Opinions of this Penny

[azda 979]

Wanted some opinions of this penny. As i've seen before, pictures can always be deceiving but this isn't expensive. It would also be unlisted if it is what i think it might be. So what i'm looking at is the E in REG.

E over P? 2 reasons, the middle serif is curved, or looks to be, plus the bottom serif has what looks to be a join near the scratch, the large scratch is angled but there is another which looks to be an attempt at joing the serif to the leg of the P/E

Anyway opinions welcomed, as stated it seems to be unlisted

[azda 979]

Here's hopefully a larger pcture through photobucket

[davidrj 194]

Here's hopefully a larger pcture through photobucket

Looks like a ding to me

[azda 979]

If you pm me your Email address David i'll forward the picture, does'nt Look a ding to me, the whole middle serif curves

[Gary D 76]

I'd would suggest a damaged die like a dot

[azda 979]

It actually looks like a small c intertwined with an L............Strange

[azda 979]

Ok, well i've managed to buy it for a whole 4,70 + 1 euro postage

[Peckris 579]

My opinion is that it's something that has got onto the die - I really don't think it's an overstrike (for one thing the 'incorrect' bit is OVERlying not UNDERlying). But an interesting curio for all that.

[1949threepence 3,367]

If you pm me your Email address David i'll forward the picture, does'nt Look a ding to me, the whole middle serif curves

Agreed. I don't think it's a ding, nor, to be honest, a blocked die either. Looks very "anomalous".

[Accumulator 52]

If you pm me your Email address David i'll forward the picture, does'nt Look a ding to me, the whole middle serif curves

Agreed. I don't think it's a ding, nor, to be honest, a blocked die either. Looks very "anomalous".

It's hard to tell from the photo as it gives no idea of relative relief. There's clearly a problem (I would guess damaged die) with the vertical stroke of the 'E' but as far as I can tell the horizontal strokes and serifs are unaffected. It's only the precise position of the damage that coincidentally creates the impression of something more.

[1949threepence 3,367]

If you pm me your Email address David i'll forward the picture, does'nt Look a ding to me, the whole middle serif curves

Agreed. I don't think it's a ding, nor, to be honest, a blocked die either. Looks very "anomalous".

It's hard to tell from the photo as it gives no idea of relative relief. There's clearly a problem (I would guess damaged die) with the vertical stroke of the 'E' but as far as I can tell the horizontal strokes and serifs are unaffected. It's only the precise position of the damage that coincidentally creates the impression of something more.

You're right, of course, about the relief. But although this may be random damage, the prominence looks like an almost perfect semi circle, in a "C" shape. Unusually precise for a damaged die.

[1949threepence 3,367]

My opinion is that it's something that has got onto the die - I really don't think it's an overstrike (for one thing the 'incorrect' bit is OVERlying not UNDERlying). But an interesting curio for all that.

Indeed, that's true enough. Leastways, that's how it looks unless there's an optical illusion at work.

Edited May 16, 2011 by 1949threepence

[azda 979]

Well hopefully it will be here between Thursday and Saturday, and for 4,70 its not gonna kill me even if it is nothing, it'll go on ebay if its some sort of illusion of the camera.

[azda 979]

Been trying to play around with the gallery picture i have of this coin until it arrives. Peck has said that whatever it is is overlying, which i'm intending to agree with. The middle serif of the supposed E, to me at least, curves. The bottom line of the E has 2 things, 1 an angled scratch and 2 a straight line with what could be either and small ding, or, an attempt to join the serif to the E?

Anyway, just posting my thoughts, its still not arrived, so its all theory right now. It still looks like an intertwined small C and L to me

[Colin G. 147]

Been trying to play around with the gallery picture i have of this coin until it arrives. Peck has said that whatever it is is overlying, which i'm intending to agree with. The middle serif of the supposed E, to me at least, curves. The bottom line of the E has 2 things, 1 an angled scratch and 2 a straight line with what could be either and small ding, or, an attempt to join the serif to the E?

Anyway, just posting my thoughts, its still not arrived, so its all theory right now. It still looks like an intertwined small C and L to me

First things first we need to resolve this overlying/underlying issue. Am I the only person who thinks that it could be both scenarios. I just don't get the "which one came first" unless it is obviously an attempt to correct something that can be applied logically.

My explanation (excuse the dreadful art work!!)

I have used a letter E and a letter N to demonstrate.

The image below shows two overstrikes (albeit they have been recut without losing the detail beneath). Most people would suggest that the white letter is the overlying letter, and the shaded letter is the original letter that was cut. My view is that it is impossible to tell because potentially the shaded letter could be the overlying letter, it may be that it is just not cut as deep as the first letter. This would result in exactly the same arrangement. Just because one letter is more prominent it does not mean it is the most recent letter to be cut.

Does anyone agree/disagree with this theory, or am I missing something?

Dave I think your coin could be either a flaw or something more intentional, I have seen flaws that just seem too much of a coincidence but that is exactly what they are!!

Edited May 18, 2011 by Colin G.

[Peckris 579]

Been trying to play around with the gallery picture i have of this coin until it arrives. Peck has said that whatever it is is overlying, which i'm intending to agree with. The middle serif of the supposed E, to me at least, curves. The bottom line of the E has 2 things, 1 an angled scratch and 2 a straight line with what could be either and small ding, or, an attempt to join the serif to the E?

Anyway, just posting my thoughts, its still not arrived, so its all theory right now. It still looks like an intertwined small C and L to me

Interesting. The super-large picture makes it look like a piece of .. something .. that's got onto the middle of the E and is making it look curved. I can just about see where the underlying E is though.

[Rob 3,152]

Just because one letter is more prominent it does not mean it is the most recent letter to be cut.

Does anyone agree/disagree with this theory, or am I missing something?

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark, but not cleanly. Both cases could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong.

Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Rob

[Colin G. 147]

Just because one letter is more prominent it does not mean it is the most recent letter to be cut.

Does anyone agree/disagree with this theory, or am I missing something?

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark. Both could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong.

Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40.

At last my sanity is restored

I had always pondered the fact that it was very often discussed depending on the depth of the cut, and this should not be a deciding factor. It could certainly be evidence but should not be definitive evidence.

Thansk for the examples I will have a look!!

[Peckris 579]

Just because one letter is more prominent it does not mean it is the most recent letter to be cut.

Does anyone agree/disagree with this theory, or am I missing something?

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark. Both could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong.

Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40.

At last my sanity is restored

I had always pondered the fact that it was very often discussed depending on the depth of the cut, and this should not be a deciding factor. It could certainly be evidence but should not be definitive evidence.

Thansk for the examples I will have a look!!

I'm not sure I agree (though far from being expert in such things). I've seen the 1807/6 thread and that's clearly a 7, though there are residual traces of a 6 showing, that's quite certain. From a deeper cut 6, that's also the only reasonable explanation. But it doesn't correspond in any way to those E N diagrams above, as the remains of the 6 do not show beyond the boundaries of the 7. And Dave's penny doesn't show anything like that. It shows a clear E with a lump of something sitting on top of the central portion (it looks almost like a lump of solder). Even if it was the deep lying trace of something original and much deeper, you'd have to account for what it must have been, and the way it sits 'on' the E doesn't seem to bear that theory out anyway. The unerlying E looks kosher, just with a lump of something on it.

In the illustrations above, the white letter is clearly the overcut one, but possibly the diagram was constructed in an exaggerated way to illustrate a point? I can't see any Mint official allowing such a lamentably unsuccessful overstrike out, nor any responsible technician keeping their job if that was best job their skill could do.

[argentumandcoins 70]

Dave put up a post re the 1893/2 penny a wee while ago, sticking a picture of an UNC example on it.

All of the higher grade ones I have seen display a central diagonal line from near to the top right of the 3 to the tip of the central arm and this line stands proud of the 3 ie it has been cut deeper than the over punched 3. It took me quite a while to get my head around it but when I eventually worked out what I was looking at it made perfect sense.

[argentumandcoins 70]

Forgot to add;

Dave I have had a good look at the enlarged pic and you are bang on the money mate... it's definitely a Penny

[Colin G. 147]

Just because one letter is more prominent it does not mean it is the most recent letter to be cut.

Does anyone agree/disagree with this theory, or am I missing something?

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark. Both could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong.

Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40.

At last my sanity is restored

I had always pondered the fact that it was very often discussed depending on the depth of the cut, and this should not be a deciding factor. It could certainly be evidence but should not be definitive evidence.

Thansk for the examples I will have a look!!

I'm not sure I agree (though far from being expert in such things). I've seen the 1807/6 thread and that's clearly a 7, though there are residual traces of a 6 showing, that's quite certain. From a deeper cut 6, that's also the only reasonable explanation. But it doesn't correspond in any way to those E N diagrams above, as the remains of the 6 do not show beyond the boundaries of the 7. And Dave's penny doesn't show anything like that. It shows a clear E with a lump of something sitting on top of the central portion (it looks almost like a lump of solder). Even if it was the deep lying trace of something original and much deeper, you'd have to account for what it must have been, and the way it sits 'on' the E doesn't seem to bear that theory out anyway. The unerlying E looks kosher, just with a lump of something on it.

In the illustrations above, the white letter is clearly the overcut one, but possibly the diagram was constructed in an exaggerated way to illustrate a point? I can't see any Mint official allowing such a lamentably unsuccessful overstrike out, nor any responsible technician keeping their job if that was best job their skill could do.

Ahh you misunderstood, this was not in relation to Dave's coin or that particular flaw, it was just to illustrate that the most prominent digit/letter does not necessarily have to be the last one struck. In both examples the shaded letter could have been cut later than the unshaded one, if less pressure was used and tehrefore the letter was not cut as deep. The visual result would still be the same, it is just a topic that I have never agreed with and wanted clarity, but I hijacked Dave's thread

[azda 979]

A good thread and hopefully i can at least resolve this penny issue this week when it arrives, i'll get the scope on it and post as many pix As i can and then probably more debate

[azda 979]

In hand E

[declanwmagee 122]

...so the scratch has sliced a corner off the middle serif, making it look like it was curving upwards.