variatys, listings, and that line between what is and isn't

[scott 144]

it seems we have a problem with what makes these, some things are bizzrare some things are obvious, so i have split them into 3 categorys depending on how easy they are to spot. i have some pictures in each.

type 1 - the obvious

this of course is the easy to spot varierty where the coin looks "differant" without comparison to others needed, most of the earlier stuff would be in here (roses plumes those sort of things) and possibly the 1895 2mm being at the border of this to type 2, this category would also fit for SOME early bunheads especially the narrow date varietys, mules would also go here.

type 2 - the trained eye.

this is the main category, this is where we have slight changes to coins that you may miss without comparison (tides, 1895-96 shilling roses, most bunheads, date sizes, pointings to teeth) these are generaly established varietys but some seem to have been ignored and should really be listed, this is where decimal coin varietys go (the dot allignemnts and 1992 20p head sizes)

this is where most of the varietys we have, sadly most of these are undervalued due to unlistings in most books, the 1858 small date fartihng being the best example.

if you had the large rose shilling you can see the differance in rose size, while listed in CCGB in some major books this isnt listed which leaves some obvious varietys indervalued. this is the category

type 3 - the dyes

this is the most controversial, we have some obvious varietys that are listed that are surly only die errors (filled colon dots, etc) a few of the 1700-1800 coppers have listed "dotless" which is filled dyes, and the RFG and 2 pronged trident could be similar, yet we get filled colon dots elsewhere and its not a variety.

what about this? there is an obvious diferance between this and 1845 reverses in the fact that its FID. the DEF: exists but there is no sign of a dot to make it a colon on FID, there are FID. reverses in the farthing series (in fact 1839 2 prong trident has it, and 1840 has DEF.) so is this worn dye? this coin is unlisted from what i can see, yet it has characteristics of varietys of other listed farthings.

type 3 is the one we need to clarify properly its hard to keep track of this category, due to certain varietys being listed yet similar ones being classified as errors

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Unsatisfying though it may be, you're never going to get a scientific solution to what is a moveable feast.

Some people might want to collect die differences, after all, what's the difference between collecting wide or narrow dates and die numbers ?

Why do some narrow/wide dates become 'known' and attract a premium and others dont ?

I can only talk about pennies, but Freeman and Gouby didn't think they were of any great significance, seems there are powers at work who now want to highlight these die differences.

I think a consensus in the coin community is fundamentally unobtainable, an oxymoron.

There is no right or wrong, just as any values are estimates, it's not a precise pastime.

I understand your desire for clarity, but.......

Edited June 8, 2010 by £400 for a Penny ?

[azda 979]

If someone could point out the midified efigy of a 1926 penny and tell me what i'm looking for, and also how can a 1922 Penny be stamped on the back of a 1927, its 5 years in the future, is someone yanking my chain here?

Edited June 8, 2010 by azda

[Gary D 76]

If someone could point out the midified efigy of a 1926 penny and tell me what i'm looking for, and also how can a 1922 Penny be stamped on the back of a 1927, its 5 years in the future, is someone yanking my chain here?

The are several pointer to the 1926 ME penny. The 1st if in top condition is the signature on GVs neck. Old effigy B.M. modified effigy. BM and further to the back of the neck. This wears very quickly so I go for the I of DEI. I to gap old, I to tooth ME.

The 1922 penny. The royal mint is constanly working on new designs which take time to introduce. Although 5 years is a bit long producing no pennies in 1923-25 probably lengthen the gap. I believe the mint were working on reducing ghosting and they knocked up a few trails which just got chucked into the bin for circulation.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Gary D

[Red Riley 2]

If someone could point out the midified efigy of a 1926 penny and tell me what i'm looking for, and also how can a 1922 Penny be stamped on the back of a 1927, its 5 years in the future, is someone yanking my chain here?

The official answer is that the initials, BM are further to the right on the ME but that's not how most people recognise them. Compare say, a 1922 with a 1927 - it is a completely new piece of work, is softer in line and far less angular. Once you've got it into your head, you will always remember it.

Re 1927 reverse on 1922 coin; odd isn't it? The only explanation is that the design was, as you say prepared 5 years before. No idea why it wasn't used on the 1926 penny.

[azda 979]

Would have been a pain in the neck if he popped his cloggs inbetween those dates

[RLC35 288]

Red,

You are right about the BM being further to the right on th 1926ME. The problem is that most of the 1926ME's are softly struck, and the BM is not visable, or if it is, you can't tell if it has the stops or not, due to the soft strike/wear. A clearer identifier is the colon between GRA and BRITT on the obverse. On the ME the bottom dot of the colon will almost be touching the A of GRA, where on the regular 1926, the bottom dot of the colon is perfectly centered between the A of GRA and the B of BRITT.

I have a 1926 ME in AVF for $30.00, plus $3.99 S&H (from the USA), if anyone is interested.

[TomGoodheart 400]

Even in hammered coins it's not clear cut I'm afraid.

I was taught there are firstly, coin types. These are where the bust design or reverse changes significantly. You just can't mistake a Vicky bun portrait for that stupid muffin-wearing Jubilee bust. They are different types.

Then there are varieties. Here the changes are more subtle and require a bit of inspection. Such as the third bust of William III. (To be honest I'd class most of the bust changes of say William III or Anne as varieties myself as they are substantially the same. Or at least less different than some of the different varieties in hammered coins.)

Then there are the oddities. A letter is missing; BRIT is shortened to BRI. Someone has had a bad day and stamped the die carelessly and oops, the Scottish lion is upside down. Back from lunch at the inn and 'AVSPICE' becomes 'AVSSPCE'.

What of these? Are they really varieties, when there is only one die, created in error? And if not, then quite how do they differ from that handful of coins for which a new portrait was created but then apparently withdrawn, leaving as few as five or six coins in existence?

I suppose what I'm getting at is that, like beauty, varieties are (partly) in the eye of the beholder. And to me, a line has to be drawn somewhere. So while I find a coin where contraction stops have been used instead of dots, or where five dots have been used to break up the legend instead of one, interesting, I'm not going to go out of my way to search for an example. Whereas some people do.

If you want to chase a coin where the dies have corroded or filled to make a slightly different legend, fine. But for myself I have enough problems just finding an example of each of the major portrait changes. And unless (or until) I win the lottery, that's unlikely to change!

[Peckris 579]

scott - it's driven by two factors IMO : 1) tradition 2) the market.

Varieties that come under 1) are e.g. the 1902 LT penny and halfpenny which have been known about for the longest time. So, despite being just one insignificant difference, there is a market for them.

Varieties that come under 2) are e.g. the sub-varieties of 1902 penny (date pointings). These have only recently been researched, and as yet, no-one is sufficiently interested to pay a premium for them, except maybe a few punters on eBay. I'm prepared to bet that Warwick&Warwick wouldn't even look out for them. There's no tradition - the market rules.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Peckris

[1949threepence 3,367]

For me personally, for a coin variant from the mass production for a given year, to be classed as a significant variety, it has to be:-

1) More than a die error

2) More than one or two letters pointing to a different dot or bead, which is only visible through a lens anyway.

3) More than just a tiny handful in existence. That's not really going to generate anything other than a very minute specialist market.

4) Frankly, more than the odd letter or so in the legend being elogated or curled, or whatever. Again, few of them are widely recognised, and they don't hit you in the eye.

There are significant and well recognised varieties, such as the 1895 2mm, the 1902 low tide, the 1926 ME, which are easily visible to the naked eye, and of which enough were produced to generate a reasonable market amongst rank and file collectors.

But once again, it's down to personal opinion and the collectability factor. Some coins have it, others don't. Whether, for example, the mainstream collector of pennies, will bother with anything from 1860, other than beaded and toothed border, or whether they will feel it's necessary for them to chase separate 1864's for plain and crosslet 4's, an 1865 5/3, an 1882 no H, an 1863 with die No, or an 1841 no colon after REG, is up for debate.

Edited June 8, 2010 by 1949threepence

[Rob 3,152]

The whole question of what constitutes a collectable or not variety is entirely down to the whims of collectors, but serious in depth study is inevitably restricted to the anoraks of whatever denomination and so by definition, a relatively restricted group.

For me, the concept of varieties varies with time. On older coinage where there were no mechanical reduction methods employed to ensure reproducible designs it is quite useful to record any die variations for research purposes, but to imagine that any premium should be applied to dies which are effectively all individual designs is quite patently silly. When you get to more modern coinage from the 1800's onwards, the increased mechanisation results in a greater consistency of product and so any material changes to the design such as the use of an obviously different bust punch are of an increased significance.

So, I can see the wide date/narrow date case as they are clear with only a cursory glance. More important is if a die has been deliberately modified for reuse in subsequent years by a change of date or there has been an easily identifiable correction to an error then again we have a significant variety in my view. Clearly provenance marks such plumes, roses, elephants etc are unquestionable varieties.

But I find it difficult to get excited about where the legend is relative to the border teeth and similarly the fact that the last datal figure (or pair of figures) were entered manually means that spacing here is ever so slightly different on each die and again I find it hard to get excited. I also have a problem with recut but unchanged letters, random dots and blocked dies which are a result of die damage or the adhesion of crap to the die. Neither were design features and are about as important as the differences between last night's and today's evening meals.

Although generally aligned with 1949, I am not in agreement with his rejection of any variety with limited numbers available as this is clouding the issue between what is not easily visible due to the size of variation and what you are unlikely to see due to the lack of numbers available. A good example was in my image gallery (now apparently defunct) which had a transposed French & Irish shields William III 1697y shilling. The error is obvious to any student of early milled coins because the shields are in the wrong order. In the hand, the error is even more apparent because the die axis is 90 degrees left with only the French shield being in the correct place if you flip the coin over. It is however only the second known example of this type which up to 2003 was represented by a unique coin previously in the Parsons and Jackson-Kent collections. So what do you do - ignore it as being too rare? It is also informative as a piece of historical information as the French arms alignment tells you that the person who put the dies in the mill aligned the top of the obverse with the French arms when setting up.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

I believe that there is one important fact with the 1877 that needs to be clarified....

It is NOT a "SLENDER 7" as in the 1863 slender 3; it is rather an 1877 "NARROW DATE" as attributed on the slab as well as classified as such by Freeman and Gouby. It is the ENTIRE date that is being attributed, NOT a single digit within it.

EASILY identified as such with the naked eye and a recognized variety. It is NOT an error nor is it known to be a pattern. Admittedly no mintage figures for any date provides a breakdown by die variety, and common sense would lead one to assume that more than the 6 or 7 known were actually struck, but inasmuch as there IS a demand amongst collectors for major varieties, this coin will always command a premium so long as the supply is limited.

Similar logic would apply for the 1908 F-164A, the 1909 F-169, and the 1922 reverse of 1927.

Go back a century or two and you will find widespread instances of spelling errors and other evidence of die-cutting varieties which as a general rule command little or no premium of one type over another.

The difference in the later coins from the 1840's or so onward, is the improvement in die cutting techniques which reduced the differences to a much smaller scale or were indicated by DISTINCT differences in the die itself which provide the fodder for the demand amongst the collector base for the known available varieties, and fuel the search for the discovery of previously UNKNOWN die varieties or pairings.

So long as there is a collector base for an item, there will be a demand for it.

The BOTTOM line is that it is the individual collectors choice to tailor his collecting interest and his collection to his own personal interest. It may be guided by catalogues and guides, the collector community, etc. but should NOT DICTATED or MANDATED to the collector by these or any other source that this is what he MUST collect. This is a HOBBY and a personal one, and should be mandated by ones personal interests.

AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT....

[Peckris 579]

I believe that there is one important fact with the 1877 that needs to be clarified....

It is NOT a "SLENDER 7" as in the 1863 slender 3; it is rather an 1877 "NARROW DATE" as attributed on the slab as well as classified as such by Freeman and Gouby. It is the ENTIRE date that is being attributed, NOT a single digit within it.

EASILY identified as such with the naked eye and a recognized variety. It is NOT an error nor is it known to be a pattern. Admittedly no mintage figures for any date provides a breakdown by die variety, and common sense would lead one to assume that more than the 6 or 7 known were actually struck, but inasmuch as there IS a demand amongst collectors for major varieties, this coin will always command a premium so long as the supply is limited.

Similar logic would apply for the 1908 F-164A, the 1909 F-169, and the 1922 reverse of 1927.

Go back a century or two and you will find widespread instances of spelling errors and other evidence of die-cutting varieties which as a general rule command little or no premium of one type over another.

The difference in the later coins from the 1840's or so onward, is the improvement in die cutting techniques which reduced the differences to a much smaller scale or were indicated by DISTINCT differences in the die itself which provide the fodder for the demand amongst the collector base for the known available varieties, and fuel the search for the discovery of previously UNKNOWN die varieties or pairings.

So long as there is a collector base for an item, there will be a demand for it.

The BOTTOM line is that it is the individual collectors choice to tailor his collecting interest and his collection to his own personal interest. It may be guided by catalogues and guides, the collector community, etc. but should NOT DICTATED or MANDATED to the collector by these or any other source that this is what he MUST collect. This is a HOBBY and a personal one, and should be mandated by ones personal interests.

AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT....

Wow, you going for the record of how many topics to put one post into?

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Wow, you going for the record of how many topics to put one post into?

No......

[1949threepence 3,367]

The BOTTOM line is that it is the individual collectors choice to tailor his collecting interest and his collection to his own personal interest. It may be guided by catalogues and guides, the collector community, etc. but should NOT DICTATED or MANDATED to the collector by these or any other source that this is what he MUST collect. This is a HOBBY and a personal one, and should be mandated by ones personal interests.

It is mostly down to personal motivation, but at the same time, this is often aligned with collective imagination in terms of what particular varieties achieve widespread notoriety, and interest.

AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT....

Quoted for truth

[scott 144]

6-7 known for narrow 1877? i would say that surly they would have similar mintage to th 1879 narrow (which i dunno anything about how many of those are "known")

[Red Riley 2]

6-7 known for narrow 1877? i would say that surly they would have similar mintage to th 1879 narrow (which i dunno anything about how many of those are "known")

According to Freeman 500-1000 1879 narrows. 1874 and 1874H with the early obverse are also quite scarce. 1874 and 1874H (later obverse), 1875 and 1876H are all common.

Unfortunately the name by which the variety is known rather underplays the fact that these incorporate quite significant changes to the standard reverse and as such they tend to get lumped in with later coins which display infinitessimal differnces in date width and virtually no other peculiarities. It's a shame they didn't become known as '1874 (etc.) thin lighthouse' which sounds a bit more important.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

From a posting in another thread, but pertinent here....

Of note, is that aside from the NARROW date... (we are NOT just speaking of differences in date width)... The ENTIRE REVERSE DIE is different....

The NARROW DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE, whereas the WIDE DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE....

PLEASE SEE APPROPRIATE PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's EXCELLENT WEBSITE for IMAGES of BOTH TYPES.....

LINK TO PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's WEBSITE PERTAINING to the 1877 PENNY

We are talking about 2 distinct reverses with these two varieties, NOT just a minor variation in date spacing....

Edited June 12, 2010 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[1949threepence 3,367]

From a posting in another thread, but pertinent here....

Of note, is that aside from the NARROW date... (we are NOT just speaking of differences in date width)... The ENTIRE REVERSE DIE is different....

The NARROW DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE, whereas the WIDE DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE....

PLEASE SEE APPROPRIATE PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's EXCELLENT WEBSITE for IMAGES of BOTH TYPES.....

LINK TO PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's WEBSITE PERTAINING to the 1877 PENNY

We are talking about 2 distinct reverses with these two varieties, NOT just a minor variation in date spacing....

Interesting that Gouby doesn't actually seem to have an otherwise very high regard for variant date spacings.

Gouby & date spacings

Some collectors have started collecting or recording variations in date widths.

I do not consider the great majority of these variations as being of significant importance or rarity above the norm.

Some, like the 1889 narrow date, do eventually achieve a rarity status and command a premium over the norm.

Only time will tell which of the others do !

I shall list and scan some of the variations that pass through my hands.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

No, neither did Freeman much, but we know who does now.....

Question is, are they creating the market, or tapping in to a vein of interest ?

The perennial question.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

From a posting in another thread, but pertinent here....

Of note, is that aside from the NARROW date... (we are NOT just speaking of differences in date width)... The ENTIRE REVERSE DIE is different....

The NARROW DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE, whereas the WIDE DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE....

PLEASE SEE APPROPRIATE PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's EXCELLENT WEBSITE for IMAGES of BOTH TYPES.....

LINK TO PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's WEBSITE PERTAINING to the 1877 PENNY

We are talking about 2 distinct reverses with these two varieties, NOT just a minor variation in date spacing....

Interesting that Gouby doesn't actually seem to have an otherwise very high regard for variant date spacings.

Gouby & date spacings

Some collectors have started collecting or recording variations in date widths.

I do not consider the great majority of these variations as being of significant importance or rarity above the norm.

Some, like the 1889 narrow date, do eventually achieve a rarity status and command a premium over the norm.

Only time will tell which of the others do !

I shall list and scan some of the variations that pass through my hands.

Agreed, regarding variations within a specific die.... but not when the die itself is different...

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

So.. Is the exergue part of the die ?

I'm saying it isn't and that any activity within the exergue is not part of the die and therefore isn't of any significance.

In my world thick and thin lighthouses are of interest, Wyons initials are of interest, numbers of berries and hair vvariations count, but the exergue has been created deliberately as an area in which ongoing working maintenance (such as changing the date) can take place, therefore it should be of no surprise that there are differences.

My position is, that if it's below the exergual line, it's not a difference in the design, it's an unintentional (and inevitable) signature of the mintworker who engraved the plate.

And therefore, to me, it's not a variety, it's a feature.

These are just my thoughts, better expressed than withheld.

Rgds as always.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

So.. Is the exergue part of the die ?

I'm saying it isn't and that any activity within the exergue is not part of the die and therefore isn't of any significance.

In my world thick and thin lighthouses are of interest, Wyons initials are of interest, numbers of berries and hair vvariations count, but the exergue has been created deliberately as an area in which ongoing working maintenance (such as changing the date) can take place, therefore it should be of no surprise that there are differences.

My position is, that if it's below the exergual line, it's not a difference in the design, it's an unintentional (and inevitable) signature of the mintworker who engraved the plate.

And therefore, to me, it's not a variety, it's a feature.

These are just my thoughts, better expressed than withheld.

Rgds as always.

If I understand what you are saying.. is that you are agreeing that the 1877 F-90 is a distinct variety from the 1877 F-91... As they have 2 different reverses... One has the thinner lighthouse, the other the thicker lighthouse.... Incidental to the fact that the lighthouse is thinner is the fact that on this reverse variety the datal numerals are more closely spaced...... In Gouby's NEW SPECIALIZED book, he lists a few datal spacings on the variety with the thicker lighthouse and the wider spaced date....

Regarding Michael Gouby's quote from the website...

"Some collectors have started collecting or recording variations in date widths.

I do not consider the great majority of these variations as being of significant importance or rarity above the norm.

Some, like the 1889 narrow date, do eventually achieve a rarity status and command a premium over the norm.

Only time will tell which of the others do !

I shall list and scan some of the variations that pass through my hands."

I believe he is referring to variations of datal width amongst a SPECIFIC reverse design.

The commonly used nomenclature describing the differences as "WIDE" or "NARROW" dates is a simplistic means of describing the most obvious difference between the 2 basic types...

In actuality, there is only one datal spacing noted in Gouby's SPECIALIZED book for the 1877 F-90 (narrow date - Thin Lighthouse), whereas there are (I don't have the book with me, so this is from memory) 3 datal spacings noted for the 1877 F-91 (Wide date - Thick Lighthouse)..

Without wanting to speak for anyone, I interpret his disclaimer regarding date spacings as WITHIN a SPECIFIC DESIGN, and not broadly spread amongst ALL varieties of a date.... Without wanting to complicate things with the dates in the 1870's and later, and just using 1861 for example.... No one can deny that there are several different Obverse and Reverse die DESIGNS in use for that year. And they command a premium based upon specific rarity based upon the various combinations of the dies involved.... Any premium upon the date spacing on a SPECIFIC die combination is ARBITRARY and based upon COLLECTOR INTEREST & DEMAND.... And I believe this is what he was referencing in his preface comment on his website.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[azda 979]

If you create a myth it's always going to be intriging. Take the loch ness monster for instannce, a myth some say, genuine others say. There will always be hunters for Nessie, and there will always be buyers for rarities.

[Peckris 579]

If you create a myth it's always going to be intriging. Take the loch ness monster for instannce, a myth some say, genuine others say. There will always be hunters for Nessie, and there will always be buyers for rarities.

I cite Binns, and Mackay, who both showed from evidence that the Loch Ness Monster was unknown before 1933 and was in all likelihood a myth created by the then water bailiff (whose name I forget). The supposed photographic evidence can all be explained and - using Occam's Razor - the explanations are all simpler than conceptualising a monster.

(Sorry, a digression there. But I find Nessie about on the same level as Roswell, the Twin Towers 9/11 "conspiracy", and "Man never landed on the Moon". Oh, not to forget the esteemed Von Daniken and his astronaut "gods" )