1876 penny no H?

[Nordle11 564]

If it was a very faint H, it would not have been worn over time in the case of your coin because the date numbers would have been in higher relief compared to the H, this means the date would've worn down before the 'faint H'. As the numbers on your coin are not as worn, there would still be a faint H present.

However, it is possible as many have suggested, that the H on the die became completely filled and struck coins with space under the date completely flat to the field. Whether or not this will show up an outline of an H on a high powered microscope is something someone needs to check, but it would be far better with a higher grade example to be more conclusive.

[1949threepence 3,367]

9 minutes ago, Greaves said:

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. 

Theoretically it could have have been either scenario. When such a penny - from a worn or filled die - was first minted, it might have shown faint traces of the H which did, as you say, wear out completely over time. Or, less likely, there was literally no trace at all to the naked eye. At any rate, I think we can safely assume that it was never the intention to produce the 1876 penny minus the H, as no 1876 pennies were struck at the London mint. They were all struck at the Heaton mint.   

[jacinbox 36]

I have 2 in my cabinet with traces of H visible under a microscope

[Gary1000 41]

Of course some unscrupulous individual could have removed the H and give the penny a good clean afterwards to hide there handywork.

[Greaves 1]

1949threepence - I agree it would not have been the intention of the Heaton mint not to include the H but surely this is true of all other die errors for penny and other coins. Presumably the rarity value of an erroneously struck coin is not dependent on the intention of the miller but the fact the coin exists as a rare variant however produced.

Gary1000 - True. This would have been my suspicion had I bought from a coin dealer purporting it to be a rarity. However I bought a large batch of mixed pennies, possibly 300 or more from a private individual who was not a collector and I come across this one as a laboriously sorted through them. 

 

[jelida 1,314]

45 minutes ago, Greaves said:

1949threepence - I agree it would not have been the intention of the Heaton mint not to include the H but surely this is true of all other die errors for penny and other coins. Presumably the rarity value of an erroneously struck coin is not dependent on the intention of the miller but the fact the coin exists as a rare variant however produced.

 

Most of us, and certainly the major texts, would consider a valid variety to be a reflection of the design (including possible errors) punched/engraved on the die, rather than subsequent die wear or impairment due to accumulated crud. However there are a few notable exceptions such as the ONF penny which seem to have developed a following. Otherwise striking errors are considered more of an interesting curiosity than true variety, though they do have specialist collectors.

Clearly, but rarely, things can change. In the case of your penny, if it could be positively demonstrated that the Royal Mint (or Heaton) did produce a small run of intentionally 'no H' pennies, then an altogether different view might be taken.  

It certainly is unusual for the H to be totally absent, so enjoy the coin for itself and the debate it can generate.

Jerry

 

[1949threepence 3,367]

1 hour ago, Greaves said:

1949threepence - I agree it would not have been the intention of the Heaton mint not to include the H but surely this is true of all other die errors for penny and other coins. Presumably the rarity value of an erroneously struck coin is not dependent on the intention of the miller but the fact the coin exists as a rare variant however produced.

 

 

Well yes and no. Firstly I totally agree with Jerry's remarks above regarding this specific point. I'd also say that "die errors" arguably include such worthy items as the 1862 penny from halfpenny dies, the 1860 beaded border/toothed border mules, and certainly include the 1861 and 1862 8 over 6, plus 6 over 8 types, which were doubtless a result of the die repairer forgetting that the figures should be the other way round on the die. They may be errors, but they are very obvious and tangible errors, which have attracted a huge premium. Conversely, differences arising from worn and filled/clogged dies, have not - one exception being the 1897 dot between the O and N of ONE PENNY. Freeman lists this as a unique variety (No 147), and as such, it too, attracts a premium, despite the fact there is evidence to show that it was the result of a die problem, and that some specimens show only the merest trace of a blemish in that area.                 

[secret santa 2,325]

Yes, it's a pity that Freeman decided to recognise the 1897 dot as a standalone variety, especially as he didn't uniquely categorise the notorious 1922 "reverse of 1927" or the 1946 "dot" (which he mentioned but did not categorise). Had he left the 1897 dot as a footnote, we'd have more consistency over these random blemishes, recognising them as accidents but still leaving people to collect them if they wish.

[RLC35 288]

11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Yes, it's a pity that Freeman decided to recognise the 1897 dot as a standalone variety, especially as he didn't uniquely categorise the notorious 1922 "reverse of 1927" or the 1946 "dot" (which he mentioned but did not categorise). Had he left the 1897 dot as a footnote, we'd have more consistency over these random blemishes, recognising them as accidents but still leaving people to collect them if they wish.

Here is some correspondence I had with Michael Freeman about a 1870 Penny with a large "dot" under the "Y" in Penny. The note pretty well explains Michael's view on Dots!

 

[1949threepence 3,367]

1 hour ago, RLC35 said:

Here is some correspondence I had with Michael Freeman about a 1870 Penny with a large "dot" under the "Y" in Penny. The note pretty well explains Michael's view on Dots!

 

Thanks Bob, that's incredibly useful correspondence.

[IanB 175]

I have a question regarding the dot on my 1897 penny. I have been following the thread so decided to have another look at my example and noticed what I think is the start of another dot just to the right of the upper serif of the N.

Anyway I wanted to compare my coin with other examples so typed in a search and ended up on the London Coins website where I noticed that some 1909 pennies had a dot in the same position next to the N, there is also a picture of a 1909 with what look to me like a 1897 and a 1909 dot. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=142&searchlot=2725&searchtype=2

Anyway my question is was the same die used on both coins and as one dot became weaker did the other dot become stronger?

I also noticed a dot on the serif on the other side of my N but I figured that may have more to do with damage to the serif than anything else. I think I am going dot crazy.

Your thoughts please even if its to tell me to stop looking at dots!

[1949threepence 3,367]

Ian, I'm not convinced that is a dot on your 1897. It's very tiny, and typical of any number of minor faults seen under magnification in the fields of a coin that age. The 1909 dot is similar to the 1897 (main) dot, although personally, I think it's just a co-incidence that it's in the same area of the coin as your 1897.

I very much doubt that it's the same die, 12 years later. 

The above is only my opinion and I appreciate others may differ considerably.

[RLC35 288]

23 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks Bob, that's incredibly useful correspondence.

Here are some pictures of the "Dot" under the "Y" of the 1870 Penny.

 

[1949threepence 3,367]

Bob, that's really interesting. There's another one in a similar position on an 1875 specimen, pictured in Gouby's book "The British Bronze Penny 1860 - 1901" - see picture BP 1875 Ce in the photo below.  

 

[RLC35 288]

1949,

I talked to Michael Gouby about the 1870 Dot Penny, right after I found it, and he also said it looked like the same type and size of dot he had listed in his book as BP1875Ce. Obviously it is a different coin than my example, because they are different dates. Since Freeman is the only person to see one of the 1870 coins, there is only a population of two, at this time. I sold the coin, later in the year, to a collector in London.

 

 

[PWA 1967 2,135]

2 hours ago, RLC35 said:

Here are some pictures of the "Dot" under the "Y" of the 1870 Penny.

 

That was a good spot Bob 

[Nordle11 564]

27 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

That was a good spot Bob 

I like what you did there  

[PWA 1967 2,135]

[Greaves 1]

I did contact CGS by e-mail as advised and asked if they could examine my penny and give me an opinion. After 10 days I have not received a reply or an even an acknowledgement. I am not surprised given a previous enquiry to London Coins who I understand are the same organisation received the same "customer service."

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Thats something i have heard before 

You may have given up with the idea and due to the customer service no longer interested although they have been busy with the auction and London coin fair.

Not making excuses for bad customer service,but i just phone up as often easier.

Alternatively if you phone up and ask for Paul you can have a chat and explain  what you want 

[Greaves 1]

PWA 1967 - sounds like a good idea. I'll give that a try.