No H 1882 Penny :o

[jelida 1,374]

I suppose that we do pay a premium for other consequences of an ageing/ damaged/clogged die such as the 'ONF' 1860 penny, so why not the '1882 clogged 'H' penny? Not one for me though unless in Spink , and I find one very under-priced.

Jerry

[Paulus 1,979]

Each to his/her own of course, but personally I don't see any appeal whatsoever in collecting so-called varieties that are simply the result of ageing/damaged/clogged dies, which must surely affect most of the coins we already have, and want to acquire, to a greater or lesser degree?

Isn't it a bit like saying 'I want an early strike of this type, and one that is from a slightly worn die, and a third from a really worn/rusty die that makes the 'A' look like it is unbarred, or the Trident look like it has 2 prongs?'

Definitely not for me, these 'varieties'!

Edit: sorry if that ruffles any feathers, or perhaps if some of the varieties I have cited are more than just die issues, each to their own! I like spelling errors on early milled/hammered

Edited January 16, 2015 by Paulus

[VickySilver 883]

In my opinion it is somewhat dangerous to rule out the existence of a particular piece(s) based on characteristics of the opposite side of coin. IMO, not strictly logical. We have pieces confirmed with obv 11 and then other pieces evidently not tampered with that are obv. 12 that seemingly show "no H". I just do not see how we can be certain that obv. 12 dies may not have been used in a few instances. I do however agree that an increased level of alertness should be the case in the event of an obv 12 specimen.

[PWA 1967 2,250]

Just feel that if it would of been c.g.s. graded then the price would of been considerably higher.I no most will disagree but why not slab for £25 and attract a bigger market.

[jacinbox 36]

Fortunately a different obverse die (Obv 11) was used on the genuine no H pennies, resulting in a unique 11+M die pairing for 1882 no H pennies, making schemes for removing the H mintmark unworkable when trying to deceive knowledgeable collectors. Since Obverses 11 and 12 are easily distinguished even on very worn coins, verifying no H pennies is straightforward if you simply examine the obverse.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

September auction at London coins had a pretty convincing no H with an obverse 12 which was ex Seaby

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=146&l=2720&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=146&l=2720&f=o&s=l

As a general rule there are no 1882 no Hs with obv 12.

The ex Seaby coin was one of its kind in it that it was a higher grade (GVF) coin with 'almost' no sign of a H. The collectors (in my opinion) who purchased the coin not because it was a no H but because it was an ex Seaby coin. Further there have been no 1882 obv 12 coins in fine plus grade without the H and all experts agree that there are no 1882 obv 12 no H coins.

This case is similar to Bamford's 1876 no H penny. In Gouby's book it is clearly stated that Bamford himself did not believe that it was a no H but kept it regardless as it was a one of a kind. When the coin was listed in auction it was not listed as a no H penny but as ex Bamford and it did attract considerable interest. In similar fashion this is ex Seaby is also wanted not because it is a no H but because of its provenance.

[VickySilver 883]

Quite, key word "general". I can think of at least one expert who agrees with my thoughts on this issue - unfortunately to remain unnamed at this juncture.

I think it quite right that people buy coins based on slab or history and not de facto the coins themselves.

[Peckris 579]

I suppose that we do pay a premium for other consequences of an ageing/ damaged/clogged die such as the 'ONF' 1860 penny, so why not the '1882 clogged 'H' penny? Not one for me though unless in Spink , and I find one very under-priced.

Jerry

Ah, there's a massive difference between ONF - which is its own variety - and an 1882 "no H" penny : there's the clogged die "no H", and there's the "removed H", and there's the genuine London Mint 1882, and collectors are really only interested in the latter which is truly rare. A clogged die, especially if worn, could just as easily be a "removed H".

[just.me 23]

Fortunately a different obverse die (Obv 11) was used on the genuine no H pennies, resulting in a unique 11+M die pairing for 1882 no H pennies, making schemes for removing the H mintmark unworkable when trying to deceive knowledgeable collectors. Since Obverses 11 and 12 are easily distinguished even on very worn coins, verifying no H pennies is straightforward if you simply examine the obverse.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

September auction at London coins had a pretty convincing no H with an obverse 12 which was ex Seaby

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=146&l=2720&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=146&l=2720&f=o&s=l

As a general rule there are no 1882 no Hs with obv 12.

The ex Seaby coin was one of its kind in it that it was a higher grade (GVF) coin with 'almost' no sign of a H. The collectors (in my opinion) who purchased the coin not because it was a no H but because it was an ex Seaby coin. Further there have been no 1882 obv 12 coins in fine plus grade without the H and all experts agree that there are no 1882 obv 12 no H coins.

This case is similar to Bamford's 1876 no H penny. In Gouby's book it is clearly stated that Bamford himself did not believe that it was a no H but kept it regardless as it was a one of a kind. When the coin was listed in auction it was not listed as a no H penny but as ex Bamford and it did attract considerable interest. In similar fashion this is ex Seaby is also wanted not because it is a no H but because of its provenance.

I agree that this coin will be a blocked H, which is why I said it was a pretty convincing obv 12 and not a confirmed obv 12.

I don't know who the buyer of the coin was but I wouldn't have thought the £1500+ price tag would have been based on it being an ex Seaby coin? I realise provenance is worth a premium but not that much?

[jelida 1,374]

Ah, there's a massive difference between ONF - which is its own variety - and an 1882 "no H" penny : there's the clogged die "no H", and there's the "removed H", and there's the genuine London Mint 1882, and collectors are really only interested in the latter which is truly rare. A clogged die, especially if worn, could just as easily be a "removed H".

My point was that the ONF 1860 penny is , like the 1882 'clogged H' penny , due to die deterioration, I am aware that the former is considered a variety, and the latter not. I am also aware that the genuine 'no H' 1882 penny was struck at the Royal Mint with no 'H' on the die.

The issue is the extent that a coin struck from a damaged die, with perhaps interesting consequences, should be considered a true variety. There are various factors that seem to determine whether this becomes the case, the main one being attractiveness to collectors. But these coins , to my mind, are not equivalent to coins struck from a particular die variety. However, if anyone has a spare ONF penny at a sensible price........

Jerry

[scott 145]

and then you have this...

[Peckris 579]

Ah, there's a massive difference between ONF - which is its own variety - and an 1882 "no H" penny : there's the clogged die "no H", and there's the "removed H", and there's the genuine London Mint 1882, and collectors are really only interested in the latter which is truly rare. A clogged die, especially if worn, could just as easily be a "removed H".

My point was that the ONF 1860 penny is , like the 1882 'clogged H' penny , due to die deterioration, I am aware that the former is considered a variety, and the latter not. I am also aware that the genuine 'no H' 1882 penny was struck at the Royal Mint with no 'H' on the die.

The issue is the extent that a coin struck from a damaged die, with perhaps interesting consequences, should be considered a true variety. There are various factors that seem to determine whether this becomes the case, the main one being attractiveness to collectors. But these coins , to my mind, are not equivalent to coins struck from a particular die variety. However, if anyone has a spare ONF penny at a sensible price........

Jerry

I think I'd agree with you on that. The 'ONF' penny is not something I'd personally collect, and I think its attraction is purely due to the damage resulting in one letter looking like another letter, causing some collectors maybe to think it's an error.

The 1882 'clogged die' could come under a similar category, but the existence of 'removed H' examples makes them a very questionable proposition - how is someone ever going to prove it's the former and not the latter?

[scott 145]

the ONF thing happened a fair bit in Half Pennies as well.

[MACKSILKY. 6]

Peck makes a great point.

[robbo 0]

Hi All,

To put you all out of your misery regarding recent 1882 penny on e-bay,i was that person that bought it .......but not before confirming i could return it. On recieving it i immediatly saw it was H variety,Even the wife could see it and her eyesight is dodgy.Yes i know it seemed to good to be true and it was but got a refund no problem so alls well.I looked at all the points to tell them apart but the picture was not great.

It beats me how the seller did not see the H as they were supposed to be a dealer !

Cheers

[azda 982]

Hi All,

To put you all out of your misery regarding recent 1882 penny on e-bay,i was that person that bought it .......but not before confirming i could return it. On recieving it i immediatly saw it was H variety,Even the wife could see it and her eyesight is dodgy.Yes i know it seemed to good to be true and it was but got a refund no problem so alls well.I looked at all the points to tell them apart but the picture was not great.

It beats me how the seller did not see the H as they were supposed to be a dealer !

Cheers

He PROBABLY did see the H but wanted to try and mug someone off in the hope they'll buy a common coin at rarity value

[Milo 0]

I have the 1882 penny with no H but I want someone to see the picture of it to check for me. Where’s the best place to put the picture so you can see? File to big for forum

[Milo 0]

 

[Peckris 2 2,194]

My bet is that it's not "no H" - the H wears away before the date or Britannia, and yours is a well worn specimen (the mintmark is below the date and would have been in that area of total wear there).

The defining issue for genuine 'no H ' pennies is that they have an obverse that differs slightly from the 1882H pennies - it might not be possible to tell from the obverse on yours, but a picture might help.

[Michael-Roo 783]

 

I'm pretty sure I see the remains of an H in that photo.

[1949threepence 3,368]

On 1/31/2023 at 10:25 PM, Michael-Roo said:

 

I'm pretty sure I see the remains of an H in that photo.

I'm almost certain there's an underlying H there.