More Pennies

[PWA 1967]

27 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

Probably why then, do you know the lot no.?

Lot 3206 Matt.

Not really into date widths and not really saying they are rare ,just more obvious.

I have an 1889 that the 9 is higher it is that wide could not of been done straight 

[Nordle11]

7 minutes ago, Rob said:

Strikes me that there must be most of these variations in date width for most years around a certain date. Just a cursory look through the crap pile gave two shapes of 5 for 1895 and two date widths for 1896 (1 narrower) and 1899 (1 wider). That was just a random sample of 14 veiled heads. Not statistically significant, but does make me question their absolute rarities.

Date widths are for the truly dedicated completionists, I personally don't get much excitement from them. Like you say, for the Victorian pennies there are many, many date widths for many, many years.. High/low/wide digits, thin/thick digits, digits with/without/extended tails, open/closed/recut digits, the list goes on. I do subscribe to the already widely recognised examples like the open 3 but not much else - although I have some examples of different spacing dates, they're not part of my main collection.

[Rob]

4 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

Date widths are for the truly dedicated completionists, I personally don't get much excitement from them. Like you say, for the Victorian pennies there are many, many date widths for many, many years.. High/low/wide digits, thin/thick digits, digits with/without/extended tails, open/closed/recut digits, the list goes on. I do subscribe to the already widely recognised examples like the open 3 but not much else - although I have some examples of different spacing dates, they're not part of my main collection.

The only thing I would have considered vaguely significant was the two 5s, one upright, one slanting slightly right. I would have expected the font not to change.

[Nordle11]

Just now, Rob said:

The only thing I would have considered vaguely significant was the two 5s, one upright, one slanting slightly right. I would have expected the font not to change.

Do you have a picture Rob?

Perhaps this is why the open 3 is considered as more of a variety, as the font changed.

[Rob]

[Nordle11]

Thanks 

[Rob]

It might just be a disintegrating punch.

[scott]

the more interesting date spreads always interest people though.

the 1861 with the very close 1 comes to mind

 

[alfnail]

7 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Lot 3206 Matt.

Not really into date widths and not really saying they are rare ,just more obvious.

I have an 1889 that the 9 is higher it is that wide could not of been done straight 

Hi Pete, think there are some collectors who would find your 1889 wide date quite desirable. The one on the link below sold for £100 at LCA in 2013, and the Crocker example (which was lower grade than LCA) sold for £170 in the Colin Cooke sale back in 2009.

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=140&searchlot=2125&searchtype=2

 

[PWA 1967]

Hi Ian.

The one i have is the same one that went unsold in the Workman sale ,so yes i dont think there are many of them.

Pete.

[scott]

been after one of those.

[PWA 1967]

I should of mentioned i bought it off ebay,but sent it to CGS as was keeping it and seemed quite scarce.

Only low grade but didnt cost much.

Pete.

[PWA 1967]

Penny collection for auction next month by Colin cooke.

Advertised in this months coin news and a collection i have viewed many times on the internet 

[davidrj]

 

On 21/04/2016 at 5:17 PM, jelida said:

I watched it too, but came to the same conclusion. But the lower bar does look weak. I have seen 1861 ONF pennies referenced, so maybe as the die wore there are some true examples out there.

Not a date spacing, but rather a die fill and/or die wear. an 166 penny

Upping the contrast shows a very faint 8

No great value but fun to spot and add to the collection, and no less significant than a filled arm of an E in my view

Edited April 23, 2016 by davidrj

[Nordle11]

Like that one David. Wouldn't mind one of those in the collection too. I have a 1963 with a very faint 6 but nothing compared to this!

[PWA 1967]

Yes thats a good one 

[RLC35]

35 minutes ago, davidrj said:

 

Not a date spacing, but rather a die fill and/or die wear. an 166 penny

Upping the contrast shows a very faint 8

No great value but fun to spot and add to the collection, and no less significant than a filled arm of an E in my view

 

David, Here is about the same thing. You can just see part of the "O" but the "N" is completely gone. 

[secret santa]

3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Penny collection for auction next month by Colin cooke.

Advertised in this months coin news and a collection i have viewed many times on the internet 

Some cracking coins in that collection !!!!!!! 

[PWA 1967]

1 minute ago, secret santa said:

Some cracking coins in that collection !!!!!!! 

Yes a nice collection so started a new thread Richard....The copthorne collection as when the catalogues go out next week and goes online i am sure there will be a coin for everyone 

[jelida]

5 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Penny collection for auction next month by Colin cooke.

Advertised in this months coin news and a collection i have viewed many times on the internet 

Is it still available on the net?

Jerry

[Prax]

I was in Croydon Coin Auctions today and wanted to let anyone interested know that they had a nice 1871 penny for sale. CCA had listed the coin as UNC and prooflike. As far as I know the coin did not sell and had a reserve of £1200. I have to stress that I won’t give it an UNC grade because I noted 4 minor problems with the coin.

1. 2 minor verdigris spots on the reverse one of which could amount to minor surface corrosion

2. Minor bag marks

3. Minor edge cut at 1 o clock

4. And minor rub or a weak strike on the obverse especially by the rose and on the front wreath leaves

Other than that the coin was a beauty I am sure it may be available for £1000, who knows. I have a better specimen  and I am saving up for the 2 big auctions in May, so I did not bid but it is not a bad coin for £1200 and I would definitely recommend viewing the coin if 1871 is a date you are after. I have to admit that in my years of collecting I haven’t seen many better grade (save 2 or 3) 1871 pennies myself.

[PWA 1967]

Hi Prax.

Sure not many would be looking for one with problems as would think most on here would have one and for not much more you can get a really nice one and problem free.

 

Sorry if i am way off ,but as you said Verd/edge cut personally its dear and why it didnt sell 

[Prax]

I agree Pete; I got mine for £1600 so not much fat there between mine and the coin in question. However if it were not for my 1871 I would have definitely bid. The 4 flaws I mentioned would missed the average collector’s eye, but then the average collector is not going to look for a choice 1871; so your point is well taken.

[Prax]

Was commenting on coin strikes in another thread and I thought of posting something about the strange 1876H penny from the Elstree Collection (lot 2431). The coin had a mirrorlike finish but also had a dig by the second 'N' of Penny. I am curious to find out if this was really a specimen strike; if so I can't see why someone would try a specimen strike on a flawed flan (especially when you consider proofs are not noted for this date as far as I know). The other possibility is that it was indeed a specimen strike that was disfigured post strike. The final possibility being the coin is a genuine early currency strike, then again the flaw is most certainly post strike, considering the rest of the coin is in mint state why would anyone mess about with just one area of the coin? Was the mint testing the metallic composition, if so they could have done that prior to striking the coin? Another reason I suspect the flaw happened post strike is - if you look at the lower part of the N you will notice that it is cleanly struck even though the metal underneath had been scooped out, if the flaw existed prior to the strike then the N would not have been cleanly struck as the striking would have caused the metal to bend inwards around the flaw. Further the flaw was certainly not a lamination problem but a clear deliberate scoop of the metal post strike (from what I inferred). It was one to study carefully but at £600 I lost interest and because I did not have my microscope to hand while inspecting the coin I could not study the coin as much as I would have loved. The flaw was irregular in shape and depth of the dig was uneven. If he owner of the coin is on the forum I would very much want to hear his views or the views of anyone who closely examined the coin or from someone who has seen a similar flaw elsewhere.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Prax

[secret santa]

I don't trust "specimen" strikes...........