1879 Penny

[Accumulator 52]

Continuing to sort through my pennies, I've found this 1879 which frankly I've never liked 'in hand'. Although the coin would be classed as EF, with much original lustre, the reverse strike seems rather 'blunt' (I can't think of another more technical word). Even allowing for this, though, the numerals are particularly thick. Could the 'fat' 8 really be accounted for just by a very worn die? Unfortunately I don't have a Freeman reverse K for comparison, but I have it as a J. Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Accumulator

[Peckris 579]

Continuing to sort through my pennies, I've found this 1879 which frankly I've never liked 'in hand'. Although the coin would be classed as EF, with much original lustre, the reverse strike seems rather 'blunt' (I can't think of another more technical word). Even allowing for this, though, the numerals are particularly thick. Could the 'fat' 8 really be accounted for just by a very worn die? Unfortunately I don't have a Freeman reverse K for comparison, but I have it as a J. Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.

Certainly the reverse looks at first glance like a wearing die, but on reflection, it doesn't look quite 'right'. What Freeman says, however, is : "the date numerals of Reverse J in 1879, when combined with Obverse 9, usually appear thicker and in higher relief than in other years and with other obverses." That might be the answer?

[Accumulator 52]

Continuing to sort through my pennies, I've found this 1879 which frankly I've never liked 'in hand'. Although the coin would be classed as EF, with much original lustre, the reverse strike seems rather 'blunt' (I can't think of another more technical word). Even allowing for this, though, the numerals are particularly thick. Could the 'fat' 8 really be accounted for just by a very worn die? Unfortunately I don't have a Freeman reverse K for comparison, but I have it as a J. Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.

Certainly the reverse looks at first glance like a wearing die, but on reflection, it doesn't look quite 'right'. What Freeman says, however, is : "the date numerals of Reverse J in 1879, when combined with Obverse 9, usually appear thicker and in higher relief than in other years and with other obverses." That might be the answer?

I missed that footnote in Freeman! It could well explain things though I've definitely seen other 9 + J's that have the usual slim numerals. Thanks!