Coinery

Going strong for a 4-year-old post!

The argument of it possibly being a clogged H is quite simply that some junk got into the tiny impressed H on the die...the rest is history. This wouldn't matter whether it was the first or the 50th coin off the production line. Namely, it wouldn't depend upon any circulation wear to exist, though the phenomenon would be better disguised on a circulated coin without doubt who knows, and this will out one day...it may have been a clog that was spotted and cleared (or re-lettered) quite quickly at the mint? Who knows? I think the jury is out at the moment, but this'll still make it a rare and important penny variety, like so many other clogs and flaws of the penny series. There are enough people interested in this variety that we shall all know about its properly evidenced verification very soon. penny varieties are beginning to dry up, which means some very serious people are looking at what's left out there. not me, though! however: I do fancy an 'anything goes' collection of Victoria in the future, to keep my eye in on the milled, once the EII pennies begin to trickle back in again. i think that's enough coin whoring for one lifetime...to finish up with any Plantagenets, Elizabeth I gold, and any Victorian coinage (all metals) is a good final resting place, covering every budget of most people's journey through life! how exciting!

OK, just to play devil's advocate, let's say the coin was sent off and CGS unquestionably sent it back as a no-H variety, would we all accept that as valid, done and dusted, when MG, Bamford, et al. (et al. meaning all of us and our own insights and presented evidence) could not conclude on it? i know my TPGC position is well known, so I apologise when I say £14.50 does not answer the question at all, not ever. I'm still waiting for that slabbed Northumberland or Gothic Crown to bring the whole Empire crashing to its fallible knees. no offence intended!

Yay, a reply!

I'll dig it out tomorrow for you BCC!

So, just out of interest, does CGS acknowledge that a no-H exists? are they the only ones? As you know, I have VERY limited variety penny knowledge, so could be totally barking up the wrong tree here but, reading between the lines, and all the posts on the subject, I'm getting the impression that not even the big penny references are buying this?

Pennies? What pennies?

6? i'd say not, on a couple of points! primarily that the underlying digit looks tilted to me, which has the back arch of the upper loop sloping rightward, explaining the bottom 'bobble' of the under-letter appearing to sit inward of the top loop (does that make sense?). secondly, it's unlikely a six punch was to hand at a time there was a perfectly decent 9 punch in service?

Beyond a shadow of a doubt for me!

But who can look better than you (or us), Pete? Unfortunately I think this variety needs some lustre over a blank field to finally break through as an authenticated variety. Does CGS recognise and grade this as a variety, then? reminds me, must get in touch with this guy: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/6870-expert-tooling-in-fields/#comment-68394 edit: only just realised not one miserable sod even bothered to comment on my 'tooled fields' post! It's a miracle I'm still here annoying everyone!

Agree that enough of a hint is there, that the clogged die hypothesis stands defiantly up for me. I certainly wouldn't be paying any premium whatsoever for this variety, unless something very magical turns up. There have been enough serious penny collectors investigating and seeking this coin out that I'm going to say it would've likely been found by now, with incontestable evidence to support. I'm very much clogged on this, until indisputable evidence suggests otherwise! Frickin' pennies, nothing else on here to talk about?

I do also think however that anything with numismatic content should have an individidual thread...main reason being... Searchability to benefit both Chris' page hits from search engines, and also for our own searches within the forum. Obviously, a 1900 sixpence is as lost in coin acquisition of the week as it is in Burt's Latest Deals. Which is why, if we have a 1900 sixpence with a query V over N, we should perhaps run an individual thread, so that the web and ourselves can find it again in the future! Good for Chris and good for us!

I'm not adverse to a little personalisation, I have to say (just sayin' ) ...mostly on account that I'm probably the guiltiest of them all. From an SEO point of view the coin aqu. thread is as useless as chocolate on a hot day anyway.

I'm thinking the same thing to be honest, but stick to the idea that a more worn example could elude to it! Many thanks for taking a look in the good book for me. I don't have this one catalogued as punctuated in my own notes...I think I'll be leaving it that way, but would love to see the coin/coins that the variety was/were recorded from!

£22 delivered...quite pleased with that, a nice quality flan. I was particularly interested in this one because of the distinctive reverse die (rim fragment punched into die, and interesting O in CANTOR - probably a C punched twice [normally and reversed to form an O of sorts - the C overlies it quite nicely using software]), and also for the possible punctuation mark after HYB? Apparently there is a Canterbury variety that has said punctuation, anyone for a vote on this one? It would've very much looked like it had the coin been slightly more worn, and the mark flattened somewhat????? Clogged, maybe, cruddy die??? In the exploded view it looks a little more shallow, though it's actually only just below the height of the letters. It looks bolder if you look at the full coin image here.

Decent 'ish' upwards...everything considered! Not for me.

OK, seen the A hp, have you got a threefarthing about? any other hps?

Thanks, TG, yes, the good lady herself! Rob, it's for a type-set, so as they come. They're going to NGC, so need to be 'problem' free, as far as their understanding of hammered coinage goes (ie not a 'details' coin). grade: definitely no higher than GF I should think. i'll have a browse on your site and see what you've got.

Well, personally, I thought I put a lot of effort into this post, and raised some pretty valid points, at least in my humble opinion? Yes, they may have partially contradicted Rob's original hypothesis, but it doesn't make it off-limits to anyone else! Even a first timer could look at the evidence presented and make some comment? Frustrated? Yes! My time wasted? Yes! Do it again? No! edit: alcohol? No, not this time!

Clearly a different die, Jag!

Looking quickly I'd say it was. What's the relevance in knowing there were at least 2 1677 reverse dies?

Looking at some of the other images, provided they are also from the same die, I'm wondering whether the truth of it all lies in it being nothing other than a low G corrected by a higher G?

G5 is a fabulous reign for coins, I love it!

And the 78/77 http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/six1.html https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=324&lot=23963 this has turned out to be quite an interesting coin from a die-development point of view, with the addition of crown cushions, as well as the overdate. However, in the absence of any other coin (and I haven't been able to find one yet) with the 9 o'clock 'flaw' I'd be inclined to consider it might be post mint? edit: conclusively so if any of those 78/77 coins also match the OP die.

Another... http://roderickrichardson.com/coins/coin-details.aspx?id=2928 another... http://m.ebay.com/itm/331753594375 haven't been able to find the 9 o'clock 'flaw' replicated anywhere as yet?