Rare but largly unknowns

[DaveG38 405]

Hi all,

I have just been reviewing some old coin monthly mags from the1970s - sad isn't it? And I came across a couple of what were referred to at the time as 'reader's rarities' and I wondered if any body knew what happened to the actual coins and if any others have been discovered. One such was the 1671 Charles II crown with the quarto edge date, of which I have an example, and I have come across a couple of other examples over the years, but I have never seen another 1847 sixpence, nor have I found a 1903/2 penny. These last two seem to be as rare as the 1954 penny or the 1952 halfcrown, but have never had quite the same hype.

Does anybody know anything about either of these? There are other coins, but these are two which stood out for me.

[scott 144]

never heard of these, there are 1848/7 sixpences which must mean there were 1847 sixpences minted although there seems to be no figures for it.

1903/2 penny? never heard of such a thing

surly if those did pop up, they would fetch the sums for thier rarity though

[Sylvester 15]

never heard of these, there are 1848/7 sixpences which must mean there were 1847 sixpences minted although there seems to be no figures for it.

Not necessarily, it may be the case that dies were prepared but in the event were not used. This makes overdates more likely, why throw away perfectly good unused dies just because the year is wrong? Simple solution... change the year.

[Rob 3,152]

Or simply just a case of correcting an error in the punch used.

[DaveG38 405]

never heard of these, there are 1848/7 sixpences which must mean there were 1847 sixpences minted although there seems to be no figures for it.

Not necessarily, it may be the case that dies were prepared but in the event were not used. This makes overdates more likely, why throw away perfectly good unused dies just because the year is wrong? Simple solution... change the year.

I think you are quite right that the dies were prepared in readiness, but simply weren't used for 1847 and then were recut for 1848. My guess is that the coin I saw in Coin Monthly, which was only in fair/fine condition at best and had obviously been in circulation, was some kind of trial striking to see how the dies stood up and was simply dumped into circulation by the mint - after all they weren't there to engineer a rare date for the collector, and they probably saw this as a useful way to get some use out of the trail strikings. For me the interesting thing is whether there were any more, whether they all eventually got melted down, or whether there are others out there. also, of course, where is the example from CM?

Edited January 2, 2010 by DaveG38

[Sylvester 15]

For me the interesting thing is whether there were any more, whether they all eventually got melted down, or whether there are others out there. also, of course, where is the example from CM?

This has happened quite a lot actually over the years, unknown varieties turning up out of the midsts of time only to be recognised and then swiftly disappearing back into the ether never to see the light of day again.

It could be that many are in low grade and simply misattributed and the error isn't corrected for sometime and thus you don't get any articles correcting the previous one. Then again there have been rare coins identified and only to gone walkies and never be seen again. Several early milled and an Anglo-Saxon spring to mind. In more modern times however, you would hope that accidental misattributing is corrected.

[Peckris 579]

Don't rule out forgeries. If your Coin Monthlies extend back to the late 60s, you will see reference to a smattering of Victorian halfcrowns dated between 1851 and 1873. These were published as Readers' Rarities along with Royal Mint letters giving their "opinion that these are genuine strikes". All were in Poor to Fair condition, and at the time were thought to be rare proofs. It later transpired that they all had the obverse from post-1974 halfcrowns, i.e. they were most likely contemporary forgeries produced after 1874, with fictional dates to perhaps attempt to give an unlikely legal defence in the event of being caught (in the same way as modern £1 forgeries have impossible obverse/reverse combinations).

The 1847 sixpence could be a forgery, though it's less likely that a 1903/2 penny would be (who would bother?). Without us being able to see the pictures - do you have a scan of the magazine article? - it's impossible to give an opinion on it.

[VickySilver 830]

I have often wondered about that 1847 6d. Is that the one reported in ESC? Does anybody have a picture of this coin, esp. the reverse?

Well rarities are discovered all the time and mercifully forgotten, and have to confess that IMO some of these varietals need to stay in their pens (ie narrow and wide dates, thin dates, etc.). Others just get more publicity and seem to stay popular.

[AardHawk 73]

I have often wondered about that 1847 6d. Is that the one reported in ESC? Does anybody have a picture of this coin, esp. the reverse?

This is the original article from Coin Monthly July 1973.

[AardHawk 73]

This is a higher resolution scan of the original image. Not very good I'm afraid.

The thing that strikes me, is how clear the date is considering the wear on the rest of the coin.

[Gary D 76]

This is a higher resolution scan of the original image. Not very good I'm afraid.

The thing that strikes me, is how clear the date is considering the wear on the rest of the coin.

It's probably just the reproduction print or scan, but the date seems to rise away from the rim to the right side.

Gary

[AardHawk 73]

It's probably just the reproduction print or scan, but the date seems to rise away from the rim to the right side.

Gary

It shows up very clearly in the original article. Probably people rubbing it with their fingers as they try and pick the 7 off to see if its stuck on. I still think it looks a bit to good though.

[Rob 3,152]

Without the coin in hand, it isn't really possible to give an objective opinion on the relief of the date. If the coin is slightly dished, then the wear could be uneven. Dates are also punched in unevenly. The two types of 1860 1/2d BB reverses are a good example of this with a choice of wider spaced 60 or a narrower one with a lower 0.

[VickySilver 830]

Yes, thanks Aard for the pictures to at least get some idea. Afraid I can not pitch in with any meaningful opinion based solely on the picture. This coin has its analog in the US series with the 1870 S Half Dime that was found in a dealer tray but grades MS 63 now in a TPG and is priced at over a million dollars US.

I would be pressed to guess a reasonable price for this coin if genuine, and could get ugly at auction. The 1848/7 6d seems quite scarce and although they must exist, have not seen above gF or so. Even the 1848/6 relatively languishes as the series seems a bit unloved.

[scott 144]

the 1848/7 is what makes thing interesting, i cant help but feel, with that coin in existance they must have made a dye for 1847, perhaps they made some to test, perhaps they decided tnone were needed and they used it by mistake for a few coins before quickly correcting the dye itself.

as for the grade, the date is well protected really with all the detail around it so i would expect that to wear.

who knows, but if its the only 1 i dont see why it would come up very often, afterall its unique

[Rob 3,152]

I suspect that the answer to this puzzle may be something running in parallel to what is known for the 1848 half crown. The article in the 1958 BNJ (p.191-193) using information supplied by Stride refers but the gist is as follows.

At the time it was thought that all 1848 2/6ds were 1848/6, but in 1957 two 1848's appeared which were unambiguously not over anything. (The 1848/7 was unknown at this time.)

It was known that there were 4 obverse matrices from 1845-1853 and the number of punches was increased from 6-7 in July 1846.Based on the numbers of known dies that were in stock according to the mint records, it was possible to assign the numbers of variously dated dies at the year ends. Year end 1846 there were 35 obv. dies, all of which would have been dated 1846, 28 were sunk between July and December. Jan & Feb 1847 16 obverse dies were sunk but it is not known if they were dated or not (thought unlikely at the time of the article). During the year, 22 of the 35 1846 dated obverses were destroyed. It is thought the remaining 13 were used to strike 1847 coins but without the date altered. 347,488 2/6ds were struck in 1847, though none dated 1847 are known. Only 91,872 were struck in 1848 with the bulk being supplied by recut 1846 dies.

At this point in time there was a sharp fall in demand for 2/6ds, so the 13 remaining 1846 dies would have been sufficient to strike the small issue at just over 33000 per die if all were used. All of the 1848 dies examined appeared to have a misplaced E in DEI, but the plain date 1848 is from a die without the misplaced E which ought therefore be one of the 16 dies sunk in 1847 from the new punch, but completed in 1848.

The matter is then complicated somewhat by the 1848/7 die which also has a misplaced E in DEI, as do some but not all 1849 and 1850 dies, so the conclusions of the above article need to be revised. For about 5 years from 1847-1851 there was a considerable reduction in mint output with halfcrowns, shillings, sixpences and even small silver having gaps in the dates or very low mintages - probably related to the proposed decimalisation given the large output of Godless florins.

Unfortunately, Hocking is not clear on this point as the only things listed are : two halfcrown punches dated 18-- (item nos. 1263 & 1264), plain fillets, one with w.w. on the truncation and also a matrix (item 1250) as for the 1839 proof but with 18--. It is therefore unclear where Stride got his information from. However, the existence of an 1847 sixpence is quite feasible based on the inferences that could be drawn from the half crowns. All that would be needed would be an undated die or one dated 18--. This would be in keeping with a misaligned date and from known pennies etc and retained mint material we know that dies were kept with either none or a partial date.