Recessed ear 1915/16 penny

[terrysoldpennies 795]

Last week I picked up a decent 1915 Recessed ear penny [ show on the next post] . That got me thinking about the life of this die, from its start to its destruction, and so I hunted around and managed to find an 1916 example with a die crack running right across the coin from the A in GRA to the D in DEF on the other side of the coin.  The crack is so bad that it must have meant the end of the die, and the production of this type.   Pic. On the left starting at the top is an early 1915 strike without the crack , but note the tooth in question seems smaller than the others ?.    Next down is also a 1915 and appears to have a small curved bite out of the bottom of the tooth .     Third down is a 1916, it has now developed, and a large section is missing from the tooth.    Finally the bottom insert also 1916 shows the final extent of the tooth loss, as this is the example with the die crack, also shown in full on the right side.  

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by terrysoldpennies

[terrysoldpennies 795]

My 1915

[PWA 1967 2,256]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UK-GB-PENNY-1916-1916-Recessed-Ear-SCARCE-HIGH-GRADE-A88-RZ53/282905058900?hash=item41de749e54:g:FqcAAOSwY3RatsH1

Exactly the same die crack on another for sale Terry.

[jelida 1,374]

That’s nice Terry,  and confirmation that it is a single die variety.

Jerry

[davidrj 194]

So does anyone have a 1915 RE without a chipped tooth?

 

[Paddy 1,873]

My 1915 RE has the chipped tooth, though it is only just noticeable if you know what to look for.

 

[Peckris 579]

Hmm, I'm not so sure about the single die theory. My 1915 has a very severely damaged tooth (see below) which is only present on the 1916s above. 

 

 

The real question is - since the amended obverse worked to eliminate the flattening of Britannia even on BU examples of the unamended obverse - why didn't they persist with it?

[jelida 1,374]

34 minutes ago, Peckris said:

Hmm, I'm not so sure about the single die theory. My 1915 has a very severely damaged tooth (see below) which is only present on the 1916s above. 

 

 

The real question is - since the amended obverse worked to eliminate the flattening of Britannia even on BU examples of the unamended obverse - why didn't they persist with it?

It could be a late ‘15, the question is whether the damaged tooth progresses chronologically; are there any relatively undamaged tooth RE 1916’s? It is unlikely that several distinct working dies identically broke teeth, so a multiple die usage would necessitate a damaged master die or a deliberate use of the damaged tooth as a marker for the new obverse. More research required . Perhaps as we use the broken tooth as an identifier, we are missing undamaged tooth coins.

Jerry

[PWA 1967 2,256]

Yes I would think thats definately right Jerry.The same die starting late1915 (you dont see as many) and getting worse right upto the die crack on 1916.All the 1916 recessed ear have a large part of the tooth missing that i have seen and a progression of the 1915.Also a lot of the 1916 are seen in high grade which may be down to being the first  struck  for the year and more were put away or kept .Terrys pictures show this well and dont feel it would of been deliberate ,just it broke and they continued to use the recessed ear untill going back to the normal OBV after the die crack.I am only guessing and suppose the only way is to be sure there was only one OBV die with the recessed ear.

Pete.

Edited April 3, 2018 by PWA 1967

[IanB 175]

Would you say one or both of these is recessed ear, I am having a hard time telling, I know one is but not sure on the other. One has a broken tooth but to me under an eye glass both ears look similar. 

[zookeeperz 470]

My RE Although to look at you would think this must of been an early strike as it resembles the 1915 more with just a bite out of the tooth?

[PWA 1967 2,256]

I dont think the top one is Ian.

[terrysoldpennies 795]

Bearing in mind that what we refer to as a broken tooth, is the result of a partial blockage of one of the tiny indentations around the edge of the die that form the teeth. its not unlikely that the hole started to block during 1915 then gradually built up, but during this period a small piece of the blockage may have broken away again, only to them build up again giving the variation in the size of the tooth, this may explain the out of sequence 1915 coin of Zoos

[PWA 1967 2,256]

1 minute ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Bearing in mind that what we refer to as a broken tooth, is the result of a partial blockage of one of the tiny indentations around the edge of the die that form the teeth. its not unlikely that the hole started to block during 1915 then gradually built up, but during this period a small piece of the blockage may have broken away again, only to them build up again giving the variation in the size of the tooth, this may explain the out of sequence 1915 coin of Zoos

The one zoo has is 1916 Terry,

[terrysoldpennies 795]

Yes your right Pete, but the same principal applies , It seems unlikely that a test die would be given a broken tooth for recognition, as at around this time increasing or decreasing the number of teeth was used, as with the 1908 164a  and the 1911 hollow neck .

[PWA 1967 2,256]

Yes i dont believe its broken for a test that is why you find them without the broken tooth and think from memory davidrj posted one on another thread.Although i dont think there are many without part of the tooth missing and i have never been able to convince myself without the tooth indicator.

[Rob 3,221]

5 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Yes i dont believe its broken for a test that is why you find them without the broken tooth and think from memory davidrj posted one on another thread.Although i dont think there are many without part of the tooth missing and i have never been able to convince myself without the tooth indicator.

A case of Pavlov's Clogs?

[terrysoldpennies 795]

That's with unworn coins, I have a couple that are worn, and its very obvious as the ear is totally untouched  with the rest of the head badly worn.

[zookeeperz 470]

23 minutes ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Bearing in mind that what we refer to as a broken tooth, is the result of a partial blockage of one of the tiny indentations around the edge of the die that form the teeth. its not unlikely that the hole started to block during 1915 then gradually built up, but during this period a small piece of the blockage may have broken away again, only to them build up again giving the variation in the size of the tooth, this may explain the out of sequence 1915 coin of Zoos

Sorry Terry I should of Put mine is a 1916 RE that resembles the tooth structure of the 1915 my bad
 

 

[PWA 1967 2,256]

Yes probably Rob its more the picture rather than having one in hand.Have you had any or seen any with the tooth complete or do you not bother checking them.

[zookeeperz 470]

9 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Yes i dont believe its broken for a test that is why you find them without the broken tooth and think from memory davidrj posted one on another thread.Although i dont think there are many without part of the tooth missing and i have never been able to convince myself without the tooth indicator.

Yes I have also seen other dates that resemble RE to look at but never pushed on further mainly because if there were any we would of known by now.?

[Rob 3,221]

Just now, PWA 1967 said:

Yes probably Rob its more the picture rather than having one in hand.Have you had any or seen any with the tooth complete or do you not bother checking them.

I don't bother. I check for open 3s, 1908 1*, narrow date 1877 and 1879, halfpenny numeral 1862s and die numbers. O/w, they are given a cursory glance to see if anything is abnormal. If not, the grade determines whether they are worth putting in the trays or the scrap pile.

[PWA 1967 2,256]

5 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

Yes I have also seen other dates that resemble RE to look at but never pushed on further mainly because if there were any we would of known by now.?

No i only meant 1915 Zoo ,dont start me off looking at them all 

[IanB 175]

58 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

I dont think the top one is Ian.

Yes Pete, the bottom one is a RE complete with broken tooth. The top one does not have a broken tooth but under an eye glass it look the same. I was comparing the hollow section behind the ear and under the ear lobe which is there on both, the top one being more worn. I also compared these two to a 3rd 1915 I have which is definitely not RE and there is a noticeable difference.

Wishful thinking on my part no doubt

 

[Coinery 1,248]

Have you chaps posted this in Hammered just to show off how many posts you can generate in one thread?