1882 London Mint penny ?

[VickySilver 830]

Yikes, I know Bernie et al get a bit upset as I say this but I don't see how we can be sure "no H" 1882s were not struck with other die combos. And whether the coin was struck in Heaton without the requisite "H" or London correctly with no mintmark would seem to be somewhat moot unless one attempted to match with metallurgy (even then would be a problem as I recall that planchet blanks derived from different sources). The coin would be a "no H" in either instance.

If all accepted 1882 "H"s came from one particular die combo, it would seem logically to indicate that those are "no H" specimens but do not preclude another, or even multiple die combination(s) - though it does seem a bit farfetched; the point being that a particular coin or its brethren from the same die are what they are and do not directly exclude other possibilities.

Another interesting bit are examples in other series such as the 1922 US cent with "no D" that in fact was a Denver mint product wherein it was said the die was filled but evidently was struck by different dies!?!

[VickySilver 830]

Second paragraph typo: if all accepted 1882 "H"s should read as "no H"s.

[Mr T 175]

Yikes, I know Bernie et al get a bit upset as I say this but I don't see how we can be sure "no H" 1882s were not struck with other die combos. And whether the coin was struck in Heaton without the requisite "H" or London correctly with no mintmark would seem to be somewhat moot unless one attempted to match with metallurgy (even then would be a problem as I recall that planchet blanks derived from different sources). The coin would be a "no H" in either instance.

If all accepted 1882 "H"s came from one particular die combo, it would seem logically to indicate that those are "no H" specimens but do not preclude another, or even multiple die combination(s) - though it does seem a bit farfetched; the point being that a particular coin or its brethren from the same die are what they are and do not directly exclude other possibilities.

133 years later we can never be sure - in any case, I think where the coin was struck isn't that relevant - it's the absence of a mintmark that makes it a desirable coin.

It is possible too there are other no-H die combinations too but so far there have been no examples that prove it (all other no-H coins appear to be worn beyond proper identification or that have the barest traces of a H left).

[Nordle11 564]

This one was sold last year as a 'no h' and has good detail, however was on the 12+N pairing. It also went for £1500 so you'd hope the bidder knew what they were doing..

Edited December 15, 2015 by Nordle11

[davidrj 194]

The 1882 cupronickel Jamaica penny is also catalogued as having a no H variant, but I've not seen a picture of a convincing one, except the exceedingly rare proof

[PWA 1967 2,125]

This one was sold last year as a 'no h' and has good detail, however was on the 12+N pairing. It also went for £1500 so you'd hope the bidder knew what they were doing..

That one was posted on another thread .

The close up pictures though if i remember at the time were not convincing.

[Nordle11 564]

Along with the strange die pairing and the not completely blank space below the date, it certainly beckons being scrutinised.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Along with the strange die pairing and the not completely blank space below the date, it certainly beckons being scrutinised.

Whenever these 1882 no H's come up, there always seems to be some tell tale mark under the date.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Take a look here

Decent size image:-

penny1882noH.jpg

What do you think ?

I've blown up your picture and I see a slight smudge wher the H would be

I don't have the books next to me. seem to recall 1882 no H has a different die combination, so Hi res scans both sides please

Fingers crossed for you!

David

Looks like F12 to me, as the eye is quite palpably closer to the bridge of the nose on F11, which the 1882 without a H is solely described as being. So either tooled, or the photo does not show up the H for whatever reason.

Definitely an 1882H and I got all over excited for nothing. Sorry for the fuss, people.

A few weeks ago Bernie Workman posted a picture of his excellent London 1882 Penny:

http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5326&view=findpost&p=41765

To me the eye does indeed look closer to the bridge of the nose on Bernie's coin.

The only one where I can't detect any mark under the date, is the one shown in the link above (Bernie's)

[PWA 1967 2,125]

Along with the strange die pairing and the not completely blank space below the date, it certainly beckons being scrutinised.

Whenever these 1882 no H's come up, there always seems to be some tell tale mark under the date.

Thats why i prefer to leave them alone.

[VickySilver 830]

Please see citation of US 1922 cent "no D". I guess my point is that besides there being numerous examples with interesting appearances in the location of where the H would be, I have heard of many being summarily dismissed because of the die pairing only - IMO, not good science or logic.

That having been said, I quite agree a jaundiced eye must be turned to each claimed specimen and a high level of certainty be obtained before accepting it.

[Bernie 203]

I would be 100% happy bidding for the LCA 1882, if I wanted it. It is possible that no H pennies exist with obverse 12 but until a high grade one turns up, I am not convinced. A few have turned up with Obverse 12, with no H showing. I have never been that enthusiastic that I have had the urge to bid.

[RLC35 288]

Please see citation of US 1922 cent "no D". I guess my point is that besides there being numerous examples with interesting appearances in the location of where the H would be, I have heard of many being summarily dismissed because of the die pairing only - IMO, not good science or logic.

That having been said, I quite agree a jaundiced eye must be turned to each claimed specimen and a high level of certainty be obtained before accepting it.

Above is my 1922 "no D" (strong reverse) in Fine condition. This is the coin Vicky is referring too!

[Mr T 175]

This one was sold last year as a 'no h' and has good detail, however was on the 12+N pairing. It also went for £1500 so you'd hope the bidder knew what they were doing..

Still looks to me like there's a very faint and off-centre H under the date.

Please see citation of US 1922 cent "no D". I guess my point is that besides there being numerous examples with interesting appearances in the location of where the H would be, I have heard of many being summarily dismissed because of the die pairing only - IMO, not good science or logic.

I think most people would be open to the idea of another no-H die pairing but the examples that get put forward that don't have the correct die pairing are generally too worn to be conclusive, and given that the H is prone to die fill conclusive proof is really what would be needed.

[VickySilver 830]

Interesting, I guess to me if the coin leaves the die without an "H", that it is a "no H" regardless of how that got to be; if somehow it could be pinned by some other method to either London or Heaton. It should be interesting to see if finally another die pairing may gain acceptance as a "no H".