78 of MG’s book:-

The red arrow shows an extra bit of the underneath 1 which I think can sometimes be seen on better examples. Whilst I do not have a high-definition picture of the 3^rd piece which I have owned (now sold) I can still see that the bit I have highlighted in yellow (on the Alderley piece) can be seen on all 3 coins, and I feel this is a distinctive / fairly obvious feature of this type.

I can also see from my past sales that I have sold many more examples of 1882 (11 + M) which have no evidence of an underlying numeral 1.  Bearing in mind that the overdate is, in my opinion, fairly easy to see I am very surprised that Freeman believed there were no examples that did not have the overdate. If he had a number of 1882’s in his sample, with this die pairing, then surely some would not have had the overdate.

Gouby, on the other hand, has 1882Ha as Rare and 1882Ka/b as Extremely Rare, which I think reflects my own observations.

 

My second thought on this type is regarding 1882Ka; a full date picture can again be found on Page 78 of Gouby’s book.

Whilst Gouby does not show a full date picture of his type 1882Kb I can see by examining my own pieces that the position of the numerals (and H) on my examples of 1882Kb seem to be in identical locations to the example of his 1882Ka. I also notice that the 1882Ka on Page 78 has all numerals (and H) doubled, and that there is additionally some ‘flawing’ between the base of the numeral 2 and the outer curve. This has left me thinking that Ka and Kb may both have been struck from the same die, but that Ka is just struck later after the die has become ‘flawed’, and that this flawing perhaps gives a false impression of a different (second) 2/1 amended die.

I have looked at Richard’s ‘englishpennies’ website but see that he does not distinguish between Ka and Kb types. I am wondering if a member a) actually owns the Ka piece pictured in Gouby’s book or b) thinks they may have an example of this Ka variety.

Apologies to any member who does not own Gouby’s book for reference!

I have had a chance to look at my 1882’s this afternoon.  I have three F111 2/1 coins, one is as BP 1882 Ka, and the other two appear not to be ‘K’ but much more like the F114 2/1 Gouby shows,  with a small spike further to the left. These both have a miniscule protrusion on the top of the arch of the 2 that could be the top left serif of the 1. Then I have one F114 2/1 as per Gouby BP 1882 Ma. I would say that one of my F111’s is identical to the F114 overstrike, and the other may be but the spike is less distinct. So have I possibly a new variety? I will try and get some microscope pics to show what I am looking at.

Jerry

[jelida]

Interestingly Richards No2 example of F111 2/1 Rarest Pennies coins may be this new type.

Jerry

[alfnail]

Close up pictures would be good Jerry, I'm particularly interested to see your F111 Ka which matches Gouby's book. 

[jelida]

19 hours ago, alfnail said:

Close up pictures would be good Jerry, I'm particularly interested to see your F111 Ka which matches Gouby's book. 

OK, here are my attempts at close-ups using a very basic microscope with non-switchable light that really flattens everything.

First the F111 that looks like Ka.

 

[jelida]

And the  F111 with the smaller spike and top corners of the '1'.

 

[jelida]

And the other F111 with the smaller spike and top corners of the '1', and finally the F114.

Again, I'm sorry the pics are all over the place, I really do need to upgrade the microscope and stand.

 

[alfnail]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:09 PM, jelida said:

I have had a chance to look at my 1882’s this afternoon.  I have three F111 2/1 coins, one is as BP 1882 Ka, and the other two appear not to be ‘K’ but much more like the F114 2/1 Gouby shows,  with a small spike further to the left. These both have a miniscule protrusion on the top of the arch of the 2 that could be the top left serif of the 1. Then I have one F114 2/1 as per Gouby BP 1882 Ma. I would say that one of my F111’s is identical to the F114 overstrike, and the other may be but the spike is less distinct. So have I possibly a new variety? I will try and get some microscope pics to show what I am looking at.

Jerry

Thanks for the pictures Jerry.

Your ‘undoubled’ example of Ka does seem to reinforce that this is a different type of overdate to my Kb examples.

Perhaps even more interesting are your middle 3 pictures which seem to not just show the protrusion top left (like an F114 Ma) but also top right too. I think you would be justified claiming this as a new type of F111 requiring documenting, Kc.

Your F114 Ma (final picture) is exactly as I have seen myself. It’s interesting that MG says on his page 79 “the only part of the 1 that can be seen, on this example, is the small portion that sticks out centrally, half way up the 2”. I think, however, that the tiny protrusion top left can also be seen in his picture on Page 79 and may even be a clearer identifier than then protrusion halfway up the 2.

I  attach my own example as confirmation of this type.

[secret santa]

Ian, Jerry and any others

Could you please email me photos of your 1882 over 1's for the website.

[jelida]

3 hours ago, alfnail said:

Thanks for the pictures Jerry.

Your ‘undoubled’ example of Ka does seem to reinforce that this is a different type of overdate to my Kb examples.

Perhaps even more interesting are your middle 3 pictures which seem to not just show the protrusion top left (like an F114 Ma) but also top right too. I think you would be justified claiming this as a new type of F111 requiring documenting, Kc.

Your F114 Ma (final picture) is exactly as I have seen myself. It’s interesting that MG says on his page 79 “the only part of the 1 that can be seen, on this example, is the small portion that sticks out centrally, half way up the 2”. I think, however, that the tiny protrusion top left can also be seen in his picture on Page 79 and may even be a clearer identifier than then protrusion halfway up the 2.

I  attach my own example as confirmation of this type.

Thanks Ian. Presumably each 2/1 variety is a single die issue,  hence the scarcity.  I will send photos to MG and see what he thinks of the possible Kc.

And I will get pics to you too, Richard.

Jerry

[alfnail]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:35 AM, secret santa said:

Ian, Jerry and any others

Could you please email me photos of your 1882 over 1's for the website.

Hi Richard,

Will email you pictures.

[alfnail]

That 1862 B over R on ebay this evening went incredibly high, over £2000 and not that high a grade. 

 

[secret santa]

Didn't see it -can you supply link ?

[Peckris 2]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victorian-1862-Penny-In-Good-Collectable-Condition-R63-/325160503448?hash=item4bb5138898%3Ag%3Ak-EAAOSw7A1iY93V&nma=true&si=Rxbv5INqUmg1Ders9n0juMr1c2k%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

[jelida]

Not as good as mine which cost £8.

Jerry

[Iannich48]

Does that make it an 8 known coin now?

 

[secret santa]

2 hours ago, Iannich48 said:

Does that make it an 8th known coin now?

Sure does.

[1949threepence]

@alfnail

Ian, In a footnote at page 407, Peck states that bronzed currency pieces exist for 1841 (no colon), 1853 (OT), 1855 (PT) and 1857 (OT).

This is something that I've ever noticed, or seen referred to anywhere . May I respectfully ask whether you have ever come across any in your extensive experience? If so, should we regard them as scarce? I'd imagine they would only be noticeable as such, in very high states of preservation.

Thanks in advance.   

[jelida]

On 5/1/2022 at 9:49 AM, secret santa said:

Sure does.

Actually I have two more worn examples, I will send pics in due course. I bought one , but in poor condition, for 99 cents two days ago, with postage £22.

Jerrym

[Peckris 2]

On 5/4/2022 at 9:28 PM, 1949threepence said:

@alfnail

Ian, In a footnote at page 407, Peck states that bronzed currency pieces exist for 1841 (no colon), 1853 (OT), 1855 (PT) and 1857 (OT).

This is something that I've ever noticed, or seen referred to anywhere . May I respectfully ask whether you have ever come across any in your extensive experience? If so, should we regard them as scarce? I'd imagine they would only be noticeable as such, in very high states of preservation.

Thanks in advance.   

I didn't know that either. It would be great to see pictures of an example or two.