More Pennies

[blakeyboy]

On 11/20/2024 at 12:34 PM, VickySilver said:

I realize insiders know, but wonder if indeed as has been stated that one collector vacuumed up the majority or a large number of the "better" pieces....I can not compete in these leagues [anymore] but at one time knew a bit more. An older and now non-entity nowadays! LOL.

I sometimes wonder whether, if I won the lottery and bought a big pile of rarities at an auction, which lets face it, is rather easy to do,  I would get half the pleasure that I get from  finding a worn rarity at the bottom of an old tin of crap like has happened on occasion......

...and I can show off the found gem on here, instead of just hiding a pile of expensive bronze in a bank vault where no-one can see them.....

[Bernie]

3 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

I sometimes wonder whether, if I won the lottery and bought a big pile of rarities at an auction, which lets face it, is rather easy to do,  I would get half the pleasure that I get from  finding a worn rarity at the bottom of an old tin of crap like has happened on occasion......

...and I can show off the found gem on here, instead of just hiding a pile of expensive bronze in a bank vault where no-one can see them.....

Problem is, those "occasions" can be very rare.

[blakeyboy]

Ah- but isn't that where the real fun is?

[Bernie]

24 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

Ah- but isn't that where the real fun is?

I agree, but my own patience to have a collection is short! can't wait forever.

[Rob]

Tantalising. Was it or wasn't it? There's a disturbance in the field in the correct position.

[secret santa]

I've bought several like this hoping it was a number - perhaps even the fabled number 1 - but it never is !

[Rob]

11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I've bought several like this hoping it was a number - perhaps even the fabled number 1 - but it never is !

It wasn't bought in hope as it's part of a large collection I bought recently, just that the toning is the right shape and size for a filled and repurposed die. On the assumption that number 1 must have existed at some time, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the die was filled and used for currency pieces. The only reason I posted is because there is a slight disturbance at that point. When dies are filled, the surface is never completely flat, hence an open mind is useful. Unfortunately I no longer have ready access to an electron microscope.  

[Bernie]

4 hours ago, secret santa said:

I've bought several like this hoping it was a number - perhaps even the fabled number 1 - but it never is !

It would be more frustrating if a die 7 turned up!!🤣

[SilverAge3]

5 hours ago, Rob said:

Tantalising. Was it or wasn't it? There's a disturbance in the field in the correct position.

Vaguely looks like a 3. Too uncertain, though.

[alfnail]

1847 Font Variation

I am currently cataloguing an excellent Victoria ‘Young Head’ Penny collection for a colleague, about 150 coins in total. I have reached his 1847’s, and this has reminded me of something which I spotted in my own collection quite a few years ago, although my colleague does not have an example of his own.

For the YH penny series Gouby has documented many date variations, particularly in the 1850’s. These include overdates and font types as well as date widths and repaired numerals. He has not, however, currently documented any 1847 date variations.

To date I have found that 5 different obverse dies have been used in 1847, with date variations which include repaired 1’s and 4’s. The most interesting date feature, however, is that one of these obverse dies has a different fatter 7 font. This die is paired with the DEF Close Colon reverse, and it is easily identified by the die flaw after the 2^nd A of GRATIA.

Having checked past results at London Coin auctions I can see that, out of the 13 images of 1847 DEF Close Colons, there has been one other coin like this, sold by them in June 2018.

A single example from 13 makes this quite a rare variety.

Both my own piece and the one at LCA are high grade, so I am confident that the fatter numeral 7 is not due to ‘flattening’ through wear.

This font can be seen below, alongside the normal 7 used in 1847 , and the LCA piece is also shown below for reference.

I hope this is interesting for the Victorian penny collectors.   

[secret santa]

Interesting, I'll add this to my varieties site, Ian, though it would be very easy not to notice this at first and second glance !

Edited December 6, 2024 by secret santa
addition

[Coinery]

Sometimes with the crowns of the Edward pennies it’s often easier to look at what’s not there, namely the shapes of the spaces inbetween the fleurs. In this example, looking at the space enclosed by the upper section of the 7 makes it much easier to see.

Nice coin!  

[alfnail]

When I first started to collect Victorian Copper pennies, I thought that Bramah’s 1843 and 1844 DFF (varieties 3b and 4b) must only occur on a single reverse die. 

Several years ago, however, I managed to obtain a decent example of an 1843 DFF; this allowed me to see that the colon positions on this 1843 DFF were surprisingly in slightly different positions to the 1844 DFF which I already owned. Since then, I have been left wondering how the minting process has repeated such an exact defect in 1844 as had occurred on the 1843 issue…..but on two different reverse dies. 

On closer examination of my own collection, I now find that I seem to have two different 1844 DFF reverse dies. These two 1844 DFF’s have die flaws running through FID which appear to be slightly different. I attach pictures of these flaws, note in particular the point at which the flaw exits the right hand side of the I of FID. The flaws are very similar, but not exactly the same, and I think must prove they are struck from different reverse dies. Again, there are some slight differences in colon positions, which further confirms they are two different 1844 reverses.  

I would be grateful if any member can shed some light on how this particular ‘blocked die’ defect could appear on at least 3 different reverses, and look exactly the same on all of them? Is it possible perhaps that a Master die had this defect and that it was transferred to working dies? I am not an expert in that area, so would appreciate thoughts please.

 

[Peckris 2]

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

[alfnail]

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

Thanks for your reply Chris, appreciated.

The top coin does not have the I of FID repaired so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the repaired bottom coin must have been struck at a later date.

However, the top coin has a much more developed die flaw than the bottom coin so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the top coin must have been struck at a later date.

The conclusion must surely be that the two coins were struck from different reverse dies. Do you agree please?

If so, then I am still wondering how the DFF for DEF ‘blocked’ die defect could appear to be exactly the same on multiple 1844 reverse dies…….and the 1843 too.

Here are close up F’s of these two 1844’s.

[jelida]

Could there have been a chipped master die, from which two (or more) working dies were struck? Had its use spanned 1843/44 production, that would explain die’s for both dates and differing die cracks.

Jerry

[alfnail]

Thanks for this Jerry.

I was thinking along the same lines, but didn't think that the Royal Mint would have allowed a Master die with the obvious DFF defect to then be used to produce several working dies.

Shouldn't a Master die have been pretty perfect? I have no idea how stringent they would have been about this sort of thing.

I have just closely examined the REG colon position on the two 1844's, and the 1843 (all DFF's) and I'm sure they are all in slightly different locations.......the two 1844's definitely are!

 

 

[Peckris 2]

8 hours ago, alfnail said:

The top coin does not have the I of FID repaired so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the repaired bottom coin must have been struck at a later date.

However, the top coin has a much more developed die flaw than the bottom coin so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the top coin must have been struck at a later date.

The conclusion must surely be that the two coins were struck from different reverse dies. Do you agree please?

Here are close up F’s of these two 1844’s.

Surely both coins have had the I of FID repaired? They both have a pronounced curve underlying the left hand side of the upright, which can't be an aspect of the font I'd have thought.

Yes I agree about the die flaw in relation to the date of strike, so it would definitely seem to be two dies. That would point to the punch used - not the master - having the flaw?

The top coin - being later - could also have a slightly more worn die, which would account for the difference in the F, which can also be seen on the D as well.

[jelida]

20 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

I wonder if the die, having been annealed to soften for repair,  might have had the developing die crack filled and polished at the same time that the ‘I’ was re-punched -a bit high, as you say -and perhaps colon repairs also? Thus two different stages in the life of a single die, though why wouldn’t the damaged ‘E’ be repaired as well….……?

A damaged ‘E’ punch could have been used creating the ‘F’, but it would have had to be used separately while undertaking die repairs in 1843 and 1844, unless the 1843 die was skilfully filled and altered to 1844, assuming the master die was undamaged.

The damaged ‘E-F’ looks so distinctive and similar that it is difficult to believe that it arose independently on different dies.

I find this all rather confusing. Time for a beer- it’s the bellringers Christmas do tonight, much cheaper in January.

Jerry
 

 

[Coinery]

1 hour ago, jelida said:

Time for a beer- it’s the bellringers Christmas do tonight, much cheaper in January.

Jerry
 

 

Ahhhh, campanology…I had a spell of this in my local village during my twenties. Such a wonderful and ancient sound, it makes my soul sing to hear those time-honoured peels across the English countryside.

[alfnail]

13 hours ago, jelida said:

The damaged ‘E-F’ looks so distinctive and similar that it is difficult to believe that it arose independently on different dies.

Agree with that Jerry, so I guess I’m trying to find a way to explain the die flaws looking very similar on both coins (but not exact same locations), also the REG colons in different locations (the other ones may be the same).

Looking again at the FID pictures there are so many things that look the same, making it difficult to believe that they are struck from different dies, particularly bearing in mind the blocked E in DEF.

Zooming in at the borders of these two coins I now find that the teeth, and the gaps between them, seem to be identical in their shape and size. If, for example, you examine the gaps highlighted in red in the attached pictures then the one highlighted on the left does NOT have a completely curved top to it (unlike the others), and the one highlighted towards the right has a line running through the top of the gaps. This is the only gap (out of 12) where that line is obvious…..and it is on both coins! Surely that is too much of a coincidence to be on 2 different dies.     

Perhaps, as you indicated, the events were that:-

a)      the obvious flaw, seen on the top coin, was removed from the die.

b)      this would have led to the I of FID needing to be repaired, but they entered it too high (as shown in the bottom coin).

c)      the flaw later returned, as it is an inherent weakness in the die, but it returned in a slightly different location e.g. where it exits top right of F of FID.  

Am I again missing something? I missed the bulge on the left of the I of FID because I was looking so closely at the protrusion at the bottom…..but Chris thankfully pointed that out.

[jelida]

2 hours ago, alfnail said:

Agree with that Jerry, so I guess I’m trying to find a way to explain the die flaws looking very similar on both coins (but not exact same locations), also the REG colons in different locations (the other ones may be the same).

Looking again at the FID pictures there are so many things that look the same, making it difficult to believe that they are struck from different dies, particularly bearing in mind the blocked E in DEF.

Zooming in at the borders of these two coins I now find that the teeth, and the gaps between them, seem to be identical in their shape and size. If, for example, you examine the gaps highlighted in red in the attached pictures then the one highlighted on the left does NOT have a completely curved top to it (unlike the others), and the one highlighted towards the right has a line running through the top of the gaps. This is the only gap (out of 12) where that line is obvious…..and it is on both coins! Surely that is too much of a coincidence to be on 2 different dies.     

Perhaps, as you indicated, the events were that:-

a)      the obvious flaw, seen on the top coin, was removed from the die.

b)      this would have led to the I of FID needing to be repaired, but they entered it too high (as shown in the bottom coin).

c)      the flaw later returned, as it is an inherent weakness in the die, but it returned in a slightly different location e.g. where it exits top right of F of FID.  

Am I again missing something? I missed the bulge on the left of the I of FID because I was looking so closely at the protrusion at the bottom…..but Chris thankfully pointed that out.

I think this has to be the most likely scenario, your work on the teeth does seem to confirm the dies being the same.  Now, you need to find non DFF examples with the same distinctive border features!

Jerry

[blakeyboy]

On 11/30/2024 at 4:46 PM, Rob said:

Tantalising. Was it or wasn't it? There's a disturbance in the field in the correct position.

 

I just noticed this  - hmm....is it the same "disturbance in the field" that told Darth that Obi-wan was dead?

[alfnail]

On 1/17/2025 at 10:42 AM, jelida said:

I think this has to be the most likely scenario, your work on the teeth does seem to confirm the dies being the same.  Now, you need to find non DFF examples with the same distinctive border features!

Jerry

It would have been good to also have a detailed picture of FID on the 1843 DFF, to compare against the 1844 pictures above.

Unfortunately I sold my example to Mike Hopkins several years ago, so the picture below is the best I have got from that piece. Can't really examine the teeth, but it looks like the I of FID is in line with F and D, and that it has not been repaired. Also, possibly, the start of a flaw exiting top right hand side of the F.

Does anyone else have a high grade 1843 DFF example they could picture.......maybe Richard has one?

   

[secret santa]

Here you go.