James Workman Penny Auction

[Colin G. 147]

There are others more knowledgeable than me, but my understanding is that blobs of weld are laid into the die and then ground down but this does leave a couple of problems in my mind;

I never knew that to be the case, there are certainly some examples where no attempt has been made to fill the previous digit, but others where there does appear to be some effeort at hiding the repair. I always assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the impression of the new digit lead to metal movement that would weaken the image of the underlying digit. This would also explain why a lot of the underlying digits always appear thinner than they would have originally.

I also have coins that seem to show that the underlying digit disappears with time, exactly why this occurs I do not understand yet, and still need to really put soem effort into studying it.

Glad this question was asked, we may be able to try and put some logic to it

Oh and why we are on the subject would anyone like to put any logic to delayed overdates. Why 1865/2 farthings, why no 1863/2 or 1864/2, was it just that they had enough dies for 1863 and 1864 but went a bit short in 1865, or did they find them in the back of a cupboard in 1865 and think, we can utilise those

Edited November 5, 2010 by Colin G.

[Gary D 76]

How would just the top of the 1 survive when the rest of its downstroke should show within the loop of the 2?

There are others more knowledgeable than me, but my understanding is that blobs of weld are laid into the die and then ground down but this does leave a couple of problems in my mind;

1) When patching the bodywork of a car, a skilled automotive welder can lay blobs of weld into the interface between old and new metal in such a way that you have no idea there is a patch there. That being the case, why couldn't the mint make a better job of it?

2) When did they invent welding anyway?*

* Just searched the internet. In the Bronze Age apparently...

Welding may have been around since the bronze age but it was carried out by a blacksmith who would heat the two component parts to white heat and after laying them together bash brutaly with a big hammer, not the sort of treatment conducive to repairing coin dies.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Gary D

[1949threepence 3,367]

There are others more knowledgeable than me, but my understanding is that blobs of weld are laid into the die and then ground down but this does leave a couple of problems in my mind;

I never knew that to be the case, there are certainly some examples where no attempt has been made to fill the previous digit, but others where there does appear to be some effeort at hiding the repair. I always assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the impression of the new digit lead to metal movement that would weaken the image of the underlying digit. This would also explain why a lot of the underlying digits always appear thinner than they would have originally.

I also have coins that seem to show that the underlying digit disappears with time, exactly why this occurs I do not understand yet, and still need to really put soem effort into studying it.

Glad this question was asked, we may be able to try and put some logic to it

Oh and why we are on the subject would anyone like to put any logic to delayed overdates. Why 1865/2 farthings, why no 1863/2 or 1864/2, was it just that they had enough dies for 1863 and 1864 but went a bit short in 1865, or did they find them in the back of a cupboard in 1865 and think, we can utilise those

I've often wondered that as well ~ as for the 1862 8 over 6 penny, what's that all about ?

[scott 144]

wrong number was used lol

[Colin G. 147]

I've often wondered that as well ~ as for the 1862 8 over 6 penny, what's that all about ?

I reckon its a case that the coin design would be backwards on the die, the 6 was due to be repaired, so logically the workers mind may think recut the third digit, when it is actually the second because of the design being reversed....does that make sense

[Peckris2 0]

Bernie,

Thanks for the close up of the "2." While the vertical is hard to see, as it always is, the top of the "1," above the 2, is very clear, and helps greatly in the identification.

I visited your website, very impressive, will bookmark !!

The picture of the 1860T (lot 8) is highly unrepresentative of the actual coin. The scratches and scars that appear on the picture are not as apparently obvious and the coin is a chocolate brown colour. The area around where the (missing) colon dots should be is unclear. I therefore are attaching a picture of the area.

There appears to be a picture of Lisa Simpson's head to the right of the F:D

How would just the top of the 1 survive when the rest of its downstroke should show within the loop of the 2?

There are others more knowledgeable than me, but my understanding is that blobs of weld are laid into the die and then ground down but this does leave a couple of problems in my mind;

1) When patching the bodywork of a car, a skilled automotive welder can lay blobs of weld into the interface between old and new metal in such a way that you have no idea there is a patch there. That being the case, why couldn't the mint make a better job of it?

2) When did they invent welding anyway?*

* Just searched the internet. In the Bronze Age apparently...

Many thanks for the enlightenment (and later posts on the same topic)

Oh and why we are on the subject would anyone like to put any logic to delayed overdates. Why 1865/2 farthings, why no 1863/2 or 1864/2, was it just that they had enough dies for 1863 and 1864 but went a bit short in 1865, or did they find them in the back of a cupboard in 1865 and think, we can utilise those

Theory :

The 1862 mintage was very large, but maybe they prepared even more dies than were needed.

The small 1863 mintage was maybe expected to be larger, so therefore a leftover die or two there too? 1864 was modest.

The 1865 may also have been expected to be small too, but then they discovered they needed more, so re-used the leftover dies from 1862 and 1863?

[1949threepence 3,367]

I've often wondered that as well ~ as for the 1862 8 over 6 penny, what's that all about ?

I reckon its a case that the coin design would be backwards on the die, the 6 was due to be repaired, so logically the workers mind may think recut the third digit, when it is actually the second because of the design being reversed....does that make sense

Sort of, Colin.....but it's too late at night, and I'm too mentally tired to really think it out properly. I'll take another peek in the morning. Thanks anyway.

[Bernie 203]

The James Workman Collection Part 2 will be auctioned starting 10th. November. Catalogues are available on request at Colin Cooke Coins website.

Auction Part 2 now in progress

[Bernie 203]

The James Workman Collection Part 2 will be auctioned starting 10th. November. Catalogues are available on request at Colin Cooke Coins website.

Auction Part 2 now in progress

New pictures have been placed at CCC of pennies Gouby 1860T and Freeman 36, should help sell them!!

[Coppers 58]

Although there are some coins which are still being contested, a fair number of lots have already closed. There's a stunning 26ME that is still available. Anyone here bid? Anyone win anything yet?

Edited November 19, 2010 by Coppers

[RLC35 288]

I have a bid on the 1882/1, but it is still being contested!

[VickySilver 830]

Several are still churning, will report on results....