1876 penny no H?

[Greaves 1]

I recently acquired this 1876 penny as part of a large collection from a private individual not a dealer. It looks like it lacks the H. I enclose a photo. Under a magnifier there is no trace of the H and although the coin itself is in poor condition the numbers of the date itself are very clear suggesting wear of the H has not occurred. Viewing by eye there is a very faint light patch where the H might have been but the coin has other light patches below the exergue. Any comments would be welcomed.

http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Greaves101/media/DSCN0102_zpssnn6lqvj.jpg.html      

Edited January 31, 2016 by Greaves

[secret santa 2,325]

The debate on this continues - Gouby believes (as did Laurie Bamford) that specimens without the H are either from a filled die or a very worn die. What we need is a high grade specimen to add to the  subject. Anyone got one ?

[VickySilver 830]

This has been reviewed before though your answer will appear shortly no doubt. My recollection was that if legitimate that it was a filled die.

 

Oops see that SS beat me to it just now.

Edited January 31, 2016 by VickySilver

[alfnail 845]

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.

[Rob 3,152]

Looks like a trace of an H upright in line with the gap between teeth immediately to the right of the 8, or at least on this screen it does.

[PWA 1967 2,135]

4 hours ago, Greaves said:

I recently acquired this 1876 penny as part of a large collection from a private individual not a dealer. It looks like it lacks the H. I enclose a photo. Under a magnifier there is no trace of the H and although the coin itself is in poor condition the numbers of the date itself are very clear suggesting wear of the H has not occurred. Viewing by eye there is a very faint light patch where the H might have been but the coin has other light patches below the exergue. Any comments would be welcomed.

http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Greaves101/media/DSCN0102_zpssnn6lqvj.jpg.html      

Yes i may be shot down in flames 

Ones like this ...if your not sure.... send to cgs and for £13.75 get an independent opinion.

People on here can only look at a picture rather than the coin going under a microscope /Light and three people looking in hand.

It might take a couple of months 

Otherwise you will keep looking and wont get the attribution.

£13.75 is not a lot to spend and if you dont think it is ok just keep it , i assume you are not sure or wouldnt of posted.

Plus if its OK i will buy it 

[Coinery 1,153]

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? 

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Yes i agree but somtimes easier to say if you want to be sure send it to someone who will look properley.

For the sake of spending £14 easy to find out and if you dont want to risk that much you know its not ok.

[Coinery 1,153]

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!

Edited January 31, 2016 by Coinery

[PWA 1967 2,135]

As daft as it seems some technology with regards microscopes and lighting costs a lot more than £14.

What i was trying to say..... if you want to have an opinion a coin might be worth sending it might resolve a thought.

If you dont and leave the question wide open , well not a problem just an idea and leave it 

I dont think the H is missing but if the guy who has it ,spend £14 and find out 

Alfnail has the best microscope for coins i have seen but was slightly over £14 

 

 

[Coinery 1,153]

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?

 

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Its nothing to do with weather one has been attributed.

Its if your really not sure spend £13.75 and find out .

Otherwise make your own decision 

I have just received quite a few pennies back that they have not slabbed before.

What they have done is confimed the variety and said they are problem free ,so i am more than happy 

[Coinery 1,153]

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!

[Greaves 1]

Thanks for all these useful comments, however I would be grateful for clarification on a number of points. I have no problem in principle in paying £14 for a professional opinion from CGS to examine the coin under a suitable microscope and lighting. However before I do can anyone please explain if the H has worn away why are the numbers of the date themselves very clear and not worn?  I have re-examined the coin and Rob I cannot see any "hint of  an H upright in line with the gap between teeth immediately to the right of the 8," I am happy to e-mail or private message (if available) anyone my JPG photo which can be enlarged with much more detail visible than the photobucket one. 

Secret Santa thought that any apparent H less specimens were from filled or very worn dies. If so when the coins were minted would they have had no H at all or a very faint one, which easily wears away or is it impossible to say? If a faint H has worn I assume various members here are saying high powered magnification can still detect a faint imprint?    

 

[PWA 1967 2,135]

5 minutes ago, Coinery said:

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!

Not at all they get things wrong but not much to spend on an opinion.

I didnt really just mean with this coin was more in general.

By the time you spend driving round to dealers /fairs putting petrol in and messing about.

Post the coin and see what they say .... nothing to lose you still get it back.

However i trust them enough to say i would buy it if came back ok.........but thats another thread.

[Coinery 1,153]

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!

Edited January 31, 2016 by Coinery

[PWA 1967 2,135]

I will let you rest and chill out ..... YES its a clogged die and being an expert thats YOUR opinion.

You still miss the point............ if someone (not yourself) want a second / Third opinion send it .....if you dont not a problem.

I was just giving another option... and as you state one your not bothered about.

 

[Coinery 1,153]

2 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

I will let you rest and chill out ..... YES its a clogged die and being an expert thats YOUR opinion.

You still miss the point............ if someone (not yourself) want a second / Third opinion send it .....if you dont not a problem.

I was just giving another option... and as you state one your not bothered about.

 

Chilled! 'Over and out!'

[alfnail 845]

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

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Dont worry about me Ian always chilled .....well not always

Is that yours ,has that been added ?.

[Nordle11 564]

1 hour ago, Greaves said:

Thanks for all these useful comments, however I would be grateful for clarification on a number of points. I have no problem in principle in paying £14 for a professional opinion from CGS to examine the coin under a suitable microscope and lighting. However before I do can anyone please explain if the H has worn away why are the numbers of the date themselves very clear and not worn?  I have re-examined the coin and Rob I cannot see any "hint of  an H upright in line with the gap between teeth immediately to the right of the 8," I am happy to e-mail or private message (if available) anyone my JPG photo which can be enlarged with much more detail visible than the photobucket one. 

Secret Santa thought that any apparent H less specimens were from filled or very worn dies. If so when the coins were minted would they have had no H at all or a very faint one, which easily wears away or is it impossible to say? If a faint H has worn I assume various members here are saying high powered magnification can still detect a faint imprint?    

 

I think Rob was referring to Alfnail's picture regarding the hint of an H..

[alfnail 845]

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

[1949threepence 3,367]

6 hours ago, secret santa said:

The debate on this continues - Gouby believes (as did Laurie Bamford) that specimens without the H are either from a filled die or a very worn die. What we need is a high grade specimen to add to the  subject. Anyone got one ?

I agree with both of those gentlemen. Of course, the nearest we get to a filled or worn die on the higher grade 1876, is an unbarred H. The only examples I've seen of those are on the commoner narrow date specimens.

 

  

Edited January 31, 2016 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence 3,367]

32 minutes ago, alfnail said:

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

It was listed as a curiosity. A tooled ordinary narrow date I suspect. This is how London Coins described it:-

01/06/2014 Auction 145

English Coins

Lot 1921

Penny 1875 Freeman 80 dies 8+H a curious piece with an H mintmark skilfully added below the date (the Heaton mint coins were all produced with Reverse J, the wider date spacing) , EF and lustrous, the obverse with uneven tone

£46

 

[Greaves 1]

Thanks to all. I did not realise my post would generate so much interest and comment. However no one appears to have answered my query whether a 1876 penny, apparently without an H, like mine, if produced from a filled die or a very worn die meant that the H was absent from the coin when it came off the mint or it was a very faint H and was worn out in time. I will e-mail CGS and ask if they will take a look. Naturally I will report back their response.