alfnail

I’m afraid you are mistaken, Gouby B’s are NOT readily available; there are currently none on ebay from over 100 coins. Even a low grade piece will command a premium, as demonstrated by this recent sale at LCA:- http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=152&searchlot=2451&searchtype=2 Furthermore you cannot “tell these widths by the general placement of the 9’s compared to the 8 next to it”. The common Aa and Ca date numerals are well aligned at the top, which is also the case with type B. I have added a further picture of narrow date type B and also the common date type Aa to illustrate this good numeral alignment, and one can also see the different location of numerals compared to border teeth and the danger in trying to distinguish these two types purely be reference to numeral spacing. The best way to distinguish the common width from the narrow date is to compare the top of the 9 to the centre drape of Britannia’s gown as illustrated by the red and white lines I have drawn in. When the 9 climbs progressively into the exergue, as one goes from Aa to Ab,Ac and finally Ad that checking the alignment of the 9 with the other numerals helps with identifying the rarer wider date type/s, your first picture being one of those. At first glance your OmniCoin pictures both appear to be standard type Aa’s.

Many thanks for your posting and pictures Terry. I have just examined 3 narrow date specimens which I have previously owned and now sold, and discovered that 2 of these have the same date width as the previous picture I posted of Gouby B. One of these 3 coins is, however, slightly wider and appears to be the same as you have shown in your bottom date picture i.e. somewhere in between the Gouby B and Gouby Aa date widths. This new narrow date is something I have previously missed so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have used my old ‘pre-sale’ picture and now show the date on this last coin (described as Bx) alongside the more common narrow date B which I posted earlier……again with vertical lines inserted from top of 9 and centre robe to make comparison easier.

Thanks Terry, look forward to hearing from you later, note it's obverse R with the extra leaf. Obverse S has leaf removed and some incuse hair engraved in it's place. Further picture attached illustrating difference. Regards, Ian

Part of his reply to one of my emails said "There is a possibility that the picture of BP 1889 Cd is a worn example of that die. I will try and find were I have put that coin..." ..........but he did not get back to me, so presumably was unable to locate the specimen which led to the entry in his book. This has left me thinking, perhaps same as you Richard, that the Cd should have been documented as an Ad and maybe there are no Cd's to be found.

On Page 85 Gouby writes “this extremely wide date has been referenced as BP 1889 Cd as it is more than likely that there will be other date widths found between 14 ½ and 16 teeth width and they can be listed, if found, as Cb or Cc” Whilst I am actually not an avid collector of date width variations the 1889 penny has for some reason captured my imagination and I have looked for intermediate date widths for several years since first reading Gouby’s 2009 book. These endeavours have led me to collect the 5 coins now pictured below, all taken with the same magnification on my digital microscope. They are, however, all type A’s obverse R with the extra leaf and, having written to MG over the years about these findings, I have assigned the letter suffixes Ab, Ac and Ad for these undocumented types. I have not located types Cb,Cc or Cd and decided to stop looking a couple of years ago. I have just had a quick look at the 1889 pennies currently listed on ebay (over 100 coins) and can only see Aa & Ca date types, an indication as to the rarity of the other date widths. My question for members is:- Does anyone own, or has pictures of, a clear type Cd example?

Problems with these sale descriptions:- The Crocker coin was advertised as 12 + N. This means it would be an obverse R, but Gouby does not document a wide date variety Ad for that obverse, only an Aa. Back in 2010 I put the Crocker coin down to a description error, most likely driven by the worn example with no hair detail present in the area that would need examining. The low grade Workman example seemed to be a similar mistake as the Crocker coin, exacerbated by additionally describing as Gouby CD, which contradicts F127. I then found my ebay wide date example and was a little surprised to see that it clearly had the extra leaf present, therefore making it a Gouby obverse R, which would be a type Ad if documented. The LCA example confirmed my ebay finding, also displaying the extra leaf, although disappointingly described once more as a Gouby Cd when clearly not an obverse S. Further post and picture to follow on immediately….

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

I wondered whether any other member had ever attempted a study of the working dies of the very rare 1861 reverse F varieties, Freeman numbers F19, F24, F27 and F32. The reason for asking this question is that I recently purchased an F24 (pictures attached) because I noticed that the last numeral 1 was wider than I had ever seen before, and also tilted anti-clockwise……again something I hadn’t recalled seeing. With the benefit of Richard’s excellent websites I decided to examine the dates more closely, as far as was possible with the image quality of some of the coins. This exercise has led me to conclude that there are at least 4 different positions for the last 1, hence at least 4 different working dies. Also, apart from my latest purchase, all of the coins pictured on Richard’s websites seem to have the last numeral 1 tilted clockwise, to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps another interesting find is that the two F24’s which are paired with the ‘missing top leaf’ obverse also look as though they may have been struck with the same reverse die as F32 Example 8, the last 1 been very tilted and low in line on all 3 coins…………..although this could I guess be coincidental. This reverse could, however, still have had plenty of life left in it as the obverse moved from Freeman 5 to 6, so I feel very plausible. Do other members have any thoughts or looked at this before? P.S. I have never seen an F19. Gouby 2009 says 1 known specimen in Fair grade, if anyone has pictures please could you share?

Re. the two obverses paired with the single N/Z reverse, they both have a die flaw from the top leaf, but you will notice that they hit the rim at slightly different locations. Also both have interesting but different repairs.

Many thanks for additional pictures Prax and Jerry. I was aware of the documented comments about numerous date varieties in the early years of the Bronze penny. Nevertheless with only approx. 30 known reverse F specimens spread across the 4 different paired obverses I still felt it quite interesting to look a bit more closely at the reverse variations. Personally I think more interesting than some of the later date Victorian pennies which can also have numerous date variations. I expect Richard would like to add Jerry's F32 pictures to his website.

Many thanks for the picture. The date on the F19 looks the same as the F24 Examples 3,4,and 7 on Richard's 'rarest pennies' website, the last 1 pointing slightly towards the front of the 4th tooth to the right of the 6

Thanks for the suggestion Colin. The only 1881H which I have kept in my collection, which has the same reverse type, has the H in an undocumented position, see picture. This does not match the position of the H on the 1882Ma, so attempting to overlay the 1882Ma date over the 1881H date did not seem as though it would have definitively helped using the example I have got in my collection. I.e. clearly from different original dies. Also the two examples of 1881Ha and 1881Hb on page 77 of Gouby similarly have the H in yet different positions to the 1882Ma. Despite this I think it is still a good idea to do as you have suggested and take pictures of the 2 and 1 on my two coins at same 140 x magnification and see if I can get the top left tip of the 1 to protrude thanks. Will need to report back another day as have family arriving soon and need to hide from grandchildren!

Reference my 1882Ma (2/1) query on 3rd March, Page 44 of ‘More pennies’, I think I have now answered my own question by finding another example, pictures attached. This piece also displays the additional protrusion to the top left hand side of the numeral 2, which I think is most likely the top left corner of the top bar of the underneath numeral 1. I feel that this may be an even better indicator of this variety than the protrusion on the inner curve……which always seems to be weak to the point of doubting the variety. When one considers the combination of the 2 protrusions I think this gives increased confidence in confirming type. The lack of any response to my original post I guess means either no one is interested, or no members think they have an example…...although it would be difficult to see this top protrusion without a decent ‘looking glass’.

Many thanks for that Richard, much appreciated. I now attach a close up of my 1882Ma, where one can immediately see the different location of the H in respect to the border teeth and numeral 8’s when compared to type Kb. The protrusion of the 1 just above the inner curve is weak but can be seen on my example, but I would also like to ask whether other members have an Ma which also exhibits a tiny protrusion at the top left of the 2, as indicated by the red arrow. MG says on his page 79 “the only part of the 1 that can be seen, on this example, is the small portion that sticks out centrally, half way up the 2”. I think, however, that his picture may also have the tiny protrusion top left, which I presume could be the top left corner of the top bar of the underneath numeral 1. Please could I ask other members to check their own specimens and comment?

Judging by the lack of replies I think I must have confused everyone. I am pretty sure I have correctly matched my Kb with the small picture in MG’s book. The protrusion of the 1 half way up the inner curve of the 2 looks identical to me, in particular the curved part of the 1 which I have now highlighted in yellow. MG does not, however, give a full date picture of the Kb, but he does show a full picture of the Ka date with what appears to be a die crack around, and perhaps a little inside, the 2. Whilst his Ka date picture is not high definition the numerals and H look as though they are identically positioned to my own full Kb date picture. This has left me thinking that Ka and Kb may both have been struck from the same die, but that Ka is just struck later after the die has become ‘flawed’, and that this flawing perhaps gives a false impression of a different 2/1 amended die. If members think this is likely to be the case then I do not need to go hunting for another Ka example. Probably confused everyone even more now!!

The recent discussions on the potential new 1882/1 reverse r variety prompted me to take a closer look at my own examples, and this leaves me with a couple of queries. I had previously thought that I had all 3 examples described on pages 78/9 of Michael’s book i.e. Ka, Kb and Ma. I now find, however, that I have two examples of Kb and I am wondering whether I now need to start looking again for a Ka. I guess the good news is that I have a spare 1882Kb which I can sell to raise pocket money for next weekend…..lol 1882Ma is clearly from a different amended Gouby p reverse to the 1882Kb reverse; the location of the H in relation to the border teeth and two numeral 8’s being particularly noticeable…...so this means there were at least 2 amended reverse dies. Can I ask, however, if any member has what they believe to be a Ka variety, struck from yet another amended die and with a variation of date numerals (and H) when compared to Kb and Ma? I have looked at Richard’s site but see that he does not distinguish between Ka and Kb types. I have attached date pictures of my 1882Kb for reference. I also have a query regarding BP 1882Ma but will leave that for a ‘follow on’ post if there is interest in this one.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/British-coin-Georgius-V-1911-One-penny-Year-of-the-coronation-/161984547835?hash=item25b7080bfb:g:~dEAAOSwIwhWRxlq Postage seems a little expensive

Lot 2462 at the March Auction has prompted me to write. I reference Page 93 of Gouby’s 2009 book in which he documents type 1898Aa (10.5 teeth) and 1898B (11 teeth). My understanding is that his type ‘B’ was assigned because of the different style of the second numeral 8. Had it not been for this different style of numeral 8 then he would have assigned a wider 11 teeth date spacing as 1898Ab, in the same manner as he has done for many other years in his book. The style of the second 8 on his 1898B, where the “bisect lines – align at the centre” he says is scarce. My experience is that this Style B type of 8 is only seen on the Widow Head (1895-1901) series in 1898. I think, however, that it is always seen on the Bun Heads up until 1894. I would be interested to find out if other members have different findings. Attached is a reference picture showing the two different types of 8, both taken from the same 1898 penny in my own collection. As far as Lot 2462 is concerned it looks to me as though the date width has been correctly identified as 11 teeth, but the second numeral 8 is NOT the scarce Gouby B type.

Yes, think re-cut F, pretty sure have seen this several times. Similar to the more well known 1841Bramah 2c variety pictured below, although this time the underlying F protrusions are higher. If one looks at enough copper pennies I think repairs to every letter (and numeral) in the legend can be found, although some are far more obvious than others. All the B2c's I have seen also display those faint marks around the DEF Colon, which I believe must to be repairs to both dots......again dot repairs are often seen, although I think perhaps less common.

Please feel free to use any of my pictures on your website Richard. Best wishes, Ian

When I first became aware of this suggested variety I was a little sceptical that it really could be another ‘inverted die’ mistake. Of course there are several established legend error varieties of this type, for example the V/ Inverted A’s seen on the 1860 penny and 1854 Half Penny, also the rare 1861 overdates 8/6 and 6/8, but the positions and distance of the relevant letters on the 1858 penny seemed to make an F/B mistake less plausible. Also the protrusions of the underlying B on the first picture I saw were not entirely convincing. I decided to hold judgement until I could acquire a high grade example; pictures of this coin are now attached. Shot at 120x magnification the top two pictures are the F and B from the actual coin. I have then lassoed (by hand) the bits of B showing under F, highlighted these in yellow, and amended the image in PhotoStudio to 50% transparency……..this is bottom left. The final stage, bottom right, is an overlay of this picture on top of the B of BRITANIAR. It seems to me that the protrusions are a good match, and a strong indication that this is indeed a valid error variety, but I would welcome the views of other members. I have only seen a handful of coins struck from this amended die. If Pete has acquired 3 then I think he has done very well. Perhaps once that ‘Victorian Copper Penny’ book is written he will be able to sell his spares at the same price as say an 1861 6/8!

'skilfully added' according to London Coins Pete......and yes I do own it. Thought an interesting piece, and quite a nice grade anyway

.......and how's about an 1875ND penny with an H.......just to get this one re-started now that everyone's chilled....

I bought an 1876, sold as without an H, many years ago. I no longer have the coin and disposed of it before I had my digital microscope, but I have located the old image which is now attached. My notes against this coin said that if tilted to the light then a very faded H could still be seen, although the H is not visible on the attachment. Was a low grade and cleaned piece.

Definitely the real thing, and surprising that Lockdales make this mistake. Attached pictures for reference, obverse with usual markings as noted by other members and doubled (die clash) ribbons, again always present............ date close up picture with same protrusions (highlighted in red) always seen and clearly also on the Lockdales piece.