Penny 1874 inverted Arabic 1 over 1

[Accumulator 52]

I picked this 1874 penny up at the recent London Coins auction:

Here's an inverted view of the date:

The coin was described thus:

"Penny 1874 inverted smaller Arabic 1 over 1 in the date, as Freeman 72 dies 7 + H and Gouby BP1874Kj but the date configuration similar to Gouby BP1874Nj (Heaton mint) with 10 1/2 teeth date spacing and backwards tilting 7. The 4 of the date is also double-struck. Overstrikings on the figure 1s in the date usually only found on the early issues of 1861, and then only on the last 1, clearly struck and a significant discovery previously unseen by us. CGS AU 75"

I have to say, that the overstruck smaller 1 is even more noticeable in the hand. I can try to get better photos.

[Accumulator 52]

Obverse:

Edit - Ooops! I meant to post this in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. Is it possible to move it?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Accumulator

[Chris Perkins 228]

Bit of a coincendence that the '4' is also odd and looks very similar. Something is clearly awry with the date (re-punching going on etc), but I'd never go so far as to call it a small arabic 1 over a normal Latin 1! That just sounds like they've invented a variety that isn't one, in order to sell it for more.

[Accumulator 52]

Bit of a coincendence that the '4' is also odd and looks very similar. Something is clearly awry with the date (re-punching going on etc), but I'd never go so far as to call it a small arabic 1 over a normal Latin 1! That just sounds like they've invented a variety that isn't one, in order to sell it for more.

To a point I'd agree with you Chris, but in hand the inverted smaller '1' is very clear over the normal 'I'. Also, if it was 'invented' it was by CGS (yes, I know that's also London Coins) as the info is on the slab ticket. Other potential buyers were obviously uncertain, probably based on the relatively poor catalogue photo, because it sold at the low end of the wide estimate range.

[Chris Perkins 228]

CGS can of course put what they like on the slab, and they can interpret things as they see them, but 'significant discovery' seems a bit far fetched. It does indeed look like an inverted '1', but so does the die crack on the 2008 20p and that doesn't mean it is one either! It's from re-touching, nothing more. And shame on CGS/London Coins for implying it to be something that it almost certainly isn't. They do worry me sometimes, on a lot of levels. What's worse is that these things end up in slabs with descriptions that are accepted as gospel and that's the worrying thing about slabs and certification (let's not get into all that though) especially slabbing and certification by the same company that then benefits from selling the same coins down the line via auction. Does that situation or a similar one occur anywhere else in the world or in any other industry or field of collecting? I doubt it. It's a conflict of interests at the very least.

It's a nice coin so I hope it cost about the right price for what it is. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but to me it just doesn't really look that unusual or special.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

[Colin G. 147]

I don't thikn you can compare that penny with the 20p die crack. That is undoubtedly an inverted 1. Something I have found whilst compiling my catalogue is that it is imperative that you only describe what you can 100% see. If you have any doubt you need to wait for a clearer example/clarification. I have not seen anything to clearly demonstrate that the die crack is a 1 on the 20p, whereas I can state quite confidently state that the coin shown looks to have an inverted 1. Without doubt seeing it in the hand is the only way to be certain.

Going that bit further with the smaller arbic over Latin...hmmmmm maybe a bit too far but as you say they can write what they like on them.

I have thought several times about the conflict of interest scenario, and I think people will start to challenge this, especially as you say regarding the auction aspect where there is an interest in higher grading to ensure higher prices at auction....but you could also take the view that because it is so obvious a connection it will be seriously scrutinised by the collecting market and therefore will need to be able to stand up to that scrutiny.

If it was separate companies with separate directors, you may not even know about the link at least this way it is certainly not hidden from view, but it is an interetsing point, and one which I think needs to be discussed

[Coinery 1,148]

Whatever the politics of the CGS/London Coins situation, I can't see anything other than a small Arabic 1 overdate. I'd find it even more worrying that something as clear as this could be explained away as anything else. It certainly would leave me thinking I could buy nothing with even the slightest degree of certainty.

[argentumandcoins 70]

As a potential bidder on this lot (My father was extremely keen on it) I'll put my two penneth in;

I had 2 hats on when considering to bid or not to bid, that was the question.

As a dealer (like Chris) could I sell it at a considerable premium over a "normal" 1874 Penny, the answer was a resounding NO. It is unrecorded anywhere in what is a relatively common and abundantly available year among the series. Never having been seen/sold before does not make it less saleable but we have to examine the "uniqueness" of the coin and the differences to other coins of the same date. For me as a dealer there is nothing that is stand out, no die letter or number, no different die pairing, no errors in the legend etc and hence no real key selling point (I'll come to the 1's later).

As a collector the question has to be does it enhance the collection?

My father argued it did and I argued it didn't. Interestingly he was more focussed on the slanted 7 being indicative of a Heaton Mint strike than anything to do with the 1 in the date. I argued that the slanted 7 indicated nothing more than a potentially hand punched number that was slightly off centre, I won out and we picked up the 1860 instead.

Having looked at the excellent close up of the date you have ask the questions How and Why? Well, I am no expert in minting at the time period in question but I am quite good at investigating. IF the 1 is truely an inverted Arabic over a Roman 1 where did the smaller 1 come from? The halfpenny of the time used Roman, the Florin was still Gothic and the sixpence, threepence, farthing all too small. This leaves the Shilling, which I have had a good look at and it too is too small, so where did the 1 come from? Coinery states it has to be a smaller 1, welll, it doesn't. All it has to be is a damaged Roman 1 punch with parts chipped off either by accident or design. It is clear from the pics that the 8 and 7 are original and the 1 and 4 either re-cut or re-punched. I struggle with the CGS lable as I struggle to see where this "smaller Arabic 1" originated and why it would have been used to repair or strengthen the die. As I stated earlier I am not an expert in RM production at the time and can only apply a modern thought process. Did each engraver/repairer have his own set of punches? Were the punches stored on the presses being used for the denomination? Were the different denominations minted in different parts of the mint or side by side? Was one man responsible for all die work? Did he shout "Someone pass me a 1 for this bloody die" and was given the first one that came to hand (which he punched upside down for a laugh)? We'll never know the answers to most of those questions, but my own view is that it was strengthened with a damaged Roman 1 punch, or a punch that was damaged during the process of strengthening/cutting the date.

Still a very nice coin though and worth the hammer price.

[Chris Perkins 228]

It can of course be described as an Arabic '1' because it looks like that, but to me, that's not really what it is at all. It should be described as having an odd date with what appears to be altered 1 and 4 digits. Or words to that effect. Nothing more.

The '4' is shifted in such a similar way that it's uncanny, even if it is 'messier' than the '1'. Is that an Arabic 4 over a Latin 4? No. The reason it isn't is because Latin and Arabic 4's have never played a part on British Coinage. Such varieties are not documented. Latin and Arabic 1's are known to exist and are well documented on certain coins, so based on that knowledge, that must mean it involves an Arabic 1 and it can't just be an alteration!? I just don't buy it.

Get it re-slabbed and perhaps it'll become a non-serif '4' over a serif '4' next time round.

[davidrj 194]

My father argued it did and I argued it didn't. Interestingly he was more focussed on the slanted 7 being indicative of a eaton Mint strike than anything to do with the 1 in the date. I argued that the slanted 7 indicated nothing more than a potentially hand punched number that was slightly off centre,

Interesting coin, It certainly looks like a 1 over 1.

The only 1874 double struck 4 I've seen is in a Heaton strike and very different from the London Coins one,

lousy condition but interesting for the broken 7

David

Edited March 7, 2012 by davidrj

[Accumulator 52]

I appreciate the input and actually consider the hammer price worthwhile for a good specimen of this date plus curiosity value, if nothing more. It's certainly a good coin for sparking debate!

The problem is arriving at a reasonable explanation for the manner of the die repair. If it is a re-punched 4, where is the evidence of the remaining 4 below, other than on the vertical upright? There's no 'shadow' to the serif or on the remainder of the number. In fact, prior to repair, the damaged die would appear to have read something like 1871, but with the serifs at the top of each figure 1 missing. The repair was then to punch a full 4 and add the missing serif to the 1 using the lower bar of an Arabic 1. I know that sounds contrived, but I'm not sure what else fits the physical evidence.

And don't worry about my parade, Chris. I bought it for fun as much as anything.

[Peckris 579]

I think I'm tending towards Chris' and John's views - mainly for one reason : the damage (or repunch, it's not entirely clear) to the '1' and the '4' looks identical. It looks possible that whatever was done to one digit was also done to the other. As for the '1', it could well be that the resulting damage/punch makes it LOOK like an Arabic 1 when in fact it isn't really. But it's not certain, that's for sure!

[Accumulator 52]

Don't know if this photo taken through the slab will help, but it should show that the "inverted Arabic 1" is indeed a properly formed numeral overlaid completely on the I below and standing well proud of it. Where's a microscope when you need one?

[Coinery 1,148]

Phew, what a read! :-)

[Colin G. 147]

It can of course be described as an Arabic '1' because it looks like that, but to me, that's not really what it is at all. It should be described as having an odd date with what appears to be altered 1 and 4 digits. Or words to that effect. Nothing more.

I agree totally and that is why I state that unless you can be 100% sure it has to be detailed with a question mark, in which case something along the lines of 4/4 and 1 over inverted 1?

In relation to John's size question, I agree that we will never know how exactly the re-punching was carried out and it is evident that a "make do" approach was adopted. Inevitably punches bearing letters/digits must have been modified to strengthen existing characters even if they weren't an exact match, you could see how an I could be easily adapted to recut the digit 1. There are several examples where an I "appears " to have beeen used to strengthen the uprights in R's

[Accumulator 52]

Thanks for all your input. I've put my order for a case of '79 Chateau Margaux on hold

[argentumandcoins 70]

Thanks for all your input. I've put my order for a case of '79 Chateau Margaux on hold

You'll just have to stick to Chateau La Poo for now mate You may get the real stuff if you send the pics away to Michael Gouby though.

[Peckris 579]

Thanks for all your input. I've put my order for a case of '79 Chateau Margaux on hold

You'll just have to stick to Chateau La Poo for now mate You may get the real stuff if you send the pics away to Michael Gouby though.

Is that where a blue nun is resident?

[Accumulator 52]

Following our discussion here, I wrote to Michael Gouby about this coin. I'm very grateful for the time he took out of a busy schedule to reply and, with his agreement, am pleased to post his response on this forum:

As I was out of the country for last sale in Bracknell I missed being able to examine this 1874 penny you mention or to bid on it.

Since I came back yesterday I have had over 100 emails to try and answer and I am still trying to get through the pile as more keep coming in !

Right now this 1874 penny that “appears to have an inverted slightly shorter Arabic 1†!?

I have looked at the date area and the numerals and I can understand why Paul or Steve have come up with that description for their catalogue – that is what that error might look like – so as to make it seem like an interesting “NEW†variety and thereby feed on the desire of so many penny “variety†collectors to fight for this ‘amazing’ unlisted variety.

Ok, this is my attempt at a opinion of what I think has happened. I could very well be WRONG and sending the coin to the Royal Mint would be the ultimate solution.

Having looked at the date numerals I can see NO attempt anywhere that any of the numerals having been repaired.

It would be virtually impossible to get that perfect depth of strike and accuracy without some overlap ‘somewhere’ on a repair re-entry !

contd....

[Accumulator 52]

....... contd.

I think that the 1 & 4 numerals have received some slight damage to the die on their right side edge or that some ‘foreign’ matter has got trapped in the die – giving this result – prior to striking the coin.

I have taken the ‘damaged’ 1 and with the help of Photoshop I have in filled where the damaged area is and now as we can see we have the ‘original’ 1 restored !

contd.....

[Accumulator 52]

contd.......

The same with the 4 !

With NOT a hint of a repair entry – just the original undamaged numeral.

It is an amazing coincidence that both the 1 & 4 have been ‘damaged’ in the same area ‘top right side’ and by a similar amount but if we knew how the damaged happened it would probably explain why !!

This so called variety is NOT a ‘smaller inverted Arabic 1’ over I – in my opinion.

Sorry if that is not what you were hoping to hear.

Now back to my pile of emails.

All the best

Michael

(I had to split the email due to the limit on image numbers)

Edited April 11, 2012 by Accumulator

[ski 1]

i agree with Michael

a very interesting read.....thanx.

[Coinery 1,148]

Yes, one of the more educational posts, thanks for sharing the final findings, excellent thread!

[Colin G. 147]

Accumulator, in an earlier post you said that the digit was raised on the digit below, therfore is there not also a change in level at the top of the "inverted 1", I can understand the flaw at the edge, but you would also have to account for a flaw across the horizontal bar, or is that just a change in colour/tone?

[Accumulator 52]

Accumulator, in an earlier post you said that the digit was raised on the digit below, therfore is there not also a change in level at the top of the "inverted 1", I can understand the flaw at the edge, but you would also have to account for a flaw across the horizontal bar, or is that just a change in colour/tone?

Yes, Colin, the 'Arabic' digit one (if that is what it is) is entirely raised on all four sides. I.e. it is formed by a recess in the die.

Michael suggests sending it to the Mint, which would be an interesting option. I may well contact them in due course.