How many dies were used on the 1839 proof sets?

[Rob 3,152]

Just musing about the number of dies that were used for the sets given there is evidence that they were produced over a period of nearly 50 years (1839-1887). The die combination of ESC 1738 indicates that they were produced much later than 1839 because the obverse was introduced in 1880. Can anyone else fill in some gaps in the info? How many farthing dies? Halfpennies are known as 1839, 39/41 & 39/43. How many penny dies were used. Accumulator's example looks to be from a very polished die which has removed the top of the C in VIC and the bottom bar of the E is weak. Continue this theme through to the £5 and it might be possible to put some sort of chronology together if we can identify specific die pairs.

[Accumulator 52]

Just musing about the number of dies that were used for the sets given there is evidence that they were produced over a period of nearly 50 years (1839-1887). The die combination of ESC 1738 indicates that they were produced much later than 1839 because the obverse was introduced in 1880. Can anyone else fill in some gaps in the info? How many farthing dies? Halfpennies are known as 1839, 39/41 & 39/43. How many penny dies were used. Accumulator's example looks to be from a very polished die which has removed the top of the C in VIC and the bottom bar of the E is weak. Continue this theme through to the £5 and it might be possible to put some sort of chronology together if we can identify specific die pairs.

I examined all the 1839 pennies previously sold by London Coins (where a photo was available) and a good number of those shown on the mcsearch website. All of them exhibited the broken 'C' in VICTORIA, so I would assume only one obverse die exists for pennies.

[Coinery 1,153]

Just musing about the number of dies that were used for the sets given there is evidence that they were produced over a period of nearly 50 years (1839-1887). The die combination of ESC 1738 indicates that they were produced much later than 1839 because the obverse was introduced in 1880. Can anyone else fill in some gaps in the info? How many farthing dies? Halfpennies are known as 1839, 39/41 & 39/43. How many penny dies were used. Accumulator's example looks to be from a very polished die which has removed the top of the C in VIC and the bottom bar of the E is weak. Continue this theme through to the £5 and it might be possible to put some sort of chronology together if we can identify specific die pairs.

How did you calculate ESC1738's ob to enter the scene in 1880? Any idea who the late re-runs would be for? I'm just thinking, if the RM were to re-run a G6 set, would I really want one as a collector?

[Rob 3,152]

Just musing about the number of dies that were used for the sets given there is evidence that they were produced over a period of nearly 50 years (1839-1887). The die combination of ESC 1738 indicates that they were produced much later than 1839 because the obverse was introduced in 1880. Can anyone else fill in some gaps in the info? How many farthing dies? Halfpennies are known as 1839, 39/41 & 39/43. How many penny dies were used. Accumulator's example looks to be from a very polished die which has removed the top of the C in VIC and the bottom bar of the E is weak. Continue this theme through to the £5 and it might be possible to put some sort of chronology together if we can identify specific die pairs.

I examined all the 1839 pennies previously sold by London Coins (where a photo was available) and a good number of those shown on the mcsearch website. All of them exhibited the broken 'C' in VICTORIA, so I would assume only one obverse die exists for pennies.

But I wouldn't imagine that the original 1839 dies would have been cut with a broken C because this implies a lot of polishing of an existing die. I would expect to find a few pennies with an intact C, even if a search didn't show immediate results. The gap in the C would mean a very weakly cut letter in the first place if all were like this. The first currency date is 1841. For an 1839 to be made from a current die would imply that the first 1839 sets were not made any earlier than 1841. Unfortunately I don't have any catalogues dated 1839 or 1840, but Baron Bolland 426 (Soth 21/4/1841) is a lot of 9 Victorian proofs - Penny, Halfpenny, Farthing, etc and 426 is described as others, similar. He died on 14th May 1840, so on balance we can reasonably assume that the first sets were produced in 1839 as dated.

[Rob 3,152]

Just musing about the number of dies that were used for the sets given there is evidence that they were produced over a period of nearly 50 years (1839-1887). The die combination of ESC 1738 indicates that they were produced much later than 1839 because the obverse was introduced in 1880. Can anyone else fill in some gaps in the info? How many farthing dies? Halfpennies are known as 1839, 39/41 & 39/43. How many penny dies were used. Accumulator's example looks to be from a very polished die which has removed the top of the C in VIC and the bottom bar of the E is weak. Continue this theme through to the £5 and it might be possible to put some sort of chronology together if we can identify specific die pairs.

How did you calculate ESC1738's ob to enter the scene in 1880? Any idea who the late re-runs would be for? I'm just thinking, if the RM were to re-run a G6 set, would I really want one as a collector?

The obverse die uses the bust punch employed on sixpences from 1880 onwards, but is dated 1839. One went through Heritage(?) earlier this year. This is the basis for the assumption that 1839 sets were made possibly up to 1887. We know that there were at least 3 halfpenny obverse dies used (the latest being an 1843 recut and also a number of dies for the £5 Una & t'Lion. The 1839/41 obverse die is heavily polished and the hair not in very good shape (see unlisted varieties section) implying a heavily rusted die was bought back into use. The condition of the die is such that you would think there was none better available as any die for sets made pre 1860 would surely be taken from the normal die production activities and dated accordingly. It isn't cast in concrete, but I assume the recut date coins are later than 1860.

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Rob

[Colin G. 147]

Rob I think the farthings may be able to shed some light, I am certainly aware of a version of the farthing that has a broken A, which is very similar to a flaw found on an 1843 farthing...it may be purely co-incidence, or it could be the same die being re-utilised. I have not seen a copy in hand though to see whether there is any evidence of an overdate, or to try and match any other features.

Bizarrely one of the lots I have bought from the DNW sale, is an example of this type...so I will have a copy in hand fairly shortly!!

[Coinery 1,153]

Just musing about the number of dies that were used for the sets given there is evidence that they were produced over a period of nearly 50 years (1839-1887). The die combination of ESC 1738 indicates that they were produced much later than 1839 because the obverse was introduced in 1880. Can anyone else fill in some gaps in the info? How many farthing dies? Halfpennies are known as 1839, 39/41 & 39/43. How many penny dies were used. Accumulator's example looks to be from a very polished die which has removed the top of the C in VIC and the bottom bar of the E is weak. Continue this theme through to the £5 and it might be possible to put some sort of chronology together if we can identify specific die pairs.

How did you calculate ESC1738's ob to enter the scene in 1880? Any idea who the late re-runs would be for? I'm just thinking, if the RM were to re-run a G6 set, would I really want one as a collector?

The obverse die uses the bust punch employed on sixpences from 1880 onwards, but is dated 1839. One went through Heritage(?) earlier this year. This is the basis for the assumption that 1839 sets were made possibly up to 1887. We know that there were at least 3 halfpenny obverse dies used (the latest being an 1843 recut and also a number of dies for the £5 Una & t'Lion. The 1839/41 obverse die is heavily polished and the hair not in very good shape (see unlisted varieties section) implying a heavily rusted die was bought back into use. The condition of the die is such that you would think there was none better available as any die for sets made pre 1860 would surely be taken from the normal die production activities and dated accordingly. It isn't cast in concrete, but I assume the recut date coins are later than 1860.

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

So, another aspect to set buying...do you have an original issued '39 set on '39 planchets, or a set on planchets nearly 50 years younger?

Thanks for the enlightenment, Rob!

[shagreen 24]

Rob I think the farthings may be able to shed some light, I am certainly aware of a version of the farthing that has a broken A, which is very similar to a flaw found on an 1843 farthing...it may be purely co-incidence, or it could be the same die being re-utilised. I have not seen a copy in hand though to see whether there is any evidence of an overdate, or to try and match any other features.

Bizarrely one of the lots I have bought from the DNW sale, is an example of this type...so I will have a copy in hand fairly shortly!!

Hello yes I have both types of proof farthings with and without the broken A - bought a broken A version recently in the Spink Auction were it was initially thought to be a copper version. I have checked to see if the obverse proof dies were used to strike the proof sovereign but that is still inconclusive.

As for the penny I have only seen the version with the missing top curve to the C in ViCtoria despite examining about 20 coins. I am also interested in the die orientation varieties in this year set the medal alignments appear to be much rarer (excl.Cu)and available for all denominations. A very interesting set

[Rob 3,152]

The halfpennies are normally upright, but my 39/41 is inverted. It's the only example I've seen with this die axis. This could possibly be contemporary with the late strike sixpence which also has an inverted die axis and which seems to be equally rare. It is also worth pointing out the mint refurbished in 1882 with new equipment, so any dies from the old Boulton presses may well not have fitted the new equipment which in turn would give us a terminal date for the issues.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Rob

[Nick 329]

The halfpennies are normally upright, but my 39/41 is inverted. It's the only example I've seen with this die axis. This could possibly be contemporary with the late strike sixpence which also has an inverted die axis and which seems to be equally rare. It is also worth pointing out the mint refurbished in 1882 with new equipment, so any dies from the old Boulton presses may well not have fitted the new equipment which in turn would give us a terminal date for the issues.

The 1839 sixpence with the c.1880 obverse that sold at Heritage earlier this year has medal alignment.

[Nick 329]

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

[Rob 3,152]

The halfpennies are normally upright, but my 39/41 is inverted. It's the only example I've seen with this die axis. This could possibly be contemporary with the late strike sixpence which also has an inverted die axis and which seems to be equally rare. It is also worth pointing out the mint refurbished in 1882 with new equipment, so any dies from the old Boulton presses may well not have fitted the new equipment which in turn would give us a terminal date for the issues.

The 1839 sixpence with the c.1880 obverse that sold at Heritage earlier this year has medal alignment.

Ah, thanks. Faulty memory. Which may imply that these late sets were made with the die axis opposite to the normal currency coinage. Peck gives the inverted farthing die axis as very rare, same as the inverted halfpenny. Groats also occur in both axes with Spink pricing the inverted one higher. Davies doesn't mention the inverted die axis at all, which is presumably an oversight, but maybe an indication of actual rarity given that ESC quotes rarities of S (upright) and R2 (inverted).

[Accumulator 52]

Rob I think the farthings may be able to shed some light, I am certainly aware of a version of the farthing that has a broken A, which is very similar to a flaw found on an 1843 farthing...it may be purely co-incidence, or it could be the same die being re-utilised. I have not seen a copy in hand though to see whether there is any evidence of an overdate, or to try and match any other features.

Bizarrely one of the lots I have bought from the DNW sale, is an example of this type...so I will have a copy in hand fairly shortly!!

Hello yes I have both types of proof farthings with and without the broken A - bought a broken A version recently in the Spink Auction were it was initially thought to be a copper version. I have checked to see if the obverse proof dies were used to strike the proof sovereign but that is still inconclusive.

As for the penny I have only seen the version with the missing top curve to the C in ViCtoria despite examining about 20 coins. I am also interested in the die orientation varieties in this year set the medal alignments appear to be much rarer (excl.Cu)and available for all denominations. A very interesting set

Likewise, for the penny I have checked about 20+ examples and all have the broken 'C'. I've not found a broken C on the dies for any later dates.

My penny is "medal orientation" (upright reverse) as listed by Peck (1479). Are you suggesting that coin orientation pennies exist?

[Rob 3,152]

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

[Accumulator 52]

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893?

[Nick 329]

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893?

Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs.

The numbers quoted are:

756 gold + silver sets

17 gold only sets

556 silver only sets

95 gold single proofs

23 silver single proofs

Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs.

[Accumulator 52]

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893?

Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs.

The numbers quoted are:

756 gold + silver sets

17 gold only sets

556 silver only sets

95 gold single proofs

23 silver single proofs

Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs.

Interestingly, no mention of the bronze proof pennies which Freeman lists (but Peck does not). Not that I've ever seen one!

[Nick 329]

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893?

Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs.

The numbers quoted are:

756 gold + silver sets

17 gold only sets

556 silver only sets

95 gold single proofs

23 silver single proofs

Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs.

Interestingly, no mention of the bronze proof pennies which Freeman lists (but Peck does not). Not that I've ever seen one!

It only specifically mentions "specimen" coins of the new design, which might explain why any bronze proofs are excluded - given that the bronze coinage kept the young head for another two years.

[shagreen 24]

Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between.

The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893?

Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs.

The numbers quoted are:

756 gold + silver sets

17 gold only sets

556 silver only sets

95 gold single proofs

23 silver single proofs

Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs.

Interestingly, no mention of the bronze proof pennies which Freeman lists (but Peck does not). Not that I've ever seen one!

It only specifically mentions "specimen" coins of the new design, which might explain why any bronze proofs are excluded - given that the bronze coinage kept the young head for another two years.

I have been informed that the tradition of presenting a sixpence to the new bride meant that additional proof sixpences were required. Lets also not forget the number of shilling obverse dies used to strike the 1839 set. If you have one look for the raised dot dead center on the reverse its seems only one reverse die was used but I need to do further research. This "location marker" is also seen on the Maundy 3d and Penny reverse from the same year.

[Rob 3,152]

I have been informed that the tradition of presenting a sixpence to the new bride meant that additional proof sixpences were required. Lets also not forget the number of shilling obverse dies used to strike the 1839 set. If you have one look for the raised dot dead center on the reverse its seems only one reverse die was used but I need to do further research. This "location marker" is also seen on the Maundy 3d and Penny reverse from the same year.

These marks go back to the hammered era. You can't rely on the presence of a mark in the centre of the face as a unique identifier as it is the one point that ought to remain consistent. Every die has a central point. It is just that some have a larger mark than others. If the engraver was any good, then you would expect the central point to be at the centre of the design. i.e. it isn't very helpful in identifying a die.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Rob

[shagreen 24]

I have been informed that the tradition of presenting a sixpence to the new bride meant that additional proof sixpences were required. Lets also not forget the number of shilling obverse dies used to strike the 1839 set. If you have one look for the raised dot dead center on the reverse its seems only one reverse die was used but I need to do further research. This "location marker" is also seen on the Maundy 3d and Penny reverse from the same year.

These marks go back to the hammered era. You can't rely on the presence of a mark in the centre of the face as a unique identifier as it is the one point that ought to remain consistent. Every die has a central point. It is just that some have a larger mark than others. If the engraver was any good, then you would expect the central point to be at the centre of the design. i.e. it isn't very helpful in identifying a die.

Totally agree Rob the raised center dot is not a "unique identifier" I would expect it was on the master die and would have then transferred to the working dies - being proofs strikes these dots are more noticeable - I dont study normal strikes but its fascinating how the dot is also on the 1831 and 1853 proof shilling reverses - perhaps indicating the same master for all three - does any one know?

[Rob 3,152]

I've just found a reference in an 1875 catalogue to a 17 coin boxed set of Victoria proofs. Usually these are 15 coins for the 1839 - £5 to farthing and the Maundy Set, so the note that it was 17 coins implies either a misprint or a set with the half and quarter farthing notwithstanding the description says Penny to Farthing in copper. The sale reference is J E M Rishton 183, Sotheby 13-14th July 1875. It would have to be a 39 set because a £5 is included.

I have always assumed that the 1839 sets didn't contain the fractionals because they were for colonial use, but if the 17 coins noted was correct, this would suggest that later sets may contain the fractional proofs as these were made to order, and there would be dies available for the two 39 fractionals. It should be noted that the 1853 sets (16 coins) had denominations down to the half farthing as these were proclaimed current for Britain.

Has anyone ever seen a boxed 17 coin set? Ta.

[Peckris 579]

I've just found a reference in an 1875 catalogue to a 17 coin boxed set of Victoria proofs. Usually these are 15 coins for the 1839 - £5 to farthing and the Maundy Set, so the note that it was 17 coins implies either a misprint or a set with the half and quarter farthing notwithstanding the description says Penny to Farthing in copper. The sale reference is J E M Rishton 183, Sotheby 13-14th July 1875. It would have to be a 39 set because a £5 is included.

I have always assumed that the 1839 sets didn't contain the fractionals because they were for colonial use, but if the 17 coins noted was correct, this would suggest that later sets may contain the fractional proofs as these were made to order, and there would be dies available for the two 39 fractionals. It should be noted that the 1853 sets (16 coins) had denominations down to the half farthing as these were proclaimed current for Britain.

Has anyone ever seen a boxed 17 coin set? Ta.

Is it possible that the seller had simply bunged the fractionals into the box to make the set 'complete'? I guess you'd have to see whether there are recesses specially made for them, or whether they just 'float free'.

[Rob 3,152]

I've just found a reference in an 1875 catalogue to a 17 coin boxed set of Victoria proofs. Usually these are 15 coins for the 1839 - £5 to farthing and the Maundy Set, so the note that it was 17 coins implies either a misprint or a set with the half and quarter farthing notwithstanding the description says Penny to Farthing in copper. The sale reference is J E M Rishton 183, Sotheby 13-14th July 1875. It would have to be a 39 set because a £5 is included.

I have always assumed that the 1839 sets didn't contain the fractionals because they were for colonial use, but if the 17 coins noted was correct, this would suggest that later sets may contain the fractional proofs as these were made to order, and there would be dies available for the two 39 fractionals. It should be noted that the 1853 sets (16 coins) had denominations down to the half farthing as these were proclaimed current for Britain.

Has anyone ever seen a boxed 17 coin set? Ta.

Is it possible that the seller had simply bunged the fractionals into the box to make the set 'complete'? I guess you'd have to see whether there are recesses specially made for them, or whether they just 'float free'.

Quite possible that they were added later, or alternatively were in a custom built box. But in the context of these sets, nothing can be taken for granted given the length of time over which they were produced.

[shagreen 24]

I've just found a reference in an 1875 catalogue to a 17 coin boxed set of Victoria proofs. Usually these are 15 coins for the 1839 - £5 to farthing and the Maundy Set, so the note that it was 17 coins implies either a misprint or a set with the half and quarter farthing notwithstanding the description says Penny to Farthing in copper. The sale reference is J E M Rishton 183, Sotheby 13-14th July 1875. It would have to be a 39 set because a £5 is included.

I have always assumed that the 1839 sets didn't contain the fractionals because they were for colonial use, but if the 17 coins noted was correct, this would suggest that later sets may contain the fractional proofs as these were made to order, and there would be dies available for the two 39 fractionals. It should be noted that the 1853 sets (16 coins) had denominations down to the half farthing as these were proclaimed current for Britain.

Has anyone ever seen a boxed 17 coin set? Ta.

Is it possible that the seller had simply bunged the fractionals into the box to make the set 'complete'? I guess you'd have to see whether there are recesses specially made for them, or whether they just 'float free'.

Quite possible that they were added later, or alternatively were in a custom built box. But in the context of these sets, nothing can be taken for granted given the length of time over which they were produced.

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order