1805 and 1839 pennies

[Accumulator 52]

I may be missing the obvious, but why are 1805 pennies regarded only as patterns and thus do not appear in Spink, whereas pennies from 1839 are regarded as proofs and therefore listed?

Neither coin was issued as currency. Perhaps the 1805 was never actually legal tender, whereas the 1839 was? Any ideas?

[Rob 3,152]

I may be missing the obvious, but why are 1805 pennies regarded only as patterns and thus do not appear in Spink, whereas pennies from 1839 are regarded as proofs and therefore listed?

Neither coin was issued as currency. Perhaps the 1805 was never actually legal tender, whereas the 1839 was? Any ideas?

They are consistently inconsistent. They also list the 1807 proof halfpennies, which were not Soho products, but made by Taylor much later. See my article in the 2007 BNJ showing how Taylor made the 1807 obverse die. The coin which provided the evidence is in the unlisted varieties section of the forum. They also list the 1848 godless florin, again a pattern, though one obverse and reverse design were eventually adopted. Golden rule - don't make rules because you will inevitably break them.

[Accumulator 52]

I may be missing the obvious, but why are 1805 pennies regarded only as patterns and thus do not appear in Spink, whereas pennies from 1839 are regarded as proofs and therefore listed?

Neither coin was issued as currency. Perhaps the 1805 was never actually legal tender, whereas the 1839 was? Any ideas?

They are consistently inconsistent. They also list the 1807 proof halfpennies, which were not Soho products, but made by Taylor much later. See my article in the 2007 BNJ showing how Taylor made the 1807 obverse die. The coin which provided the evidence is in the unlisted varieties section of the forum. They also list the 1848 godless florin, again a pattern, though one obverse and reverse design were eventually adopted. Golden rule - don't make rules because you will inevitably break them.

Thanks Rob. It's good to know I'm not missing the obvious!

A reasonable division could perhaps have be made between coins that were legal tender (currency & proofs) and those that weren't (patterns), but clearly this isn't the case.

[Peckris 579]

I may be missing the obvious, but why are 1805 pennies regarded only as patterns and thus do not appear in Spink, whereas pennies from 1839 are regarded as proofs and therefore listed?

Neither coin was issued as currency. Perhaps the 1805 was never actually legal tender, whereas the 1839 was? Any ideas?

It MAY come down to the reasons why each was produced.(That's pure guesswork of course). But IF the 1839 was produced in the sure knowledge that a regular currency was following on, then you could argue for its non-pattern status, whereas if the 1805 was produced to 'test the water' so to speak, it may be justfiably viewed as a pattern.

After all, the Vicky copper pennies were the same size, composition and identical reverses to those of the previous reign, but the 1805 was a new type that had never been seen before. But I agree, it's a hair splitting exercise and for collecting purposes there's no good reason to include the one and not the other.

[Rob 3,152]

I may be missing the obvious, but why are 1805 pennies regarded only as patterns and thus do not appear in Spink, whereas pennies from 1839 are regarded as proofs and therefore listed?

Neither coin was issued as currency. Perhaps the 1805 was never actually legal tender, whereas the 1839 was? Any ideas?

They are consistently inconsistent. They also list the 1807 proof halfpennies, which were not Soho products, but made by Taylor much later. See my article in the 2007 BNJ showing how Taylor made the 1807 obverse die. The coin which provided the evidence is in the unlisted varieties section of the forum. They also list the 1848 godless florin, again a pattern, though one obverse and reverse design were eventually adopted. Golden rule - don't make rules because you will inevitably break them.

Thanks Rob. It's good to know I'm not missing the obvious!

A reasonable division could perhaps have be made between coins that were legal tender (currency & proofs) and those that weren't (patterns), but clearly this isn't the case.

And the Petition and Reddite crowns, and the Cromwell coins which were never authorised by Act of Parliament, G3 five guineas, 1787 pattern shilling by Pingo - specifically noted as a pattern, Dorrien & Magens shilling - specifically order to be melted as they were unauthorised etc. etc. It's all over the place.

[Peter 615]

I love this forum.

There are so many smart ar5e's or I must be lacking in the old grey matter?

[Rob 3,152]

I love this forum.

There are so many smart ar5e's or I must be lacking in the old grey matter?

I concur. You have used a 5 where an s would have been more appropriate.

This is a very helpful forum.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

I love this forum.

There are so many smart ar5e's or I must be lacking in the old grey matter?

I concur. You have used a 5 where an s would have been more appropriate.

This is a very helpful forum.

Too fuc4ing right it is!!

[Peter 615]

It gives me sanity when every other bugger gives me grief.

I log on and it gets better

I do like you boys/girls but not in a biblical sense.

[Peter 615]

I bought a case of Newcastle Brown then worked away for a week and Mrs Peter and her friends gulped the lot.

To her credit she bought me 3 Speckled hens tonight but all I can find is 1 left and a bit of snoring.

I wouldn't change her for an UNC 1693 & 1717 farthing...offers welcome