1861 Variable dies

[azda 979]

I have 3 1861 Pennies now and i just thought i'd show some of the variations of the lighthouse and rocks plus date width for the members. Notice that on 1 of the pennies that the sea does NOT cross the linear line and on the other the lighthouse base curves differently. Anyone else with an 1861 that varies from these please feel free to add.

I believe its always good to educate

[azda 979]

And the date widths

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

I have 3 1861 Pennies now and i just thought i'd show some of the variations of the lighthouse and rocks plus date width for the members. Notice that on 1 of the pennies that the sea does NOT cross the linear line and on the other the lighthouse base curves differently. Anyone else with an 1861 that varies from these please feel free to add.

I believe its always good to educate

I wouldn't even know where to begin..... With just the basic 5 obverses (not counting the rare obverse 4 central cut fishtail) and the 3 reverses, there are 13 known basic die combinations (not counting the rarer sub-varieties) each of which have several different date widths (I won't even get into minor die variants on the obverse from the use of known different dies of the same type)..

Bernie is the expert on the subtle nuances of the known variants....

[Accumulator 52]

Interesting Azda. Here's one of mine with the LCW initials, a Rev D I believe.

[azda 979]

Interesting Azda. Here's one of mine with the LCW initials, a Rev D I believe.

I actually just found another i have from 1861, so that makes 4 The one i didn't scan has the end number 1 close to the 6, i'll do them all again and repost the pictures.

[scott 144]

6+g pairing, with a lower 1

this a close 1?

[davidrj 194]

Lots of variations in date width in the first few years,..... production problems, Gouby only starts listing them from 1866

But I have to admit I don't understand why they occur at all.

I assume the master die is made and then the final date number is punched in as required, was this from a softer metal, that had to replaced due to wear?

Some years have lttle variation, but variations in some types with low mintage, eg 1871, 1875H, and 1879 small date???

... and the nosensical wide dates in the veil head pennies

Anyone here point me to a reference on how dates were added??

David

[azda 979]

6+g pairing, with a lower 1

this a close 1?

Yup thats a close 1 Scott, here's mine

[Peckris 579]

Lots of variations in date width in the first few years,..... production problems, Gouby only starts listing them from 1866

But I have to admit I don't understand why they occur at all.

I assume the master die is made and then the final date number is punched in as required, was this from a softer metal, that had to replaced due to wear?

Some years have lttle variation, but variations in some types with low mintage, eg 1871, 1875H, and 1879 small date???

... and the nosensical wide dates in the veil head pennies

Anyone here point me to a reference on how dates were added??

David

Yes, that's a good question. My first thought was that they created master matrix dies for the whole of the 1860s then punched in the final digit as and when needed. But that makes little sense as so many were needed and struck for each of the first four years. But there must be a reason - for one thing, 1861s occur with the final digit all over the shop. Yet for 1862, many (most?) examples have the 2 at a slightly crazy angle to the 6 - i.e. misaligned but without the variation seen in 1861. Maybe the variation of 1861 drove them so mad at the Mint that they resolved to do it differently in subsequent years. And it's true, there's less crazy variation after 1861.

[Rob 3,152]

For the bronze coinage we know for certain that they had a penny 186 matrix and both 186 and 18 penny punches; 18 halfpenny punches and 187 H farthing matrices because Hocking lists these items - nos. 1512, 1516, 1517-8, 1532 and 1550 respectively. Therefore we can say that one or two digits were added as required. The evidence is there for all to see that this is in fact the case. The seemingly unending search for slight variations in the position of the final digit(s) is the result of this method from a collecting perspective.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Rob

[davidrj 194]

For the bronze coinage we know for certain that they had a penny 186 matrix and both 186 and 18 penny punches; 18 halfpenny punches and 187 H farthing matrices because Hocking lists these items - nos. 1512, 1516, 1517-8, 1532 and 1550 respectively.

Hocking ???

David

[Rob 3,152]

For the bronze coinage we know for certain that they had a penny 186 matrix and both 186 and 18 penny punches; 18 halfpenny punches and 187 H farthing matrices because Hocking lists these items - nos. 1512, 1516, 1517-8, 1532 and 1550 respectively.

Hocking ???

David

William John Hocking. Assistant Superintendent of the Operative Department, Royal Mint & Fellow of the RNS. Published 2 volumes in 1906 (vol.I Coins & Tokens) and 1910 (vol.II Dies, Medals & Seals) listing the contents of the Royal Mint Museum. This was an update to Webster's work of 1874. A very useful reference which is readily available and can be picked up quite cheaply. A pair in good condition can probably be got for less than £100, or a little worn say £60-80.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Rob

[davidrj 194]

William John Hocking. Assistant Superintendent of the Operative Department, Royal Mint & Fellow of the RNS. Published 2 volumes in 1906 (vol.I Coins & Tokens) and 1910 (vol.II Dies, Medals & Seals) listing the contents of the Royal Mint Museum. This was an update to Webster's work of 1874. A very useful reference which is readily available and can be picked up quite cheaply. A pair in good condition can probably be got for less than £100, or a little worn say £60-80.

Thanks Rob, wonder if it's now available online, Googling beckons

David

Edited January 31, 2011 by davidrj

[Rob 3,152]

William John Hocking. Assistant Superintendent of the Operative Department, Royal Mint & Fellow of the RNS. Published 2 volumes in 1906 (vol.I Coins & Tokens) and 1910 (vol.II Dies, Medals & Seals) listing the contents of the Royal Mint Museum. This was an update to Webster's work of 1874. A very useful reference which is readily available and can be picked up quite cheaply. A pair in good condition can probably be got for less than £100, or a little worn say £60-80.

Thanks Rob, wonder if it's now available online, Googling beckons

David

I had a quick look but couldn't see anything. In any case, I would naturally suggest the printed version as you can't have a quick flick through a few hundred pages of online book like you can a physical copy. Check periodically on ebay for a DIY Hocking book kit, even a disintegrated copy would be useful and is unlikely to cost more than few pounds, so wouldn't break the bank.

[azda 979]

Is it also conceiveable that there was just a 1 and 8 matrix and the last 2 digits added? Looking at some of the dates on this thread, the 8s look wider from the 6 and 1 in some pictures than others (although this might just be the angle of the pictures).

Might take the 4 1861s to work and measure with some digi verniers to see what we have.

Arggggghhhh, just found another 1861 i have, making 5 geezusssssss. I have two really nice 1861s, both different dies, but i'm not going into all these die variations as a collection, just 1 date for each year, so my question now is, out of the following 2 coins, which one would you part with?

Edited January 31, 2011 by azda

[azda 979]

and here's the 2nd one, this one the sea stops at linear circle, the other crosses it. Whichever one i decide to sell, if anyone is interested here i'd rather sell to a forum member 1st as i know it would get treated well, if no interest in whichever then i'll put it on the bay

[Rob 3,152]

Arggggghhhh, just found another 1861 i have, making 5 geezusssssss. I have two really nice 1861s, both different dies, but i'm not going into all these die variations as a collection, just 1 date for each year,

Very sensible.

Going down the individual die collecting route would be unwieldy. A back of the fag packet calculation using the 1863 & 1864 etched tonnage figures on pennies gives approximately 134 tons of pennies struck up to the end of 1863. Assuming average weight of 145 grains as per Peck and say 100,000 coins per die pair would imply about 144 die pairs used in the first 4 years of the bronze currency. Depending on teething problems with the new currency, that number could and almost certainly would increase. It's fair to say you could be a while.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Rob

[davidrj 194]

Arggggghhhh, just found another 1861 i have, making 5 geezusssssss. I have two really nice 1861s, both different dies, but i'm not going into all these die variations as a collection, just 1 date for each year,

Very sensible.

Going down the individual die collecting route would be unwieldy. A back of the fag packet calculation using the 1863 & 1864 etched tonnage figures on pennies gives approximately 134 tons of pennies struck up to the end of 1863. Assuming average weight of 145 grains as per Peck and say 100,000 coins per die pair would imply about 144 die pairs used in the first 4 years of the bronze currency. Depending on teething problems with the new currency, that number could and almost certainly would increase. It's fair to say you could be a while.

So what you are saying Rob, is the entity we refer to as a DIE which may or not have flaws etc, is in fact a machine tool cloned from a MASTER, the MASTER being where design changes occur. Which explains the differences in date widths if numbers were added later to the working DIE

So question, how were working DIEs produced from MASTERs? What was the life of a MASTER compared to a DIE? And why do we frequently have more than one MASTER in use concurrently?

Very confusing in that we are all appear to be using the term DIE for two different entities

David

[Colin G. 147]

Arggggghhhh, just found another 1861 i have, making 5 geezusssssss. I have two really nice 1861s, both different dies, but i'm not going into all these die variations as a collection, just 1 date for each year,

Very sensible.

Going down the individual die collecting route would be unwieldy. A back of the fag packet calculation using the 1863 & 1864 etched tonnage figures on pennies gives approximately 134 tons of pennies struck up to the end of 1863. Assuming average weight of 145 grains as per Peck and say 100,000 coins per die pair would imply about 144 die pairs used in the first 4 years of the bronze currency. Depending on teething problems with the new currency, that number could and almost certainly would increase. It's fair to say you could be a while.

So what you are saying Rob, is the entity we refer to as a DIE which may or not have flaws etc, is in fact a machine tool cloned from a MASTER, the MASTER being where design changes occur. Which explains the differences in date widths if numbers were added later to the working DIE

So question, how were working DIEs produced from MASTERs? What was the life of a MASTER compared to a DIE? And why do we frequently have more than one MASTER in use concurrently?

Very confusing in that we are all appear to be using the term DIE for two different entities

David

I seem to remember there being a video on youtube from the USA showing how a plaster sculpture of a coin design which was about 500mm across was reduced down to form a "hub" as the American's call them (which is in relief. From this the working dies were struck.

I believe the process commonly has another two steps in between to form master dies, from which working dies are struck. This exmplains why a master die may have features that span across several working dies, whilst some features are only present on an individual working die.

Ahh found the video I was after, it is the modern process, but I think the principles were the same just the machinery might have changed a little

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

so my question now is, out of the following 2 coins, which one would you part with?

My vote is to part with the first penny, the second is much nicer to my (3 glasses of shiraz) eye.

[azda 979]

Thats the one i went for to 400. Its now in the for sale thread

[Beebman 2]

I see there's an interesting 1861 Penny on eBay tonight, it has a rather oddly spaced date although I'm sure the main interest is that it's an F24 (4+F), Freeman rarity R17 and Gouby rarity R8 (he suggests a value of £750 in F).

1861 F24 on eBay

[azda 979]

Spink siggests 125 in Fine

[azda 979]

It actually looks like one i have in the 2nd post of the 3 Date widths, the bottom coin of the 3

[davidrj 194]

I see there's an interesting 1861 Penny on eBay tonight, it has a rather oddly spaced date although I'm sure the main interest is that it's an F24 (4+F), Freeman rarity R17 and Gouby rarity R8 (he suggests a value of £750 in F).

1861 F24 on eBay

Broken Y in PENNY too by the look of it