More Pennies

[secret santa]

Michael Gouby sent me a photo of another 1861 F27 ! I've added it to the rare penny site.

They're still out there !!!!

[alfnail]

I bought an 1858/6 during the week, mainly because of the accompanying note written by Charles Wilson Peck, which I found quite interesting.

Members will know that the 1858/6 was neither recorded by Bramah (1929), or Peck (1964). It is a reasonably difficult coin to find, particularly in a better grade, but I have always found it rather surprising that neither of these authors recorded this variety. I do not regard it as very rare, and it is also a fairly obvious type once you see one ‘in the hand’.

Anyway, the letter from Peck (which I bought with the coin) was as attached, with my own yellow highlighting now added.

You will note that the letter is dated Nov’66, which is just over a year before Peck passed away, in April 1968.

Fortunately, I was also able to contact the seller of the coin, through ebay, and he replied as follows:-

“the coin had been in my possession since I bought it in 1966. It wasn’t listed as an overstrike but I noticed it and had it confirmed by Peck who was the leading authority of English copper at the time."

I think this letter is a nice bit of history, and it also contains a couple of interesting comments, for example Peck’s thoughts on minor date widths. I found it particularly interesting that he mentioned someone called Bressett, a name which I had not come across before. I now see that the American author, Kenneth Bressett wrote several editions of a book called ‘A Guide to English Coins’, starting in the early 1960’s (Peck was aware of the contents of the first edition).

This made me wonder if I could find the edition in which he may have first recorded the 1858/6. If anyone reading this has a later edition then perhaps you wouldn’t mind looking to see if the 1858/6 penny has been noted. 

P.S. £10 in 1966 is now worth £230!  

[Peckris 2]

the letter is almost more of a collectors' piece than the coin itself.

[Rob]

Bresset doesn't list it in the 1965 (4th ed.) book, so I suspect the following year is your best bet, unless conveyed verbally/letter.

[alfnail]

21 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

the letter is almost more of a collectors' piece than the coin itself.

 

20 hours ago, Rob said:

Bresset doesn't list it in the 1965 (4th ed.) book, so I suspect the following year is your best bet, unless conveyed verbally/letter.

Indeed Peckris, although I think I probably won't lose any money when I sell the coin, fingers crossed. Then I would have a free letter, which is the bit I wanted anyway.

Thanks for looking at the 4th edition Rob, just need to find someone with 5th edition or later! 

[secret santa]

Gary Schindler wanted these pages added to this post:

 

 

Edited January 15, 2024 by secret santa

[alfnail]

Presumably Bressett Richard (as $ are used), but did Gary say which editions? I see the pages have different information, so must be two different ones. 

[alfnail]

Gary has now written to me and advised that the top image is 8th edition in 1975, and bottom image is 9th edition in 1982. Bressett had 1858/6 as 'Rare' in 1975; I'm thinking that its first appearance must have been before that, in 5th to 7th editions. Thanks to Gary for the additional information, also interesting to see some of the $ movements in those seven years e.g. the 1860/59

[Rob]

If Peck knew that Bressett had written about it and reiterated this in a letter dated 1966, it only leaves 2 options. Either it is included in the 1966-7 edition of Bressett, or whenever the next edition was published depending on whether he knew before the 5th edition went to print. I'm assuming the advice was by letter or telephone given the letter is dated 1966. There is a fifth edition listed on ebay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325963803688?hash=item4be4f4ec28:g:3XsAAOSwelpgwTTb&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4CXC1kcT8Pgn1wofpXIBaezimKqcb6r7OGnowqU63xVmOPug4KwnR%2BB2ThsmfVuWW4c%2B%2FUKYvKV9MgUg8LLPt4su2pT8a7u%2Fvtj9FOHdW%2FkrbQNiZyTnz7Z15qR95dLHdyWtYkHlIipAtdgOmvmEG%2BOHQoyr1opQUqeT01UpEauZPvPTfETWUus5OK7oluY3Kbu2W4XFEdFGuigXLF%2BkS4AYhK7HGwVhoYnqWLM0oKKjPL8bHUf5Jo3iPmYMgJk4EUFSGzQ7uJtv1vftp68aRv2wLuMwm1%2FBOmqjLjbzNj6d|tkp%3ABFBMsobV-aFj

[mick1271]

Quote

 

The 6th edition was issued in 1968 .I picked one up from a UK seller on ebay for a couple of quid .Should have it in a day or two.

[oldcopper]

Fascinating letter. I see the 58/3 described as 59/8 in the later edition. Never thought of that before - I wonder if that makes sense for Bramah's other 58/3 variety with the hump coming out of the left of the lower 8 and the vague straight mark in the middle right join of the 8. Normally overstriking give a stronger overstrike than understrike but I don't know if that's the case here if it really is 9/8.

Peck didn't put the 1858/6 variety in his Addenda to 2nd edition of 1967 (BNJ) which confirms he wasn't sure of it being a 6, as he says, or else he had submitted or finished his paper by the time of this correspondence.

Dave Craddock sold a D/U 1825 farthing several years ago now with a confirmatory letter from Peck, and that got into his 1967 article, so he was more certain about that one.

Edited January 16, 2024 by oldcopper

[secret santa]

14 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

I wonder if that makes sense for Bramah's other 58/3 variety with the hump coming out of the left of the lower 8 and the vague straight mark in the middle right join of the 8?

[oldcopper]

42 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Thanks! A very strange 9 if it is one with a sharp top. I think there was a thread on this overstrike a while ago with people going over this in far more detail.

[Mr T]

Not in the 3rd edition (1964) of A Guide Book of English Coins.

[Coinery]

On 1/16/2024 at 10:12 AM, secret santa said:

So what do they do, then, with the old digit ‘hole’ left on the old die, before striking in a new digit? With hammered coins the old digit is just crudely overlaid as best as is able.

Now, the reason I ask is because, according to the lighting, I see digits at three distinct depths, the 8 at the intermediate (middle) depth, a higher (deeper on the die) bottom section of a three (but having the wrong serif when briefly looking at other 1853s), and lower (shallow on the die) diagonal stroke, extending out of the eight, not correlating with very much, except maybe a seven? 

Was there ever a satisfactory outcome to this overdate or has it remained a mystery? 
 

[secret santa]

It remains a mystery.

[alfnail]

.....and there is also this diagonal line, highlighted red

 

[Coinery]

28 minutes ago, alfnail said:

.....and there is also this diagonal line, highlighted red

 

Yes, that’s the diagonal I was referring to. You know what, that vertical line is far too straight in your example to be anything connected with the ‘curved’ numbers. Has anyone ever considered it might be a four, and that the remaining bottom loop and part serif is nothing other than a poor repair of the  eight with an old, possibly broken punch?

I’m sure you’ve all been over it a million times already. I guess it’s going to sit on the unidentified variety pile for some considerable time, maybe even forever?

[mick1271]

On 1/16/2024 at 7:44 AM, mick1271 said:

The 6th edition was issued in 1968 .I picked one up from a UK seller on ebay for a couple of quid .Should have it in a day or two.

Quote

 

Book arrived today ,and the 1858 over 6 was in it .

[alfnail]

3 hours ago, Coinery said:

Has anyone ever considered it might be a four, and that the remaining bottom loop and part serif is nothing other than a poor repair of the  eight with an old, possibly broken punch?

Yes, this was something I mentioned a couple of years back on 'more pennies'. I'm not at all confident about it being a '4' though, and still regard some of the overdates on these 1858 pennies as a bit of a mystery, especially the one that is found paired with the large rose reverse...........that can also be seen on the following link:-  

  1858/3 Penny - Page 3 - British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries - British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

 

[Coinery]

Interestingly there’s an image on the other thread that makes me see a three for the first time, and a clear rear serif of a four!

Here’s a proposal…what about an original three, with a four inserted the following year, BUT it broke up during the insertion (bits in the red circle), making the die irreparable/useless until the next useable digit came along to cover up the mess, which could only be an eight or a nine?

[secret santa]

When one talks about the possible 1858 overdates, there is an assumption that previous dies from an earlier year were reused with the final digit being altered or over-punched, i.e the 1858 over 3 is an altered die from 1853 (or, as Gouby theorises, 1852). One assumes that the Bramah 25c above also results from these dies or 1854 or even other.

The problem is that the 1858 large date, 1858 over 3 and the Bramah 25c are clearly struck with the classic large date 5 with the distinctively shaped pointed top as seen below:

   (sorry about the different size of images)

But 1853 and 1854 (and 1851) pennies, however, were struck with very differently shaped 5s, suggesting that dies from those years were NOT re-used.

   

 

Unless I'm missing something ?

 

 

Edited January 20, 2024 by secret santa

[alfnail]

I agree Richard.

The 1858/6 has the smaller numeral 5 font, but all other 1858 overdates have the 5 font which you reference as 'classic' in your first picture above.

The only other years which also use that 'classic 5' font are 1856 (some PT's), 1857, 1858 and 1859.

It is difficult to see, therefore, how an 1854/3 (which does of course exist), can then become an 1858/4/3, when none of the 4 different 5 fonts used in 1853 are this 'classic 5' style. 

 

[secret santa]

And here's another example - listed as 1858 over 3 on Ebay but it doesn't have the characteristic die flaw through the base of the numerals, although it does have the "classic" large 5.

[secret santa]

On 1/16/2024 at 10:12 AM, secret santa said:

Given the large 5 was only used from 1856-59, could the last numeral be a combination of 7, 8 and 9 ?