More Pennies

[Avocet]

16 hours ago, secret santa said:

Things like this can be collectible without being a "variety".

If we start calling them varieties, it invites anyone with a hammer and chisel to start creating their own varieties.

I'm not sure I understand. Is anyone suggesting that features like those on the 1915 pennies pictured above were not created during the minting process?

If we do call such things varieties (not an issue I was attempting to address) how does that give the green light to the sort of nefarious activity you are describing?

[Peckris 2]

10 hours ago, Avocet said:

I'm not sure I understand. Is anyone suggesting that features like those on the 1915 pennies pictured above were not created during the minting process?

If we do call such things varieties (not an issue I was attempting to address) how does that give the green light to the sort of nefarious activity you are describing?

What is, and is not, a variety is something of a 'grey area'. Decades ago, 1961 halfcrowns without the engraver initials EF on the reverse were considered to be a variety. However as soon as it became clear that it was the result of a filled die, it disappeared from the list of varieties overnight. Only very rarely are such things classed as varieties, the exceptions being things like the 1946 ONE' penny. They are accidents of the minting process rather than design changes and therefore only collected by a small group of people.

[Avocet]

14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

What is, and is not, a variety is something of a 'grey area'. Decades ago, 1961 halfcrowns without the engraver initials EF on the reverse were considered to be a variety. However as soon as it became clear that it was the result of a filled die, it disappeared from the list of varieties overnight. Only very rarely are such things classed as varieties, the exceptions being things like the 1946 ONE' penny. They are accidents of the minting process rather than design changes and therefore only collected by a small group of people.

Coincidentally I checked my very small pile of 1961 half crowns the other week, prompted by seeing the missing EF abnormality listed on Michael Gouby's site. And I find that I have one, now properly installed in my collection as a coin of interest.

Generally my wife's attitude to my hobbies is one of resigned acceptance at best, but she "gets" my coin collecting. I find people are genuinely interested when I show them examples of variations and abnormalities and talk about the stories behind them. The unanswered questions help to add to the intrigue.

 

[secret santa]

On 7/8/2026 at 12:13 PM, Avocet said:

I'm not sure I understand. Is anyone suggesting that features like those on the 1915 pennies pictured above were not created during the minting process?

In my humble opinion, varieties are created by the design process, i.e. the decision to strike a coin from a selected pair of obverse and reverse designs. Any anomalies created by the minting (or striking) process are exactly that - anomalies, collectibility of which is in the eye of the beholder. The confusion was probably started by Freeman's decision to grant a variety number to the 1897 Dot penny. As I say, just my opinion. And the debate will probably go on forever. On my websites, I refer to variations to a particular "variety", such as variation in the date spacing, as a "sub-variety" whereas Gouby assigns specific identifiers.

You pays your money......................

[Peckris 2]

18 hours ago, secret santa said:

In my humble opinion, varieties are created by the design process, i.e. the decision to strike a coin from a selected pair of obverse and reverse designs. Any anomalies created by the minting (or striking) process are exactly that - anomalies, collectibility of which is in the eye of the beholder. The confusion was probably started by Freeman's decision to grant a variety number to the 1897 Dot penny. As I say, just my opinion. And the debate will probably go on forever. On my websites, I refer to variations to a particular "variety", such as variation in the date spacing, as a "sub-variety" whereas Gouby assigns specific identifiers.

You pays your money......................

I agree with all that. However I'd lay the blame not with Freeman but with Coin Monthly! I started collecting as a schoolboy in the late 60s and the very first issue I bought had a Beginners Page featuring (did they call them "varieties"? Can't remember..) three pennies, two of which have been mentioned here: the 1897 O.NE and the 1946 ONE' - plus a Vic copper penny though I don't recall which date or where the extra dot was.

I think that as a result of that notoriety, those particular anomalies became accepted as varieties.

[Rob]

One of the fundamental rules of collecting is that it is entirely down to individual taste, with no right or wrong. A person unable to see alternative views is too blinkered or has an unhealthy personal interest in the outcome.

It is also a given that if someone writes down their research on paper, some people will collect said identified differences. One or more of the latter group will then see anomalies and try to rationalise them, and so the research continues. The logical conclusion therefore is that eventually, we will able to identify nearly all of the coin dies that were ever made. Not 100%, but pretty damn close. As a reference point - great. As a collecting aim - get a life if you want everything, and ask to carry any brownie points into the afterlife, because you will need all the time you have 10x over

I can't explain why, but whenever I hear the passionate debates about what is right and wrong and the refusal to back down on a view, I am always reminded of the late Eric Heffer's speech in the Commons concerning the Labour left's hounding of Princess Michael of Kent regarding her father being in the SS during WW2. The basics were along the lines of: I think it important that someone from this side says this. I've never met the woman, have no desire to meet her and I am unlikely to ever do so, but in a democracy, nobody can be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. So if those  trying to make political capital from this would kindly sit down and shut up, we can get on with the business for which we were duly elected. He may have been left wing, but living in a democracy topped his political views

By extrapolation, a tolerance of conflicting views ensures that life can continue peacefully, with the only likely damage in numismatics being data overload. I can live with that. The views will always be diverse, only the tolerance varies.

[secret santa]

I wonder why Freeman included the 1897 dot in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain" but not the ONE ' - maybe because the latter looks like an extraneous piece of metal whereas he postulates that the perfectly round dot on the 1897 might be some kind of identification mark.

Either way those two example are much easier to describe concisely, just as you have done, than the other spurious dot types which can appear anywhere on the coin.

[Avocet]

I can quite see how a snappy descriptor, coupled with just the right level of scarcity, adds a touch of glamour to a particular coin and helps to make it more sought after -  whether the V word is carelessly applied or not.

Against the dot pennies, the poor old "1915 extra bar penny" doesn't stand much a chance, despite its origins and scarcity being broadly similar (IMO).

 

[Peckris 2]

6 hours ago, Avocet said:

I can quite see how a snappy descriptor, coupled with just the right level of scarcity, adds a touch of glamour to a particular coin and helps to make it more sought after -  whether the V word is carelessly applied or not.

Against the dot pennies, the poor old "1915 extra bar penny" doesn't stand much a chance, despite its origins and scarcity being broadly similar (IMO).

 

It may or may not attract enough interest to eventually be classed as a variety. Do some research, write an article, and who knows? Gouby listed the 1946 ONE' and claimed it was scarcer than the 1926ME. I used his note in my ultimately successful effort to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, which would  have increased collector interest several times over.

[alfnail]

For 'date width' collectors.

Picked up quite a nice 1895 1mm penny, which looks to me to be something in between Gouby's Ba and Bb, with the centre base of the 5 neither directly over a gap (Ba) or directly over a tooth (Bb, wider).

 

[alfnail]

.....actually, perhaps a bit narrower than Ba!!

[Paddy]

I don't have Gouby and I haven't really got into these date width varieties, but I get from the above that mine is Ba?

[alfnail]

Yes, I think yours is a Ba Paddy, slightly wider and directly over a gap between teeth

[Avocet]

On 7/10/2026 at 8:51 PM, Peckris 2 said:

It may or may not attract enough interest to eventually be classed as a variety. Do some research, write an article, and who knows? Gouby listed the 1946 ONE' and claimed it was scarcer than the 1926ME. I used his note in my ultimately successful effort to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, which would  have increased collector interest several times over.

I found my first 1946 ONE' penny today, in the rummage box at Dervaird Farm, Glenluce. It was obverse up on the bottom, looking like it might not have been looked at in years. One of those sublime moments.

In view of your message above, I have to thank you for making it an even more desirable coin than it might otherwise have been😉

Edited September 10 by Avocet

[Peckris 2]

I found maybe 3 or 4 as a schoolboy in the late 60s, and only because few people knew about it (an issue of Coin Monthly in 1968 first drew my attention to it). Sadly my examples are in average circulated condition - high grade examples seem few and far between.