Another Odd One

[tracyaw 1]

This is a 1945 Half Penny. Under a loupe the difference is amazing, however does not show up very well on photograph, the date on on the top one is much thinner. Is this anoted variety?

If it is not noted I would like to call it the TracyZ

Have some more odd ones to post later, and I did find a 1945 double, recut or whatever it is

[Peckris 579]

My own thoughts are that you have two fairly worn coins there. Despite the gronk on the top one, I would say that it is actually less worn overall than the bottom, and therefore the date numerals haven't flattened so much. Also, if the bottom one was struck with a wearing die, you'd see a similar effect of less crisp details.

But others here may differ?

[tracyaw 1]

They are not really worn and both in similar condition. I have photographed them again. All of the date numbers are very different. I can't see it being down a wearing die, as space in the 4 space is bigger and , as is the C curve o the 5. The 5 also has a different gap along its horizontal top line and the C curve. The 9 is slimmer with a bigger hole.

Won't let me embed with the image tool on the toolbar so have to post a Photobucket again. Sorry.

http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p328/rebelesque/IMG_0840.jpg

[tracyaw 1]

Here is a version as a forum attachment:

[Coinery 1,148]

I 100% agree the dates look different, but take a look at the waves also, I'm not so sure they are anything like the same grade? I'd never expect to find such a significant variety to be honest...keep looking, though, as they are by no means all found, no by a long shot!

[tracyaw 1]

Thefleft image is the one with different date, the one on the right is the normal date as I have checked against 15 other 1945s and they have the same date. Which would say is in better condition?

http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p328/rebelesque/IMG_0842.jpg
http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p328/rebelesque/IMG_0843.jpg

[tracyaw 1]

Never noticed before but the reverse is completely different, not just the date.

[Coinery 1,148]

Thefleft image is the one with different date, the one on the right is the normal date as I have checked against 15 other 1945s and they have the same date. Which would say is in better condition?

http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p328/rebelesque/IMG_0842.jpg

http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p328/rebelesque/IMG_0843.jpg

You have me at a disadvantage now, as I'm looking on the iPhone, and your images are not really grade-friendly! What I would say, though, which is important for the variety-point you raise, is that, regardless of the overall grade of either of the coins, there is definitely wear or weak-strike in the region of the date on the coin with the 'broad-numeral' date, which can be clearly seen in the waves of your earlier posted images!

In all honesty, if you are looking for hitherto undiscovered varieties of the 20thC period, you will need to be looking at the macro level, on coins in extremely high grade, to find them, and especially if you want to get them acknowledged by the numismatic establishments.

You spoke of Dave Groom & Chris's books, I'm guessing you know Chris is the host of this site, and that Dave is a regular visitor/member, maybe he could take a look and encourage you in your search.

It's great that you are so enthusiastic, all the best discussions on here generally start this way.

Keep it coming!

[Coinery 1,148]

Never noticed before but the reverse is completely different, not just the date.

I'm actually in bed now, but will double check in the morning, though I'm pretty sure Dave Groom only had varieties in either 1940 or 1941 for the G6 halfpennies (I can't remember which)? A '45 major variety would be pretty major, I'm sure it must be unusual wear, but would absolutely love to be wrong on this!

[tracyaw 1]

Thanks Coinery

To be honest, being new to this, I could not recognise a weak strike. (still learning) I compared both coins to an uncut one, and although I am sill convinced the dates are really different, and the lines on the sail rigging are much thinner on mine, and the bend on the back sail is quite different, do not know if these characteristics would occur through a weak strike.

I am not sure how a weak strike would affect date numbers being very different, and the quite open C on the 5 and the wider space in the 4, and for me the 9 is the most distinctive of all, plus the angle of the 4, but photos can be deceiving. You are quite right. Groom does say that only minor differences are to be found on the 1940 Half Penny.

[Peckris 579]

The image on the left is about two grades better (obverse) and more than a grade better (reverse). This would easily account for the changes you've noticed.

For comparison, check the following on the obverse :

• hair detail, especially the sideburn
• cheekbones
• ear
• neck
• how far the legend stands 'proud' from the field

The left hand coin is so much clearer in every respect, and despite the green muck in the legend, has much less wear than the other example.

[tracyaw 1]

But I have other 1945s in similar condition to the left image, and and I have viewed uncut, they are the same as the one on the right not the one on the left. No other 1945 I have or have looked at, despite grade from poor to uncut, is the same as the image on the left, they all look like the image on the right. The date figures are the same as the image on the right. If the left image is slightly better than the right image, why do all other 1945s look like the right image?

[tracyaw 1]

Ah, have just examined an unc really close up and you're right Peckris. Oh well back to the searching

[tracyaw 1]

Just to demonstrate that Peckris is correct, and thanks so much for expalining about wearing and grade:

[tracyaw 1]

By the way, did any of you chaps beat me to that passable open 3 on ebay earlier? (it looked to me like an open 3, I could be wrong) I had my eye on that, it had no bidders, so made a high bid, forgot about it and it went to one other bidder.

[Peckris 579]

By the way, did any of you chaps beat me to that passable open 3 on ebay earlier? (it looked to me like an open 3, I could be wrong) I had my eye on that, it had no bidders, so made a high bid, forgot about it and it went to one other bidder.

Do you still have the link?

[davidrj 194]

By the way, did any of you chaps beat me to that passable open 3 on ebay earlier? (it looked to me like an open 3, I could be wrong) I had my eye on that, it had no bidders, so made a high bid, forgot about it and it went to one other bidder.

Do you still have the link?

Did you mean this one?, he's been trying to flog it for some time, NOT an open 3

[tracyaw 1]

It will make my day if it is not an open 3 but this the link

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/370880652862?ssPageName=STRK:MEDWX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1435.l2649

[Coinery 1,148]

What's the thoughts on the open 3, amazing grade if it is!

Edit: Will let you know when it arrives, of course!

Edited August 26, 2013 by Coinery

[RLC35 288]

What's the thoughts on the open 3, amazing grade if it is!

Edit: Will let you know when it arrives, of course!

I do not believe it is an open 3. The picture's weakest point just happens to be the at the number 3, but if you look close enough you can see a ball on top of the lower end of the 3!

[Gary D 76]

The curl in the top of the 3 does it for me. Not an open 3.

[Coinery 1,148]

Grrrr!

[tracyaw 1]

Hurrah!!!

[Coinery 1,148]

Hurrah!!!

Double grrrrrrrrr!

Edit: Just out of interest, I noted that eBay have rejigged my user name...the letters are now different AND not in sequence!

Edited August 26, 2013 by Coinery

[tracyaw 1]

So, your real ebay name is: fotirips67ku