Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

Hi all just bought myself a 1863 penny its got a very very good strike.Now how can i tell weather its just a unc or a bronze proof? I'll post a piccy when i get home ,but what i can tell you is its very very dark colour but i assume the normal coins turn this colour is the weight different?

confused and ive just bought a few nice looking pennies so sorry but expect more stupid questions :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see CC are now using other forms of words to exagurate a coin such as "BMC 1670. F52. Dies 6+G. Blazing BU Full Lustre, exceptional......Ran out of things to say and now using ebay text

post-5057-051014500 1348247526_thumb.jpg

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all just bought myself a 1863 penny its got a very very good strike.Now how can i tell weather its just a unc or a bronze proof? I'll post a piccy when i get home ,but what i can tell you is its very very dark colour but i assume the normal coins turn this colour is the weight different?

confused and ive just bought a few nice looking pennies so sorry but expect more stupid questions :D

Hard to tell anything without a photo. If you can post in as high a resolution as possible then we will try to advise though it's notoriously difficult to tell proofs, specimens and early strikes apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was checking through the James Workman collection to see if it had one for pies to compare and came accross that Blazing BU pullava that CC is now throwing into descriptions and got annoyed sorry. Anyhoo, nothing in the Workamn sale for a comparission for you pies. In their Edinburgh sale they also have an 1875H for 1350 quid, i personally think the one i sold was better :unsure: for 400

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give you an idea, here's my 1863 alongside an 1868 proof (I don't have an 1863). I know the 1868 must be a proof because it's in copper. The proof strike is (to quote the Christmas carol), deep and crisp and even.

Penny1863%20F42%206%20+%20G%20REV%20500x500.jpgPenny1868%20F58A%206%20+%20G%20REV%20500x500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here they are still unsure and that usually means it isnt :D still a nice coin IMHO

img102_zps8094bfe6.jpg

img101_zps4641f2ad.jpg

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here they are still unsure and that usually means it isnt :D still a nice coin IMHO

img102_zps8094bfe6.jpg

img101_zps4641f2ad.jpg

:)

Well, the detail is crisp enough for a proof, but the rim is often the clincher, and it's hard to tell with yours. I have an 1862 that is similar - great detail, and the reverse is prooflike in certain lights, slight mirroring. The overall colour is dark, like yours. For me, the jury's out, but the likeliest verdict is that either they are early strikes, or struck from proof dies which often got used up for currency strikes. The dark colour? That's the weird part - without the great detail, you'd say that is what often happens to bronze over time. With the crispness... I really don't know. What I do know is, proofs are very rare, so the odds are against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here they are still unsure and that usually means it isnt :D still a nice coin IMHO

:)

Well, the detail is crisp enough for a proof, but the rim is often the clincher, and it's hard to tell with yours. I have an 1862 that is similar - great detail, and the reverse is prooflike in certain lights, slight mirroring. The overall colour is dark, like yours. For me, the jury's out, but the likeliest verdict is that either they are early strikes, or struck from proof dies which often got used up for currency strikes. The dark colour? That's the weird part - without the great detail, you'd say that is what often happens to bronze over time. With the crispness... I really don't know. What I do know is, proofs are very rare, so the odds are against it.

If I have neck-ache tomorrow, I'll know who to blame Pies! Doesn't your imaging software have a 'rotate' function? :)

Certainly looks like an early strike from the level of detail and crispness of the reverse. It's harder to judge the obverse as the leaves aren't too clear in the photograph. As Peck says, proofs are rare and, in this condition, it would be hard to find anyone who would support a 'proof' verdict.

For comparison I have taken close-ups of my two coins. Although the coin on the right is UNC with full lustre, it lacks the smoothness and true consistent depth of detail that the proof (on the left) displays. The overall effect is almost 'plastic' in its smoothness, compared to the rougher and slightly broken surface of the currency strike. Hope this helps.

ProofComparison.jpg

Edited by Accumulator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry :D

I'll call it an early strike (for now) really must buy a macro camers as its just a scan your looking at

Can i call it AUNC or is it EF ? :)

ta again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here they are still unsure and that usually means it isnt :D still a nice coin IMHO

:)

Well, the detail is crisp enough for a proof, but the rim is often the clincher, and it's hard to tell with yours. I have an 1862 that is similar - great detail, and the reverse is prooflike in certain lights, slight mirroring. The overall colour is dark, like yours. For me, the jury's out, but the likeliest verdict is that either they are early strikes, or struck from proof dies which often got used up for currency strikes. The dark colour? That's the weird part - without the great detail, you'd say that is what often happens to bronze over time. With the crispness... I really don't know. What I do know is, proofs are very rare, so the odds are against it.

If I have neck-ache tomorrow, I'll know who to blame Pies! Doesn't your imaging software have a 'rotate' function? :)

Certainly looks like an early strike from the level of detail and crispness of the reverse. It's harder to judge the obverse as the leaves aren't too clear in the photograph. As Peck says, proofs are rare and, in this condition, it would be hard to find anyone who would support a 'proof' verdict.

For comparison I have taken close-ups of my two coins. Although the coin on the right is UNC with full lustre, it lacks the smoothness and true consistent depth of detail that the proof (on the left) displays. The overall effect is almost 'plastic' in its smoothness, compared to the rougher and slightly broken surface of the currency strike. Hope this helps.

ProofComparison.jpg

Yes, that really helps. Somehow though, I think the difference lies not in the detail but in the finish, which is why I guess most of the bun proofs are bronzed or similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here they are still unsure and that usually means it isnt :D still a nice coin IMHO

:)

Well, the detail is crisp enough for a proof, but the rim is often the clincher, and it's hard to tell with yours. I have an 1862 that is similar - great detail, and the reverse is prooflike in certain lights, slight mirroring. The overall colour is dark, like yours. For me, the jury's out, but the likeliest verdict is that either they are early strikes, or struck from proof dies which often got used up for currency strikes. The dark colour? That's the weird part - without the great detail, you'd say that is what often happens to bronze over time. With the crispness... I really don't know. What I do know is, proofs are very rare, so the odds are against it.

If I have neck-ache tomorrow, I'll know who to blame Pies! Doesn't your imaging software have a 'rotate' function? :)

Certainly looks like an early strike from the level of detail and crispness of the reverse. It's harder to judge the obverse as the leaves aren't too clear in the photograph. As Peck says, proofs are rare and, in this condition, it would be hard to find anyone who would support a 'proof' verdict.

For comparison I have taken close-ups of my two coins. Although the coin on the right is UNC with full lustre, it lacks the smoothness and true consistent depth of detail that the proof (on the left) displays. The overall effect is almost 'plastic' in its smoothness, compared to the rougher and slightly broken surface of the currency strike. Hope this helps.

ProofComparison.jpg

Yes, that really helps. Somehow though, I think the difference lies not in the detail but in the finish, which is why I guess most of the bun proofs are bronzed or similar.

Too me the currency piece looks a better strike. The proof is weak in several places like the shield and helmet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give you an idea, here's my 1863 alongside an 1868 proof (I don't have an 1863). I know the 1868 must be a proof because it's in copper. The proof strike is (to quote the Christmas carol), deep and crisp and even.

Nice! :-)

But a silly question - how do you differentiate between bronze and copper? weight? colour?

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give you an idea, here's my 1863 alongside an 1868 proof (I don't have an 1863). I know the 1868 must be a proof because it's in copper. The proof strike is (to quote the Christmas carol), deep and crisp and even.

Nice! :-)

But a silly question - how do you differentiate between bronze and copper? weight? colour?

David

Not a silly question at all, and I guess the only 100% test would be a metallurgical analysis. Bronze is around 95% -97% copper, so the relative densities are almost identical, hence weight doesn't really help. I bought my coin from Mark Rasmussen who owned, and has handled, many other similar proofs. He assured me that the coloration of this coin, compared to the otherwise identical bronze proofs, was very evident. The same difference that exists between the 'yellow/brown olive' toned examples of pre 1860 copper pennies and the subsequent bronze coinage which doesn't exhibit the same toning. In hand it is very evident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give you an idea, here's my 1863 alongside an 1868 proof (I don't have an 1863). I know the 1868 must be a proof because it's in copper. The proof strike is (to quote the Christmas carol), deep and crisp and even.

Nice! :-)

But a silly question - how do you differentiate between bronze and copper? weight? colour?

David

Not a silly question at all, and I guess the only 100% test would be a metallurgical analysis. Bronze is around 95% -97% copper, so the relative densities are almost identical, hence weight doesn't really help. I bought my coin from Mark Rasmussen who owned, and has handled, many other similar proofs. He assured me that the coloration of this coin, compared to the otherwise identical bronze proofs, was very evident. The same difference that exists between the 'yellow/brown olive' toned examples of pre 1860 copper pennies and the subsequent bronze coinage which doesn't exhibit the same toning. In hand it is very evident.

Thanks! Circulated copper and bronze certainly have a different "feel" in hand, copper being softer. I've several jetons where I'm just not sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not bad! Though not quite as good as the £1 my 1862 cost me in the 1990s :D :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone here get this one ?

an 1863 open 3 penny in better nick than mine - I put in a £40 snipe when it was sitting at 99p, unfortunately others spotted it. my bid didn't even register: - £237!

Hey ho, mine cost £5

1863open3.jpg

David

Edited by davidrj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone here get this one ?

looking again on the one on ebay - is that raised dot in the date real I wonder??

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I don't think the seller knew what he had. I love it when that happens. I did look at it earlier when it was normal money, but only checked for slender 3. Forgot all about Open 3. I actually checked it this afternoon, decided that it was the same 3 as mine (therefore the common one, not the slender), and that mine was tons better anyway. Never gave it another thought.

So, you lot gave me a slight heart attack when you brought to the forums attention this evening. Having checked mine in detail now, it is, of course, neither open nor slender so I can now relax in the knowledge that mine is a £10 coin. Phew!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sometimes they get missed, too many people watch 1863 pennies methinks.

a few varieties of other dates slip through the radar though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×