1949threepence

Speaking personally, I suppose I'd probably go for the fine 1843 if it was no colon after reg. Undoubtedly scarcer than the REG: but judging by your figures, Ian, not "vastly the rarer of the two 1843 varieties", as exaggeratedly described by one dealer. Oddly enough I had no difficulty getting a slender seven 1857, and have seen several for sale, but mostly lowish grade. The one I have is about EF, but the term "sometime cleaned, now retoning" could reasonably be applied to it.

You never know what you might find in them.......

What's it want this time?

Agree with all the above. Given that Bramah's book was written over 90 years ago, and Peck's great work was over 60 years ago, we could certainly do with a new updated 21st century book for pre 1860 copper coinage. So many new varieties discovered since then.

Ian, again thanks so much for the incredibly useful info in the above twp posts.. Never realised there was also a rectangular shaped down serif to the 1857 seven.

I know someone on here managed to find one in about VF - EF, a couple or so years ago. Don't know precisely when or who though, nor on what thread. Probably "penny acquisition of the week".

The 2p I can understand. Not so sure about the £2. I would have thought the 1, 2, 5 & 10.

He sold me one some time ago.

Thanks Ian. These 4/3's are doubly difficult to identify as most don't have enough of a close up date shot to tell one way or the other, and very few are actually attributed (correctly or otherwise) as such anyway. With that said, the sloping colon and the worn hair are clearly helpful pointers.

Some weird system fault.

Thanks - how many have you seen, out of interest?

Well what a superb day it's been today. Blue sky, sun and just comfortable temperatures. Sat out in the garden for a couple of hours. Very quiet - no birdsong now, except for the wood pigeons. Also, no planes again, after making a re-appearance a few weeks ago. Sky silent for the entire 2 hours. Bees are still at the remaining flowers, but not many wasps this year. Not round here at any rate. There were a lot late Summer last year.

Just to clarify - do you also want small date 1858/6, or just plain small date 1858?

It was exactly 6 months ago today that I started my pre 1860 Victorian copper penny collection, and as I've been obsessively scouring dealer's lists, auction sites and e bay on a daily or even twice daily basis since, I thought it might be quite informative to state scarcity of the different varieties as I've experienced them, out of interest. I've now got almost all the main types, except for 1843 no colon after reg, 1849, 1856 OT and 1860/59. This is how I've found the Bramah and Peck varieties availability:- Bramah 2a - 1841 light curved marking to left of foot of 4, an 8 having apparently been commenced there - *one seen, correctly attributed, bought, dealer EF Bramah 2c - 1841 the upper arm of last F is halfway down upstroke - two seen, one bought, e bay, EF, neither attributed, just offered as date type. Bramah 3b - 1843 Last E is incomplete having no base stroke or upper serif to up-stroke (DFF) - none seen Bramah 4b - 1844 as 3b - *one seen, dealer, correctly attributed, bought, F Medusa 1847 - *one seen offered, not bought. Bramah 10a/Peck 1494 - 1848/6 - *one seen, bought, dealer, VF . Same dealer had another touted as 1848/6, but magnification showed it clearly wasn't. Bramah 15/Peck 1503 - 1853 OT last colon slightly nearer F >5 seen, one bought, dealer, EF. Commoner than I expected and only the one I bought was attributed as such, the remainder offered as date type. 1853 plain trident - 3 seen, one bought, dealer, bargain, EF. The other two sub fine on e bay. Not at all easy to get. Bramah 17a/Peck 1507 - 1854 OT no colons - *one seen and bought, dealer, not quite fine. Bramah 18a/Peck 1505 - 1854/3, none seen offered for sale. Several touted as 1854/6, but, as I suspected, not the real deal. Much rarer than indicated by either Peck or Bramah. Bramah 23a - 1857 OT - no serif to the figure 7 in date - none seen, anywhere. Does this variety even exist? Bramah 24a/Peck 1514 - 1857 PT - date in much smaller figures >5 seen, one bought VF, e bay. Bramah 25c - 1858 - over/? - *one seen, bought, dealer F Bramah 26a - 1858 first I is without serifs - 2 seen, one bought, dealer VF, unattributed. Peck 1517 - 1858 date in smaller figures - *one seen, dealer, bought - doubles up as 8/6 Peck 1520 - 1859 date in smaller figures - >5 seen, one bought, e bay, a/UNC * one only seen offered in the 6 months from any source, before or since the purchase. No attempt yet made to collect any pre 1857 varying date sizes, types, width.

Thanks. Oh well, it'll still be interesting to look at.

A perfect illustration of why it would be a great idea for us to run with Jerry's excellent proposition.

Excellent idea, especially as the reliability of Royal Mail seems to be declining at present.

As nobody else has stepped forward to attempt an answer, I'll give my two penn'uth. Interesting question. Logically, I don't think there can be a small date type other than the one we know with the tall slim 7. But what intrigues me slightly from that list, is the price Spink's were asking as compared to the other 1857's, for a date type that really isn't that scarce even now, 125 years later. You'd think that in 1895, after 38 years, it would have been known about, as the differences are striking, even to the naked eye. I've ordered a copy of Montagu's 1893 book (which was available as a modern paperback reprint for just £10.95 off Amazon), to see if he makes any mention of date types for the 1839 to 1860 period for pennies.

Anybody who's got a copy of Bramah's work will know that on page 106, at type 24a, he mentions that the date of the plain trident 1857 penny is in much smaller figures, and refers to col 1108 of the March 1895 Numismatic Circular. I've managed to obtain a scan of this, and although it doesn't amount to very much, it is nonetheless quite interesting to look at.

That's why I never bothered with it.

An interesting one sold on e bay today - 1862 penny with dot between O and N of one. Similar sort of place to the 1897 and 1909 dot types. link

Yep, definitely the same coin, right down to the reverse fingerprint. Pure scam - note the "seller's" feedback count, nil.