More Pennies

[1949threepence 3,367]

Some very nice bun heads been listed on ebay this afternoon by this seller:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GREAT-BRITAIN-Victoria-1860-AE-Penny-PCGS-MS65BN-Dies-6-D-KM-749-2-Gem-/171873195275?hash=item280470d50b:g:SKEAAOSwd0BVt49v

Think this one has been incorrectly slabbed as an F17 when should be F16, but still a rarer type so may be of interest to members / perhaps worth an offer if anyone is looking for type!

Some very nice coins, but most are massively overpriced, in many instances, absurdly so even with slabbing. I've got most of them anyway, although I do like the look of the 1870. That is nice.

[RLC35 288]

Some very nice bun heads been listed on ebay this afternoon by this seller:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GREAT-BRITAIN-Victoria-1860-AE-Penny-PCGS-MS65BN-Dies-6-D-KM-749-2-Gem-/171873195275?hash=item280470d50b:g:SKEAAOSwd0BVt49v

Think this one has been incorrectly slabbed as an F17 when should be F16, but still a rarer type so may be of interest to members / perhaps worth an offer if anyone is looking for type!

The coin that you have the link to, sure looks like it has been cleaned, especially in the field, on the reverse below "Penny" (friction lines) Still a nice coin, but I agree it is overpriced. I hope he gets it!

[Nordle11 564]

A 1922 penny with a dot on the trident, missed by the seller, so it only cost me a tenner. My phone isn't great with close ups so apologies in advance.

[jelida 1,314]

Missed by me too, thats a good buy, well done.

Jerry

[secret santa 2,325]

Aaaahh, the eyes of a young man !!!!!

[Nordle11 564]

It certainly pays dividends! I also received this today, after initially being sent to the wrong person, returned by them, then held in customs for over 2 weeks when it was finally resent my way. Worth the wait, the seller says that his dad got it from the bank the same year of issue and wrapped it in cloth where it sat until it was listed on ebay. 

[secret santa 2,325]

Nice penny Matt - the Edward pennies seem to be some of the fastest increasing coins, value-wise.

R

[Nordle11 564]

Thanks Richard, they are certainly the hardest to get in a nice grade, so many are plagued by weak strikes or ghosting, they really lost control of the quality after the Victorian veiled head pennies. 

[1949threepence 3,367]

3 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

Thanks Richard, they are certainly the hardest to get in a nice grade, so many are plagued by weak strikes or ghosting, they really lost control of the quality after the Victorian veiled head pennies. 

Especially 1906 and 1907.

Superb 1909 by the way, and always great to get some history. 

 

[bhx7 222]

That 1909 is a beauty. Also like the 1922 with trident dot. Two great finds, well done Matt.

[loose54 21]

Nordle, that 1909 is absolutely beautiful! My dream coin is the 1705 crown that apparently went straight from the mint to sit in some newspaper until the 1980's. It's amazing to think that you have a coin that is probably as close as possible to being 'brand new' even after 106 years!! Bravo!

[Nordle11 564]

9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Especially 1906 and 1907.

Superb 1909 by the way, and always great to get some history. 

 

God yes, it took me a good year or so searching for a nice 1906, and there is still plenty of room for an upgrade if one comes along. I definitely found that year the hardest of the whole series. 

5 hours ago, loose54 said:

Nordle, that 1909 is absolutely beautiful! My dream coin is the 1705 crown that apparently went straight from the mint to sit in some newspaper until the 1980's. It's amazing to think that you have a coin that is probably as close as possible to being 'brand new' even after 106 years!! Bravo!

Thanks Loose, it really does look like it just came straight out of the mint yesterday! Well worth the wait 

[Nordle11 564]

Can anyone explain the significance of this penny for me? Not just why it went for 9k but also why the numerator is larger than the denominator?

Edited January 4, 2016 by Nordle11
forgot the link

[Nordle11 564]

Answered by Pete outside the forum (it won't let him log in to reply) so if anyone else is also interested it's the total minted/total tons produced.

[Rob 3,152]

Graham Dyer's article in BNJ vol. 52 refers. The numbers are believed to refer to the cumulative total tons of bronze (pennies, halfpennies and farthings) struckfor the numerator, and the cumulative total tons of bronze pennies for the denominator. Using the bronze coin production figures for 1860-8, the various fractions observed provide a very good fit. So in this case, the figure 542 is within the range 498-577 tons struck since 1860 for 1867, and the figure 329 is within the 375 tons of bronze pennies struck up to 1868. Given the mint figures of 41 tons of bronze in 1868, this coin neatly fits the hypothesis.

[Nordle11 564]

Thanks Rob, having a gander at the article now 

[pies 33]

but why scribble on a coin , surely in a note pad would be better

[Rob 3,152]

Here is my 1866 halfpenny reading 405/138. Gouby has an image of 406/139 on the front of his bronze book. They are by extension, all unique.

[Nordle11 564]

That's a nice example, I bet that cost you a pretty.. halfpenny  (sorry) 

Do you think the difference between the whole fraction (as it were) being on one side of the penny and both sides of the halfpenny is down to it's smaller size? I just read that it wasn't only the London mint to do this so I guess it could have been preference, interested in what you think.

[Rob 3,152]

Graham Dyer discounted the output from Watt and Heatons as they only struck up to 1863. Only by considering the RM output in isolation do the figures work.

If the numbers are inscribed on a coin taken at random by any one of several people on different days, then it wold be entirely down to chance where in the field the numbers are placed.

It wasn't expensive compared to what penny collectors are willing to spend. I wish I hadn't stopped bidding on the two Adams pieces in 2003.   Parry did ok there.

 

[Nordle11 564]

I suppose so, although you'd imagine there was someone in particular recording these figures who would've done most, if not all the scratches? Like pies mentions, are the only figures recorded about these scratched onto the coins themselves or would there be documentation somewhere to mirror it?

Also could the pennies from 1860 and pennies/halfpennies from 1861 be from any one of the mints that were producing at the time then?

 

[Rob 3,152]

1 hour ago, Nordle11 said:

I suppose so, although you'd imagine there was someone in particular recording these figures who would've done most, if not all the scratches? Like pies mentions, are the only figures recorded about these scratched onto the coins themselves or would there be documentation somewhere to mirror it?

Also could the pennies from 1860 and pennies/halfpennies from 1861 be from any one of the mints that were producing at the time then?

 

I suppose they could in part, in theory, As the output of H & W was only 32 & 74 tons respectively for 1860 and H's only totalled 41 tons including 1861 coins, this implies the only possible Heaton coin is the penny with 40/40. Watts could have possibly numbered things, but as Dyer points out, this would fail based on a total tonnage of 1720 up to 1863. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all the numbered coins are from the RM.

Thinking out loud, the repeated use of the same number at the beginning might relate to production milestones such as an internal job requiring 40 tons as opposed to the full commission, or testing dies/blanks? It is also possible that the inconsistency seen for 1860-1 compared to latter figures was a mistake by someone at the mint! It is not easy to see why there would be 2 identical numbers unless for the above reason.

Anyway, it's all speculation in the absence of evidence.

[Chingford 166]

The British Bronze Coinage 1860-1869 by M Gouby has a chapter on numbered coinage, Michael researched some of the book at Kew from Mint records/correspondence and there is a table of known coinage and numbers used

 

[Nordle11 564]

24 minutes ago, Chingford said:

The British Bronze Coinage 1860-1869 by M Gouby has a chapter on numbered coinage, Michael researched some of the book at Kew from Mint records/correspondence and there is a table of known coinage and numbers used

 

I did see a mention to this in the description but I don't have this book and couldn't read up on it. The BNJ entry from Dyer was a good read, although there is much speculation and starts with some different theories as to how they came about. 

I'm definitely inclined to agree with your assertion Rob, it's not plausible that the numbers matched in terms of tonnage for all bronze and then just the pennies or half pennies. Perhaps the numbered bronzes of those 2 years are something different altogether and the practise of scratching a fraction continued in a similar fashion albeit for a different reason.

Does anyone with a copy of Gouby's book on this know if he mentions a difference between the 1860-61 bronzes with scratches and the bronzes from the other years?

Edited January 4, 2016 by Nordle11

[1949threepence 3,367]

2 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

I did see a mention to this in the description but I don't have this book and couldn't read up on it. The BNJ entry from Dyer was a good read, although there is much speculation and starts with some different theories as to how they came about. 

I'm definitely inclined to agree with your assertion Rob, it's not plausible that the numbers matched in terms of tonnage for all bronze and then just the pennies or half pennies. Perhaps the numbered bronzes of those 2 years are something different altogether and the practise of scratching a fraction continued in a similar fashion albeit for a different reason.

Does anyone with a copy of Gouby's book on this know if he mentions a difference between the 1860-61 bronzes with scratches and the bronzes from the other years?

  Yes. In "The British Bronze Coinage, Pence, Halfpence and Farthings 1860 to 1869", Michael Gouby states that only four numbered strikings occurred in 1860 and 1861 combined. They were three on pennies, and one on a halfpenny. On two 1860 specimens, the numbers were 40/40 and 63/63. On an 1861 penny - 99/99. On an 1861 halfpenny, 102/102. These differ from all the other years, in that the numbers were identical.

At page 5, Gouby states of these 1860 and 1861 examples:

"The two scratched numbers on the coins of 1860 and 1861 are the same, i.e. 40/40, 63/63 and 102/102 on a halfpence; the conclusion reached by Dyer is that it represents the cumulative total output of all bronze coins, since 1860, for the Royal Mint - in units of TONS."

All the 1860 and 1861 examples are in the British Museum.

Hope this helps 

   

     

Edited January 4, 2016 by 1949threepence