alfnail

......and the promised close ups. By the way my name is Ian too.......now that is going to confuse!!!!

I have an 1855OT Penny with this dot on forehead, picture attached. I will immediately follow on with a close up of the ‘spot’ and also the VICTORIA T repair which I have found on all 4 specimens of this coin which I have ever owned. Bob is correct that there is one for sale at LCA on Sunday, LOT 2792 CGS75 Ex Dr Findlow. I won’t be bidding because I think my piece is better, but will be interesting to see what it now sells for….lol. When I gave the additional ‘dot’ examples of 1854, 1858 and 1859 in my earlier post I decided to leave out this 1855 example because of the more irregular shape and I did not want to confuse the issue further; perhaps that was a mistake. Again, on this 1855 I think that a flaw exiting the top of the spot can be seen under higher magnification. Whilst I have owned four of these specimens I do not think they are at all common. I have probably looked for it on well over a thousand 1855’s over the years and only ever seen a handful.

Hi Ian, I don’t confess to know much about silver so will need to leave that question for other members to answer; it would be interesting to hear some views. Whilst I have given 4 examples of dots on Copper pennies none of these is often seen. I think the same applies to Bronze Victorian pennies (my other main collection) where the famous 1897 dot penny, and now the 1875 canon ball penny are also seldom seen. Michael Gouby has said (page 92 of his book) that the dot on the 1897 penny was “originally thought to be an identification mark, which has since been discounted”. So, on Victorian pennies this feature seems to be rare, but present, on both Copper and Bronze even though they have different chemistry……...so perhaps it will be the same for silver…….but I have yet to go to ‘the dark side’!!

My view is that such dots, seen on several of the Victorian copper pennies series, are not intentionally placed in these locations, but rather the result of a ‘foreign body’ like a piece of grit getting on to the die. The minting process then impresses into the die leaving a small dent, generally quite circular in shape but not always……….most things take a circular shape when hammered! I think that the resulting effect is often to leave a weak spot (no pun intended) on the die from which subsequent flawing can originate; I think this far more plausible than the dots being deliberately placed in these positions to prevent further cracking, and Brian has already confirmed that on his 1853 OT there is no additional flawing around his dot………...so the dot came first! I attach a further picture of an 1858 dot penny (undocumented) where one can more readily see flawing around the dot. Collectors may also be aware of an 1854PT penny with a dot in the field under the first I of VICTORIA, and also an 1859 penny with a dot near to the border teeth above the DEF colon……….these latter two coins under high magnification also show weak flawing around the dot. The 1854 and 1859 have now been categorised as varieties by CGS, although I am not too comfortable about that. Whilst an interesting feature, I do not think they are true varieties because created by fluke of minting process rather than being an intentional or erroneous action of a person.

I think I have answered my own question! It seems that I already have an 1853 Ornamental Trident GRATI.A penny in a bunch of lower grade coins I was going to sell. It has identical date and other obverse features as my dot coin paired with the Plain Trident reverse. Whilst it is lower grade I cannot see any signs of flawing around the dot so that would seem to fit with what one would expect i.e. this obverse die was first used paired with the OT reverse and then subsequently paired with the PT reverse once this latter type of reverse was introduced later in 1853. It would of course still be good if another member could find an 1853OT Dot penny in high grade where any signs of flawing around the dot would be visible if present. Still quite interesting I think to discover that in 1853 a single obverse die was used paired with both OT and PT reverse dies.

Thanks very much for getting back to me about this Brian. You have noted that your own coin is paired with an OT reverse, rather than a PT reverse like my own coin…….this is the interesting thing, please read on. Now that you have confirmed your own coin has these identical and unusual obverse features I attach a close up of the ‘dot’ between the I and A of GRATIA. Under high magnification, but still not immediately obvious, it can be seen that there is a faint die flaw running underneath the A towards the bottom of the dot and then exiting at the top of the dot and proceeding all the way up to a border tooth (see the red arrows) Bearing in mind that the deterioration of a die, and associated progress of a flaw, represents a timeline, and that we now know these dots appear on a single obverse which is paired with both an Ornamental Trident and Plain Trident (and in a year where the PT was first introduced), I think it would be of much interest to determine whether the PT preceded the OT when paired with this obverse……..or vice versa. It is difficult to see without good close-ups whether your own piece also exhibits such flaws in these exact same locations? Whilst I believe there are very few decent examples of 1853PT paired with Gouby Style A Italic 5 obverse (Gouby Style C being far more common), may I ask whether any other member has an 1853 ‘dot’ coin, PT or OT, with these same date and legend features? If so, please could you report back on any findings regarding the state of the flaws through the dot? P.S. I can add a couple of other close ups of additional unusual obverse features which are a trade mark for this particular die should any member feel that the date and high I in VICTORIA and insufficient to convince that it is the same obverse die which is paired with both an OT and PT reverse.

…..as can be seen there is a protrusion of an underneath 5 to the top left hand side. Additionally, the location of the numerals in relation to the border teeth differs from all the ‘Date Style A’ (italic 5) varieties documented by Gouby to date:- http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/1853_penny.htm My coin also has several minor legend repairs, the most noticeable being the first I of VICTORIA which is high in line, with a small protrusion of an underneath I at the base. Please could I ask Brian to check to see whether his Ornamental Trident coin has these same features?

I have an 1853PT with this dot, pictures attached. Having examined the additional date pictures which Brian has posted I believe that the obverse on my piece may have been struck from the exact same die as his. I will attach further close ups of the date and other features on my own coin in my next posting, to follow on immediately…...

A few years back I placed 3 coins with LCA for one of their auctions. It was suggested to me that they would realise best price if I paid for slabbing.......which I went ahead and did prior to the auction. As I did not have much experience of LCA at that time I decided to place reserves on these coins. One of them did not reach it's reserve of £200 so I brought it home with me to sell on ebay. I found it really difficult to take decent pictures through the slab, so committed what I felt to be a sin at that time of bursting it open. I then took the desired pictures and sold on ebay for almost double the reserve............an interesting experience!

I agree with Richard's comments about the LCA 1862 8 over 6 spacing being right for this variety. I attach close up pictures of the date on my own piece for members reference, the latter one taken with digital microscope in brilliant white light to better show the detail....but not the colour. I may well sell this coin once I see the LCA auction results as my 1861 8/6 is in better condition and suits me well enough for my Bronze collection.

I see that those two 1861's are now for sale at LCA Lot 2763 if any member was interested, £100 - £200

It would be good if we could all agree how to count date widths. This is something I raised with MG shortly after his book was published back in 2009 because to me he seemed to be consistently adding 1 to the date widths which I was counting. Apparently I was not the first person to have raised this with him. His response indicated that his method of counting teeth is to include both teeth which the first and last numerals are over as a full tooth each rather than half a tooth each. Referencing Page 76 of his book, for example, where 1880 date widths are described, if you look at the narrow date type BP 1880 Aa (M +k) he catalogues this date as having 12 teeth, which is 10 full teeth plus the 2 half teeth which the first and last numeral 1’s are over, both of which he counts as full teeth. So instead of being 10 + (2 x 0.5) = 11 he has decided to describe as 10 + (2 x 1.0) = 12. He has used this method consistently throughout his book, the only anomaly being the 1881 date where the first 1 is over a gap rather than a tooth, so if you look at the adjacent page 77 at type 1881Ca he describes as having 11.5 teeth whereas strictly speaking there are only 10.5 (i.e. he still adds 1). All date variety collectors will now find it difficult if we adopt different methods to describe our coins to one another, so I would suggest that as Gouby’s book is the main reference point for describing date widths that we all try to use his method? I also attach a picture of a coin I have kept because it seemed to me to be the missing 1880 Ac date width. On Page 76 MG lists Aa, Ab and Ad, but no Ac. His Ab and Ad have the centre of the numeral 0 (zero) directly over a gap, whereas my coin has it more towards the centre of a tooth. So if we use MG’s method of counting then this would be a date width of 13 teeth, 11 full teeth plus 2 bits (almost halves) = 13 (not 12). Hope I am helping rather than serving to confuse. P.S. If Terry’s got lots of 1877 narrow dates I wouldn’t mind one, doesn’t have to be UNC!

Thanks Pete, yes I was thinking of the 1875 penny; always thinking about pennies! These foreign bodies which get trapped in the die also appear on several other Victorian pennies, the Copper 1854 dot below first I of VICTORIA, the 1859 DEF extra dot and the 1846 (more pennies discussion) are examples, then of course there is the 1897 DOT as another Bronze example...........these are not the result of human introduced design, or deliberate / mistaken repair..............unless one expects that a person should have checked that a piece of grit / metal filing should not have been there......... and that constitutes an error? But I don't expect for a minute that my views will stop penny enthusiasts from wanting an 1897 DOT Penny!!

Thanks Brian, here are the 1851 penny different numeral types I mentioned earlier, in case anyone is interested

Not sure how much of the 1902LT wide date stuff was said in jest but here are comparative pictures of type with bar and slightly wider normal date for reference, also a 'close up' of bar in top of zero, which is sort of straight! Inclined to agree with Rob about varieties, "design and errors", both human introduced rather than machine, e.g. not keen on cannon balls, crow feet, clashed dies being classified as varieties, but they do seem to have found their way into all recognised documentation to date (and CGS), so now have their place. With Victorian Pennies (my main collection) I always find that repairs are the more difficult ones to decide whether to collect because I think probably every letter in the legend has been repaired on one die or another, some much more obvious than others, so where does one draw the line, and what should be termed a variety? Clearly everyone wants an 1860N/Z, but a repaired E in DEF is far less desirable, but still nice to have if it's a real botch job. Then there are date variations and colon dot positions which again vary in location from one die to another, human introduced so perhaps fairly classed as varieties by some authors. For exampIe, I recently looked in detail at my 1851 pennies, no over-dates on that year but we still see different numeral sizes on the 1,5 and 8, and when additionally taking date widths into consideration I found in total I have 12 different date variations.............and that's not a particularly common mintage year. Think this is a subject which collectors will never agree upon, as always looking for something different to collect, and dealers / auctioneers will always market a new 'feature' to aid their sale.....and then a feature sometimes turns into a new variety! Could go on forever but will stop now, expect this will open a can of worms!

Assuming that link has taken me to the right place I only make that jacinbox F18 obverse 143 teeth, attached image with marks every 10 teeth starting clockwise at V..........are everyone's eyes as boggled as mine, I need to concentrate on a quiz this evening!?

Jerry, as you seem to have the best 145 example are you planning to put alongside a normal Obverse 2 (143), and do a careful analysis just to see if there are any other undocumented differences in addition to the legend ones already noted? Thanks, Ian

There was one sold on ebay back in February by ribs18 from the Netherlands, but I think that may be the same coin which Terry has pictured. Re. the straw poll I have checked around 20 of my sold pieces this morning and none had 145 teeth. Also the 1861 Obverse 2's (F18 and F20) have 143 teeth but I do not have an F19 to check.....sure I can find that on Richard's site when get time to look!.

My final picture has been done with the aid of a graphic designer colleague by combining the 60/59 date with the 59 narrow date………. a 50% transparency of the 60/59 picture has been positioned (using those 3 protrusions as reference points) on top of a 50% transparency of the 59 narrow date. I do not know whether this has been done before and I may be repeating what others already know. Anyway I feel that my results look fairly conclusive, and would welcome comments. Thank you for bearing with me, and apologies for hogging the site for a while!!

.....and the protrusions highlighted which I mentioned

Using exactly the same microscope setting of 130x I have taken shots of my two 1859 smaller numeral varieties and attach these as a combined picture, along with the 60/59 date inserted between them for comparison. You will see the Gouby B date style type at the top; the bottom variety is not currently documented by him, but seen from time to time. When I looked at these 3 pictures side by side I felt that the bottom variety (which I call the narrow date) was a strong candidate for being overstruck with the 60, to create the 60/59 variety. You will notice that there are 3 good protrusions on the 60/59 which could be used to triangulate over the 59 narrow date………..these protrusions are highlighted in red arrows on the next attachment which I am about to post.

....and the 60/59 date close up

Returning to the 1860/59 discussion, attached my latest acquisition, also a digital microscope 130x close up of the over-date, following as a separate posting due to the 500Kb attachment limit.

Got it........awkward reducing file sizes to fit 500KB!

Still trying to get the hang of adding pictures, which will follow soon!