Bronze, bronzed copper or copper proof?

[Accumulator 52]

I have an 1806 proof penny which I believe is either Peck 1326 (bronzed) or Peck 1327 (copper). Peck does give a guide to distinguishing between the metals but has anyone any further pointers?

Here's a scan of the coin in question:

[Peckris 579]

I have an 1806 proof penny which I believe is either Peck 1326 (bronzed) or Peck 1327 (copper). Peck does give a guide to distinguishing between the metals but has anyone any further pointers?

Here's a scan of the coin in question:

The trouble with scans is that while they are great for detail, they kill the tones. It looks from here like a copper proof, but that's a guess based purely on the colour - I'd expect a bronzed proof to be less red, but that could just as easily be your scanner software.

[Accumulator 52]

I have an 1806 proof penny which I believe is either Peck 1326 (bronzed) or Peck 1327 (copper). Peck does give a guide to distinguishing between the metals but has anyone any further pointers?

Here's a scan of the coin in question:

The trouble with scans is that while they are great for detail, they kill the tones. It looks from here like a copper proof, but that's a guess based purely on the colour - I'd expect a bronzed proof to be less red, but that could just as easily be your scanner software.

You're right. I really must get a camera setup as the scans don't do justice to the coin at all, though colours are unreliable in photos too. I did wonder if the difference in relative density of the two materials might be a key. Does anyone have weights for the copper & bronze proofs?

[Peckris 579]

I have an 1806 proof penny which I believe is either Peck 1326 (bronzed) or Peck 1327 (copper). Peck does give a guide to distinguishing between the metals but has anyone any further pointers?

Here's a scan of the coin in question:

The trouble with scans is that while they are great for detail, they kill the tones. It looks from here like a copper proof, but that's a guess based purely on the colour - I'd expect a bronzed proof to be less red, but that could just as easily be your scanner software.

You're right. I really must get a camera setup as the scans don't do justice to the coin at all, though colours are unreliable in photos too. I did wonder if the difference in relative density of the two materials might be a key. Does anyone have weights for the copper & bronze proofs?

This is a misunderstanding. The proofs are either copper or bronzed (that 'd' is very important!) - in other words it's a bronzed finish to a copper coin, not bronze at all. The only way to tell is to show the coin to an expert, though I'd think Rob might be able to tell from a decent photo.

[Rob 3,152]

This is always a contentious issue. If you laid out a dozen coins (6 copper, 6 bronzed) side by side you would probably end up with 4 definite coppers, 4 definite bronzed and 4 definite maybes. The waters are further muddied by the colour depending on the period in which they were struck. Soho and Taylor produced markedly different colour bronzed flans. Soho produced different coloured bronzed flans at different times. Most of the time you can tell, but it is always better in the hand.

It ticks the boxes for a P1326 or P1327, but I wouldn't like to say which from the image. The whole reason for bronzing is to provide a uniform colour across the surface. This is frequently applied to medals. Copper can tone in wildly differing shades and it is this lack of uniformity which lead to bronzing in the first place.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Rob

[Rob 3,152]

This might help. 3 images in different lighting levels. I know it isn't your coin, but the period is correct and the colours are not atypical to others I have seen of these types. The copper can have a range of tones from light to virtually black. The latter usually has a degree of associated iridesence.

KP31 is clearly a Late Soho product as the 1 & 0 are defective, presumably from a filled die. Attached are a pair of Late Soho halfpennies in an attempt to match the finish employed with the period, KH37 (P1365 bronzed on the left) and KH39 (P1367 copper on the right). The bronzed piece on the left is redder in colour and markedly different to the copper which has a more mottled appearance.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Rob

[Rob 3,152]

brighter light

[Rob 3,152]

direct flash

[Red Riley 2]

I have an 1806 proof penny which I believe is either Peck 1326 (bronzed) or Peck 1327 (copper). Peck does give a guide to distinguishing between the metals but has anyone any further pointers?

Here's a scan of the coin in question:

Purely out of curiosity, have you just bought this coin?

[Accumulator 52]

I have an 1806 proof penny which I believe is either Peck 1326 (bronzed) or Peck 1327 (copper). Peck does give a guide to distinguishing between the metals but has anyone any further pointers?

Here's a scan of the coin in question:

Purely out of curiosity, have you just bought this coin?

Yes I have just bought it. Were you after it too, or do you know something about it perhaps?

Rob - thank you for the photos, very useful! I will have a proper look at the coin again tonight.

[Red Riley 2]

I have an 1806 proof penny which I believe is either Peck 1326 (bronzed) or Peck 1327 (copper). Peck does give a guide to distinguishing between the metals but has anyone any further pointers?

Here's a scan of the coin in question:

Purely out of curiosity, have you just bought this coin?

Yes I have just bought it. Were you after it too, or do you know something about it perhaps?

Rob - thank you for the photos, very useful! I will have a proper look at the coin again tonight.

Yes, so I know how much you paid for it. Not unreasonable, but I wasn't prepared to go quite that high. For the record I thought it was P1327. On balance, I thought it was just too pale for a bronzed coin but I only had one picture to go on and may be wrong. Peck's assessment was that the bronzed coins were scarcer, so more likely to be plain copper I suppose.

[Rob 3,152]

On balance, I thought it was just too pale for a bronzed coin but I only had one picture to go on and may be wrong. Peck's assessment was that the bronzed coins were scarcer, so more likely to be plain copper I suppose.

You can't go by Peck's rarity attributions any more than you can rely on ESC or Freeman etc. All of these references were compiled when data had to be compiled from relatively limited resources. Today, with the internet and most auctions on-line, not to mention dealers' websitesites, it is possible to reassess the rarity values even though we still don't and can't have the full picture.

Tha Adams penny collection had both P1326 and P1327, the bronzed is markedly browner and the copper dark, but the picture quality is such that I wouldn't rely on it for a comparison. The images are available in the archived catalogue section.

[Accumulator 52]

This might help. 3 images in different lighting levels. I know it isn't your coin, but the period is correct and the colours are not atypical to others I have seen of these types. The copper can have a range of tones from light to virtually black. The latter usually has a degree of associated iridesence.

KP31 is clearly a Late Soho product as the 1 & 0 are defective, presumably from a filled die. Attached are a pair of Late Soho halfpennies in an attempt to match the finish employed with the period, KH37 (P1365 bronzed on the left) and KH39 (P1367 copper on the right). The bronzed piece on the left is redder in colour and markedly different to the copper which has a more mottled appearance.

Interesting, Rob. The finish on your left hand piece is very similar to the finish on my coin which is a red-brown and very uniform in appearance. Certainly no evidence of mottling or discolouration whatsoever, in fact it has a beautiful even colouration (although this really isn't as evident in the scans as in hand!). As Derek says, Peck has bronzed as being rarer but this may be not be true. I'm tending toward P1327 then.

One final question. Does anyone have a close-up photo (and it would have to be a close-up as it's practically invisible!) of the 2 or 3 stays from foremast to bowsprit?

Edited May 25, 2011 by Accumulator

[Rob 3,152]

This might help. 3 images in different lighting levels. I know it isn't your coin, but the period is correct and the colours are not atypical to others I have seen of these types. The copper can have a range of tones from light to virtually black. The latter usually has a degree of associated iridesence.

KP31 is clearly a Late Soho product as the 1 & 0 are defective, presumably from a filled die. Attached are a pair of Late Soho halfpennies in an attempt to match the finish employed with the period, KH37 (P1365 bronzed on the left) and KH39 (P1367 copper on the right). The bronzed piece on the left is redder in colour and markedly different to the copper which has a more mottled appearance.

Interesting, Rob. The finish on your left hand piece is very similar to the finish on my coin which is a red-brown and very uniform in appearance. Certainly no evidence of mottling or discolouration whatsoever, in fact it has a beautiful even colouration (although this really isn't as evident in the scans as in hand!). As Derek says, Peck has bronzed as being rarer but this may be not be true. I'm tending toward P1327 then.

One final question. Does anyone have a close-up photo (and it would have to be a close-up as it's practically invisible!) of the 2 or 3 stays from foremast to bowsprit?

Even colouration would lean towards bronzed which is P1326. I don't have any proof 1806 pennies, so can't help on the stay front. Get a glass on it and count them. Obviously there should be 3 if Peck is correct, but the image in the book isn't clear enough. I've attached an image of the ship on a P1326 I used to own, but again it isn't clear enough. The ship punches are specific to the type or types of proof, but the currency pieces must have had the ship engraved by hand as over 50 ship varieties are recorded.

[Accumulator 52]

This might help. 3 images in different lighting levels. I know it isn't your coin, but the period is correct and the colours are not atypical to others I have seen of these types. The copper can have a range of tones from light to virtually black. The latter usually has a degree of associated iridesence.

KP31 is clearly a Late Soho product as the 1 & 0 are defective, presumably from a filled die. Attached are a pair of Late Soho halfpennies in an attempt to match the finish employed with the period, KH37 (P1365 bronzed on the left) and KH39 (P1367 copper on the right). The bronzed piece on the left is redder in colour and markedly different to the copper which has a more mottled appearance.

Interesting, Rob. The finish on your left hand piece is very similar to the finish on my coin which is a red-brown and very uniform in appearance. Certainly no evidence of mottling or discolouration whatsoever, in fact it has a beautiful even colouration (although this really isn't as evident in the scans as in hand!). As Derek says, Peck has bronzed as being rarer but this may be not be true. I'm tending toward P1327 then.

One final question. Does anyone have a close-up photo (and it would have to be a close-up as it's practically invisible!) of the 2 or 3 stays from foremast to bowsprit?

Even colouration would lean towards bronzed which is P1326. I don't have any proof 1806 pennies, so can't help on the stay front. Get a glass on it and count them. Obviously there should be 3 if Peck is correct, but the image in the book isn't clear enough. I've attached an image of the ship on a P1326 I used to own, but again it isn't clear enough. The ship punches are specific to the type or types of proof, but the currency pieces must have had the ship engraved by hand as over 50 ship varieties are recorded.

Sorry, I meant P1326 (bronzed)! Even with a glass the stays (if I'm looking at the right things!) are hard to discern. However there are clear stays between the masts so possibly Peck was referring to these?

[Rob 3,152]

Sorry, I meant P1326 (bronzed)! Even with a glass the stays (if I'm looking at the right things!) are hard to discern. However there are clear stays between the masts so possibly Peck was referring to these?

Nope. He means the stays between the foremast and the pointy bit at the front.

[Rob 3,152]

This is a 1799 halfpenny, so the ship will be different, but you can see where the stays are to be found.

[Accumulator 52]

Sorry, I meant P1326 (bronzed)! Even with a glass the stays (if I'm looking at the right things!) are hard to discern. However there are clear stays between the masts so possibly Peck was referring to these?

Nope. He means the stays between the foremast and the pointy bit at the front.

Surely they are rigging rather than stays? Anyway, yes, 3 extremely faint lines are there.

[Peckris 579]

Sorry, I meant P1326 (bronzed)! Even with a glass the stays (if I'm looking at the right things!) are hard to discern. However there are clear stays between the masts so possibly Peck was referring to these?

Nope. He means the stays between the foremast and the pointy bit at the front.

Surely they are rigging rather than stays? Anyway, yes, 3 extremely faint lines are there.

Good point. I had no idea what 'stays' are either. I suppose the difference between those and rigging are that stays are single sheets that no-one would shin up, whereas rigging tended to be like a kind of netting that sailors could climb using footholds?

[Rob 3,152]

Having done a bit of digging, this coin was listed as a P1326 in 2009 in a sale. It didn't sell though with an estimate of £400-500 which was probably as a result of the impairment.

[Accumulator 52]

Are you referring to my coin Rob? What 'impairment'?

[Rob 3,152]

Are you referring to my coin Rob? What 'impairment'?

Small spot just in front of the nose, thumbprint on the reverse, the green(?) crud on the shield and at the first A. The toning streaks to both sides are not what you would expect on a bronzed proof either, as normally you would be looking for a smooth, even colour. I don't know if the edge looks good so can't comment. The estimate of £400-500 was too high if these factors are taken into consideration. I sold one with similar faults just over a year ago for £325 if I remember correctly, but it didn't exactly fly off the shelf.

[Accumulator 52]

Are you referring to my coin Rob? What 'impairment'?

Small spot just in front of the nose, thumbprint on the reverse, the green(?) crud on the shield and at the first A. The toning streaks to both sides are not what you would expect on a bronzed proof either, as normally you would be looking for a smooth, even colour. I don't know if the edge looks good so can't comment. The estimate of £400-500 was too high if these factors are taken into consideration. I sold one with similar faults just over a year ago for £325 if I remember correctly, but it didn't exactly fly off the shelf.

Fair comment, although the thumbprint must have been on the scanner bed (ooops!) as it doesn't appear on the coin.

This makes me realise just how much I need a camera set-up. The coin looks so much better in hand than on the scans.

As a comparison, here are the seller's photos:

[Rob 3,152]

Are you referring to my coin Rob? What 'impairment'?

Small spot just in front of the nose, thumbprint on the reverse, the green(?) crud on the shield and at the first A. The toning streaks to both sides are not what you would expect on a bronzed proof either, as normally you would be looking for a smooth, even colour. I don't know if the edge looks good so can't comment. The estimate of £400-500 was too high if these factors are taken into consideration. I sold one with similar faults just over a year ago for £325 if I remember correctly, but it didn't exactly fly off the shelf.

Fair comment, although the thumbprint must have been on the scanner bed (ooops!) as it doesn't appear on the coin.

This makes me realise just how much I need a camera set-up. The coin looks so much better in hand than on the scans.

As a comparison, here are the seller's photos:

Certainly looks better. And bronzed.