Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

What's going on with this UK penny of 1858?

Here's another UK 1d I picked recently. Check out the date. Krause has several overdates listed. Which one do you think it is? Also, an opinion on grade would be welcome.

image

15x photo of date:
image
Gene

Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors

Collector of:
Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
My Ebay

Comments

  • DoogyDoogy Posts: 4,573

    Gene,

    interesting piece! my first thought was it is a '3', but now i'm not so sure. hmmm.........

  • ormandhormandh Posts: 3,132 ✭✭✭
    Nevermind, I will go with the 7.
  • It's a 9.


    image


    edited to add...

    If that picture is true to color, then there appears to be PVC haze all over the surface. Of course, it could just be the colors are off in the picture.
  • ormandhormandh Posts: 3,132 ✭✭✭
    That was my first post, but I didn't trust it. Is there variety with a 9?

  • JoesMaNameJoesMaName Posts: 1,043 ✭✭
    Looks like a 9 to me as well - great find.
    Paul - saved by
    The Fireman...
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 5,582 ✭✭✭✭✭
    To me the spur in the 8's bottom loop does not look right for a "9", but the vertical stroke to the right of the 8's waist does not look like a "3" so this is a hard call. "7" does not seem to fit the bill either...
    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • ASUtoddASUtodd Posts: 1,353 ✭✭
    http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/penny.html

    http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2434&pid=22350&mode=threaded&show=&st=0

    Not sure any of that helps or muddies the waters but it does look like Hussulo has one of these also, he may be able to shed some light on it.

  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 5,582 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, I am beginning to think that things were a bit desperate at the Royal Mint in 1858 and that all sorts of dies were being reused and manipulated...I think all sorts of punches were used on this last digit and that there has been a lot of confusion about the "underdate" on several of the digits - and not saying that I know all of the answers. I also think it unwise to pay a lot of money for "hypervarietals" as these probably are not as scarce as some have made them out to be.
    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • olmanjonolmanjon Posts: 1,195
    My vote is in for a nine. Your next question--very fine. Too much wear on the braids to be xf IMHO. Nice coin.
    Olmanjon
    Proud recipiant of the Lord M "you suck award-March-2008"
    http://bit.ly/bxi7py
  • HussuloHussulo Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭
    Hmmm that is a strange one. I'll email Rob from RPCoins.co.uk to see what he thinks. He is very knowledgeable about varieties and overdates.

    He was the person that originally answered my question on the predecimal link. As it happens the one on the predecimal link was advertised as an 8/3 on eBay but I didn't believe it to be so.

  • HussuloHussulo Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭
    I contacted a couple of people I know and the following information is what I received from John Spring
    also called Chingford on other forums:

    "Evening Hus,

    I'm away this week in Birmingham, but will go through my notes/images and put something together on photobucket when I get back to London next week, so the following from memory.
    The 8/9 was first raised in British Coin Market values 1998, and was listed as a variant, they also note that the date is similar to that found on the Large Rose 1858 Penny.
    This type has mostly been attributed to the 8/3, because of the intrusion into the 'loop' on the left being thought as the end ball of the three, Michael Gouby has overlaid images and established that this could not be the case and his thoughts are of a broken 8 recut and repunched, he has all his theories online http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/
    The vertical bar/infill to the right side where the loops join, was only found on a handful of coins we examined. We looked at 1851, but could not find a die with the correct spacing.
    Another theory was the die could have been either 39 or 49 recut, but the spacing again was incorrect as the 9 on both dies is central to the bead underneath also the top loop of the 9 is very much larger than the 8 so should show in the lower loop of the 8 or make the central part a lot thicker.
    It is a bit of a mystery, but something I have noted for more research.

    John

    P.S. Missed a bit, rereading my note, this variant is recorded as 25c in Bramahs. Bramahs describes it perfectly, although he draws no conclusion.

    "

    He said he will also contact Michael next week to see if he can add anything more.



  • 1960NYGiants1960NYGiants Posts: 3,132 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for all of the comments. Here are some responses to the feedback:

    The color is true to the photo of the entire coin. The date color change is due to the lighting from the microscope setup.

    The blow up of the date shows some dirt that I need to remove which I'll do this week and re-photo the coin.

    I originally thought it was an 8/3 but the more I look at it the more unconvinced I get. Krause lists 1858/3, 8/6, 8/7 and 59/8

    Looking forward to more info from Hus.
    Gene

    Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
    Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors

    Collector of:
    Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
    Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
    My Ebay
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 5,582 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hey, this is fun - we have a discussion at last about something in depth....

    I just can not see how an "8" puncheon would break so as to leave the tail into the bottom loop at left of the overpunched 8. I feel this hypothesis should be rejected in that even if a puncheon were to be damaged to the point that the bottom portion of the 8 was broken with the leftover tail to in effect swing to the inside of its normal position that this piece would not be stable enough to strike into the matrix. Additionally the shape is too regular to readily be explained by this process.

    I have in front of me two choice unc. large pennies, and 1859 and an 1853 OT and the lower loop terminus on the "9" is possibly somewhat larger than it is on the "3". Also, the waist of the "9" is noticeably convex to the outside or right and is most definately not even close to flat or straight.

    As I pull out a third coin, an 1857, the edge to the right is obviously straight (though slightly slanted) so it may fit the "waistline" part of the bill.

    As I pull out both types of 1856s, the lower loop is completely wrong at both sites (waist and lower loop).

    I have yet another coin sold to me as an 1858/3 but is in fact a double punched date of at least the first three date numerals with only a debatable 3 in the last digit. This does not look like the coin in question and also seems to squash as I think about it there being a doubling of the last eight either whole or broken.

    So what? Well maybe it is the last eight is struck over a 3 and a 7!!! Well, don't know and partly teasing.
    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • I say AU50 and another vote for 9!
    Lurker since '02. Got the seven year itch!

    Gary
  • MacCrimmonMacCrimmon Posts: 7,153 ✭✭✭
    Here's a 100% shot (date only) extracted from the image Mark Goodman took of my 1859 1d.

    I'm busy for now, so I'll leave to some of the others to do overlays, etc.


    image
  • Here's an overlay, with the 9 digit slightly rotated counterclockwise. Note the ledge inside the top loop of the 8, where I believe is residual evidence of a 9 being previously punched. When I rotated the 9 in order to place the back of the nine in line with the straighter section on the right side of the 8, the bottom inside circle of the 9 lined up with the "ledge" in the 8.

    Of course, there are parts of the 9 that fall outside of the 8, which are not reproduced in the overdate, but that is common when another digit is punched over the original, as the punching action will cause some metal flow, obliterating much of the previous digit. Such obliteration is commonly seen with repunching mintmarks. In fact, I have a 1908S/S Centavo, where most of the first S has been obliterated as a result of the second S being punched in the correct location, (the first S being punched too high).

    image

    Here's an image of the S over S Centavo (referred to as a "Horned S") mentioned above.

    image
  • spoonspoon Posts: 2,825 ✭✭✭
    "Sometimes an 1858 is just a cigar."
    -- Sigmund... wait, nevermind.

    imageimage

    (I'm useless on these things, but find the discussion fascinating image )
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 5,582 ✭✭✭✭✭
    IK - Those are nice pictures. The only thing is on the overlay shadowing makes the waist on right of 9 less convex with shadowing effect (kind of like those slimming photos in magazines and phtoshopping to make Hollywood stars appear thinner). I do wear glasses, but the outer part of waist when looking on an 1859 coin 9 looks to have a definate convexity as opposed to the coin in question where the edge is rather straight.

    I think an overlay of a three when looking at the digit terminus in the bottom loop of 8 would also be helpful. This part of the overdate in your photo looks good for a 9 however.
    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.


  • << <i>the outer part of waist when looking on an 1859 coin 9 looks to have a definate convexity as opposed to the coin in question where the edge is rather straight. >>

    The outer part of the nine would be a shallower area punched, and the shallower areas would be the areas most prone to being obscured when over punched with a new digit, so I believe it is reasonable to conclude the curvature of the most deeply punched portions of the 9 would be what would be most visible in an overdate. Also, the area of the 8, where the somewhat straight section of the previous digit is over struck, in my opinion would tend to "straighten" the curvature of the over punched digit, as that portion of the 8 is similar to "<", and if punched over a curving digit similar to ")", the result would be that ")" would tend to straighten towards "|", as the "<" would tend to "shove" metal as it was punched. Again, this is merely my opinion, but I believe it to be a reasonable theory. I'm sorry if I am not too clear in my explanation, and I almost need to explain my thoughts with aid of graphics to clearly communicate this theory. I hope that most people can decipher what I am trying to say.
  • HussuloHussulo Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭
    Update:

    "Hus

    Emailed Michael this morning, he had a look at Coin Universe and has made a few comments, he has asked me to read through, edit and comment, which I hope to do later tonight.
    I also found a better, clearer example of a possible 58/9, it is amost as clear as the manufactured
    image on the site.

    I have attached Michaels reply as sent, I need to add a couple of points and the images,
    Michael says about the smaller date being the one, but I have to disagree, the image on Coin Universe is of a large 5 (flat top), the small date 59 has the smaller (italic top) 5, the coin I have is the large 5 and shows clearly the underdate."

    John S.

    image

    Michaels reply (unedited)

    I have followed your link to the forum.collectors and I am impressed by many of the replies.
    Especially with 'IloiloKano' overlays of 24 March. I think that his assessment with it being a 9 under that 8 is possibly the closest we will get to answer to this strange 'underdate'. It is certainly the possibility that we thought of when we first examined this coin. The trouble being that the 9 overlapped the top of the 8 as it does on 'IloiloKano' picture. Plus it seemed unusual that a one year later numeral would be used as a repair. So it was back to the 'drawing board' for a rethink. However NOTHING has come close to explained that bit on the right of the 8 or that bit a 8 o'clock within the inner circle of the 8.
    I understand '7 Jaguars' reply "I just can not see how an "8" puncheon would break so as to leave the tail into the bottom loop at left of the over punched 8. I feel this hypothesis should be rejected in that even if a puncheon were to be damaged to the point that the bottom portion of the 8 was broken with the leftover tail to in effect swing to the inside of its normal position that this piece would not be stable enough to strike into the matrix. Additionally the shape is too regular to readily be explained by this process". as I have never been happy with that explanation myself and I am going to change that thought on the website (eventually when I get time !).
    I think that the point that you and I missed was that we were thinking and using the normal 'larger' 9 (as has IloiloKano) that is used in 1859 ! Now if you use the 'smaller' 9 as found on the rarer example of 1859 and superimpose that - at the right angle to the 8 - we may have found the answer :-))
    In 1858 they were using all the old dies they could get there hands on once those were used up you would have the natural 1858 dated dies with NO overdating. Now if you move into 1859 and there are a few 1858 dies left fit for use someone at the Mint might have considered using them up. It probably did not matter if the 9 was weakly struck in - showing 'below' the 8 or 'well' struck raising just above the 8. So my thought is the coin is an 1858 penny with a 9 under struck - and if so then the coin was struck in 1859 !
    That is my thought for the day !
    If you like, please throw my suggestion into the ring, John - kick it about at bit and let's see what happens. My many thanks to IloiloKano for waking my brain up to think outside the box, again !





  • << <i>Michael says about the smaller date being the one, but I have to disagree, the image on Coin Universe is of a large 5 (flat top), the small date 59 has the smaller (italic top) 5, the coin I have is the large 5 and shows clearly the underdate >>


    Hus, I believe the coin could actually be a 58/59, vice 58/9, since I believe I detect one type of 5 superimposed over a different type of 5 in the image of the new example you posted. Is it possible to get a macro enlargement of the date, so that I can analyze that as a possibility? If so, then PM me, and I will give you my email address.
  • HussuloHussulo Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭
    Hus, I believe the coin could actually be a 58/59, vice 58/9, since I believe I detect one type of 5 superimposed over a different type of 5 in the image of the new example you posted. Is it possible to get a macro enlargement of the date, so that I can analyze that as a possibility? If so, then PM me, and I will give you my email address.

    Hi IloiloKano,

    The quote you mentioned isn't mine but John's as is the image. I can ask him for a close up, PM on its way.

    Regards,
    Hus
  • 1960NYGiants1960NYGiants Posts: 3,132 ✭✭✭
    WoW! This is great stuff! Thanks to all.
    Gene

    Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
    Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors

    Collector of:
    Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
    Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
    My Ebay
  • HussuloHussulo Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭
    Update from Michael:

    "Hi John,


    Re my last email about the small 9 used.
    OK we know that the Royal Mint were in talks about the introduction of the new bronze coinage in 1858 and that copper dies would become obsolete.
    So in that year (1858) for good husbandry they used up all odd dies laying round. Plus either before, during or after that they made more dies dated (plain) 1858 to complete the demand the banks were asking for pennies. Now we get into 1859 and the 1858 dies would have continued to be used up. But the banks still want more pennies and the concept and the acceptance of the bronze coinage has still not been finalised and some way off. So some 1859 dies and single numeral punches are made. Now it is possible that the last digit of an 1858 die needs strengthening for continued use or NOT and as it is 1859 someone at the Mint decides to use the single digit 'small 9' punch. Either as a strenghtening or to bring that die - up to date. Now unless the 9 is punched in really hard into the 8 it will get absorbed as there is slightly more of the body of 8 than there is of the 9 so the area around 7 & 8 o'clock will always show the 8 part.
    Also the Royal Mint probably could not careless if the date resembles 1858 or 1859 at that time - as (possibly) in this case !?
    Therefore the other digit styles etc. used for the 'full' 1859 dies do not come into it as it is only the 9 digit that is used on an 1858 die !
    That now is my best guess or theory (at present).
    I await to be shot down in flames if someone can come up with a better theory or prove mine wrong."

    some close up pictures from John:

    image
    image
    image

Sign In or Register to comment.