the 1953 pennies

[secret santa]

My second attempt to list the various 1953 penny types:

1953 pennies.jpg

I now discover that I do have a photograph of BP1953L (which is the coin sold at Spink in Dec 2014) and it is the same die combination as my BP1953R (C*+ although I'm not convinced that mine is a matt proof.

[Mr T]

So, trying to make sense of all that:

Gouby C* is the 122 rim beads.

The Spink coin uses obverse C*.

Excluding the toothless border there are six varieties - the toothed, the three mules, the regular proof and the specimen.

Also, secret santa, you say BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R have the same die combination but they are different in your table. The Spink coin appears to be C*+a (which is what it should be in your table too I think - reverse b would make it not a mule).

Also, does the Spink Numismatic Circular shed any light on the origins on these mules?

[Mr T]

Actually as I think about this further is the question now whether BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R are the same thing?

[secret santa]

Actually as I think about this further is the question now whether BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R are the same thing?

Michael Gouby's letter on the subject (attached on an earlier post) defined my penny as BP1953R (in the absence of proof that they were the same variety) and said that they could be from the same dies (I think they probably are). Michael hasn't held both coins in his hand to say whether they are the same variety. The article in the NC (by M Brehm) was written long before I pointed out to Michael that I had found a penny with 122 beads. Michael then compared a photo of my coin with his coin (the ex-Brehm coin BP1953L from the article) and they appear to be similar with regard to the legend v bead configuration (i.e. which letter points to which bead). However, my coin does not appear to be a proof although it could be a slightly more worn version of his which is described as "probably from sand-blasted dies". So they could be one and the same variety although no-one has compared the 2 side by side.

Spink NC article attached

[secret santa]

Actually as I think about this further is the question now whether BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R are the same thing?

Michael Gouby's letter on the subject (attached on an earlier post) defined my penny as BP1953R (in the absence of proof that they were the same variety) and said that they could be from the same dies (I think they probably are). Michael hasn't held both coins in his hand to say whether they are the same variety. The article in the NC (by M Brehm) was written long before I pointed out to Michael that I had found a penny with 122 beads. Michael then compared a photo of my coin with his coin (the ex-Brehm coin BP1953L from the article) and they appear to be similar with regard to the legend v bead configuration (i.e. which letter points to which bead). However, my coin does not appear to be a proof although it could be a slightly more worn version of his which is described as "probably from sand-blasted dies". So they could be one and the same variety although no-one has compared the 2 side by side.

Spink NC article attached

Spink NC BP1953L.jpg

And yes, they should both be C*+a

[Mr T]

Okay, then that means the die combinations are:

A+a // BP 1953 K

B+a // BP 1953 M

B+b // BP 1953 A

C*+a // BP 1953 L/BP 1953 R

C+b // BP 1953 P

I've had a read through again and perhaps I've missed it but I'm not sure what the difference between BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R is - is it just the strike/finish, but they are both C*+a?

Also, I assume Gouby means B and not B* is his letter.

[terrysoldpennies]

Mr T . I see you've left out B+x . can't see why . X rev below Terry

[secret santa]

22 hours ago, Mr T said:

Okay, then that means the die combinations are:

A+a // BP 1953 K

B+a // BP 1953 M

B+b // BP 1953 A

C*+a // BP 1953 L/BP 1953 R

C+b // BP 1953 P

I've had a read through again and perhaps I've missed it but I'm not sure what the difference between BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R is - is it just the strike/finish, but they are both C*+a?

Also, I assume Gouby means B and not B* is his letter.

Mr T

It's not quite right to equate a die combination with a Gouby identifier (e.g. BP1953A)

Gouby assigns an identifier to each unique variety, i.e.  combination of year, die pairing, variant (currency, proof, overstrike, different metal, flan size, etc etc)

So, for example, die pairing C+b exists as BP1953P (proof) and should be given a separate identifier such as BP1953Pa for the matt proof (for photographic purposes) which Gouby does not list.

BP1953M (B+a) is the highly polished proof from the VIP set but I have a (B+a) which is much more like a circulation coin and therefore should have a separate identifier.

In the same way that 1967 pennies exist as BP1967A (normal issue), BP1967F (heavy flan), BP1967G (brass) and there should be new identifiers for the cupro-nickel strike and the missing waves variety of 1967.

Thus, we are not sure that BP1953L and BP1953R are the same variety because no-one has compared the 2 side by side. BP1953L is described by Gouby as a matt proof but my BP1953R does not seem to be a proof to me. They are certainly the same die pairing but may not be the same variety.

Re his mention of B* in his letter - Gouby uses B* to indicate the highly polished version of Obverse B used for the VIP proof coin in his illustrations in "The British Bronze Penny" but does not include it in the list of varieties at the back of the book. If he did, it would be BP1953M (B*+a)  so my (B+a) would still need a separate identifier.

Hope this is clear.

[secret santa]

18 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Mr T . I see you've left out B+x . can't see why . X rev below Terry

Yes, BP1953N is B+x as Terry says.

[Mr T]

18 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Mr T . I see you've left out B+x . can't see why . X rev below Terry

Yes, I left it out for simplicity as that reverse is only paired with one obverse - no questions or ambiguities there I hope.

 

11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Mr T

It's not quite right to equate a die combination with a Gouby identifier (e.g. BP1953A)

Gouby assigns an identifier to each unique variety, i.e.  combination of year, die pairing, variant (currency, proof, overstrike, different metal, flan size, etc etc)

So, for example, die pairing C+b exists as BP1953P (proof) and should be given a separate identifier such as BP1953Pa for the matt proof (for photographic purposes) which Gouby does not list.

BP1953M (B+a) is the highly polished proof from the VIP set but I have a (B+a) which is much more like a circulation coin and therefore should have a separate identifier.

In the same way that 1967 pennies exist as BP1967A (normal issue), BP1967F (heavy flan), BP1967G (brass) and there should be new identifiers for the cupro-nickel strike and the missing waves variety of 1967.

Thus, we are not sure that BP1953L and BP1953R are the same variety because no-one has compared the 2 side by side. BP1953L is described by Gouby as a matt proof but my BP1953R does not seem to be a proof to me. They are certainly the same die pairing but may not be the same variety.

Re his mention of B* in his letter - Gouby uses B* to indicate the highly polished version of Obverse B used for the VIP proof coin in his illustrations in "The British Bronze Penny" but does not include it in the list of varieties at the back of the book. If he did, it would be BP1953M (B*+a)  so my (B+a) would still need a separate identifier.

Hope this is clear.

Okay I see - my main point of confusion was what die combinations existed, but yes you're right that Gouby's identifiers go beyond just the die combination. Many thanks.