1898 Gouby B With 8 Over Tooth

[tracyaw 1]

I noticed the NEW 1898 on Gouby's site. Does anyone know how scarce, and does anyone have any idea of value by grade? Thanks

[davidrj 194]

I noticed the NEW 1898 on Gouby's site. Does anyone know how scarce, and does anyone have any idea of value by grade? Thanks

Very difficult to spot, took a while to convince myself there was any difference, nothing like an open 3 (1863 or 1903) - so I would think demand to be so minimal as not to attract any premium.

some pictures to follow

[davidrj 194]

I noticed the NEW 1898 on Gouby's site. Does anyone know how scarce, and does anyone have any idea of value by grade? Thanks

Very difficult to spot, took a while to convince myself there was any difference, nothing like an open 3 (1863 or 1903) - so I would think demand to be so minimal as not to attract any premium.

some pictures to follow

from top - 1898 Aa "normal" 8 over gap, 1898 Ab "normal" 8 over bead, 1898 Bb "variant" 8 over bead

Edited August 27, 2013 by davidrj

[Peter 615]

How ever could you spot that.?

Michael Gouby must have the patience of a saint and an unlimited stock of 1898's.

A few years back I did my daughters a tray each of 1D's back to 1895. I will have to check these.

[davidrj 194]

How ever could you spot that.?

Michael Gouby must have the patience of a saint and an unlimited stock of 1898's.

A few years back I did my daughters a tray each of 1D's back to 1895. I will have to check these.

it took a lot of searching for me to find the two wide date varieties, and was totally confused by finding the wide date normal 8 first (not in Gouby)

this is a case where a scanner comes in handy, you can image say a dozen coins in one go and blow up areas of interest on screen

Impossible (for me) to spot the difference naked eye

Edited August 28, 2013 by davidrj

[tracyaw 1]

I went through 12 1898, and after potographing and messing about with them in photoshop, I found two, (and yes hard work, but after a while it sort of clicks, the 11 teeth does look slightly wider) so must be quite common. I can't stand the Widow head pennies either the ugliest British penny IMO.

[scott 144]

o great.... something else to look for

[Peckris 579]

I went through 12 1898, and after potographing and messing about with them in photoshop, I found two, (and yes hard work, but after a while it sort of clicks, the 11 teeth does look slightly wider) so must be quite common. I can't stand the Widow head pennies either the ugliest British penny IMO.

What, even uglier than post-1937 penny reverses?

o great.... something else to look for

Don't worry scott - that's the kind of micro-variety that leaves me completely cold. I won't be in competition with you

[azda 979]

Must admit, if you think that a nats pubic hairs width over a tooth is going to attract a premium then you should really go and certify yourself today.

[tracyaw 1]

"What, even uglier than post-1937 penny reverses?"

I quite like them. In fact the 1937, 38, 39 have the nicest 3 out of all the pennies

[tracyaw 1]

Scott, that's the fun, the looking, after finding any its pretty boring.

[Peckris 579]

"What, even uglier than post-1937 penny reverses?"

I quite like them. In fact the 1937, 38, 39 have the nicest 3 out of all the pennies

Each to their own.

[scott 144]

we already had date spreads for OH pennies, so i don't get why this is odd, thats is all.

[davidrj 194]

we already had date spreads for OH pennies, so i don't get why this is odd, thats is all.

the font is different - look at the final 8s in my composite above - the variant 8 is neater and symmetrical

So, although it may be very hard to spot, and invokes little interest, it is as significant as the open 3 for 1903

whether the change for either year was deliberate, or a busy mint worker accidentally used a numeral punch designed for a different coin, we will never know.

the variations of 3 in 1863 pennies may actually be due to where the coin was struck (by the Royal Mint, Watt or Heaton???)

interesting question, why are coins dated anyway? or more to the point why are the dies dated, as there is no guarantee as to when a coin was actually struck?

Edited August 29, 2013 by davidrj

[scott 144]

looking at them, i'm sure i have the first 2, but i dont see that much differance except a slight differance in the last 8

also the variant one has a flatter bottom on the 1st 8.

Edited August 29, 2013 by scott

[Peckris 579]

interesting question, why are coins dated anyway? or more to the point why are the dies dated, as there is no guarantee as to when a coin was actually struck?

Very difficult to find any kind of good answer as these websites will confirm:

http://www.joelscoins.com/dates.htm

http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=90123

http://differintegration.com/2011/04/11/why-do-coins-have-dates-on-them/

and, just for a laugh

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_there_dates_on_coins I mean, come on!

Edited August 29, 2013 by Peckris

[davidrj 194]

and, just for a laugh

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_there_dates_on_coins I mean, come on!

Yes, really helpful that one!

[davidrj 194]

I suspect the real answer is "tradition"

[scott 144]

or for the mint to keep track of how many were made?

[Gary D 76]

or for the mint to keep track of how many were made?

But in 1549 was there just one mint? I did wonder if it coinsided with the introduction of the Gregorian calander but that was not until 1582. Perhaps Edward VI saw it in a dream and it's stuck ever since.

[scott 144]

were they not, bringing the coinage up to standard after Henry VIII? seems best logic as you can record how much silver you are using and how much currency is out there.

doesnt matter how many mints, each one could record, make financial sence for the country.

seems like thebest logical explanation for this, look at key things, William III there are lots, due to recoinage, 1860 and 61, 1971, all replacing older coins, so more minted.

[davidrj 194]

or for the mint to keep track of how many were made?

you would need a serial number (like a banknote) for that, a date is meaningless

[Rob 3,152]

were they not, bringing the coinage up to standard after Henry VIII? seems best logic as you can record how much silver you are using and how much currency is out there.

doesnt matter how many mints, each one could record, make financial sence for the country.

seems like thebest logical explanation for this, look at key things, William III there are lots, due to recoinage, 1860 and 61, 1971, all replacing older coins, so more minted.

The reign of Edward VI along with that of his father is one of financial skullduggery. William Sharrington was convicted of producing coin for his own financial gain at Bristol, but was subsequently rehabilitated. Henry VIII (Gordgon Brown's ancestor) completely bu****ed the nation's finances leading to the production of ever debasing currency. Even when the fine silver issues of Edward VI were struck, it was still necessary to produce base small change.

[scott 144]

mints have minting figures, they know how many were made

we had mintmarks and monyers before dates, allowing for tracking etc.

there is no other real reason to put dates on, other then to keep track of how much is produced in that year, can't think of an actual other reason to do it, other then, because you can.

[Rob 3,152]

mints have minting figures, they know how many were made

we had mintmarks and monyers before dates, allowing for tracking etc.

there is no other real reason to put dates on, other then to keep track of how much is produced in that year, can't think of an actual other reason to do it, other then, because you can.

It may be done to make a political point. Take GC's Henry VIII Tournai groat which is dated 1513. Up to that date, no coin issued in the name of an English monarch had been dated, but for some reason it was decided to date this issue. It can be no coincidence that it was the year Henry resolved to recover some French soil following the loss of Calais nearly 60 years prior to this event and clearly made the political statement that the English were back in France, for which he was duly paid-off the following year. Nice little earner if you can do it.

Or it could just be a fashion statement given the earliest dated French coin was 1491 and so the 1513 groat was issued not long after. Based on the design, it was obviously intended for circulation in the local economy.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Rob