Well...who's having fun playing with coins? I am. Yes, I definitely am. I've been looking through my Canadian Large Cents - mostly the remnants of an album I purchased a while ago; this album held some gorgeous, gorgeous cents, some of which have already been sold (and paid for the album.) I have three particular coins I'd like some help on - an 1859 and two 1881 H. I may have to put the second 1881 H in a reply, since I've taken a few extra closeups for help in diagnostics. Ready to begin? Let's go: 1859 Large Cent (medal rotation) KM 1 Mintage: 9,579,000 Variety Obverse: Re-punched second A in CANADA Reverse: Die clash, re-punched 9 (on page 287 of my Charlton catalogue) 1881 H Large Cent #1 (medal rotation) KM 7 Mintage: 2,000,000 Variety Obverse: Strong doubling on ALL obverse lettering (I'm wondering if it is the same as the variety listed on page 311 of my Charlton - because it does NOT exactly match. Easiest place to see is the N of REGINA.)
1881 H Large Cent #2 (medal rotation) KM 7 Mintage: 2,000,000 Variety Obverse: Strong doubling on some obverse lettering - strongest on GRATIA REGINA and her hair/crown details. Some doubling evident on CANADA (specifically the upper serif of C, which has a die crack running through it) and the EI of DEI.
Attributing 1859s is a full time job. I *think* I have my Narrow 9 attributed correctly. Have you been to www.vickycents.com?
What do you want to know? I co-wrote the 2011 Vicky variety section with a few of my collector friends and many of the 40 we put in there were my coins. The purpose of the variety section in the back was to show the possibilities and TYPES of varieties that you could find in the Vicky series and we had to include every date. We could have included hundreds in there for the serious collector, but space limited what was finalized (the 1859's alone have nearly 200 varieties if you count marriage pairings). All the entries in the book were priced and based upon "the exact coin" that we photo'd .. close didn't count. The variety section was not meant to be all-inclusive For the 1881's you had any number of "doublings" to use the term loosely. Although there were some hub doublings (from the hub pressing/striking the initial blank working dies), most of what you see that involves more than one character is "machine doubling". MD or MDD is "doubling" that is actually caused by bounce or chatter as the die is just moving away from the planchet rather than the instant that the die touches the planchet. Just think of it as a "loose" die that rotates or slightly moves during the striking of the coin. The floor worker at the mint just has to tighten down the keeper or lock on the die and coins are struck normally again. There were 3-4 different Obverse dies that show differing degrees of offset and which characters are the most affected (it makes a difference which way the bounce or rotation or twist actually moves). The 1881's are a facinating study all in themselves and the MD that shows on some coins can be from "around-the-clock", where every letter is doubled, to mostly just affecting the Victoria, Gratia, and Regina. Depending on how loose the locks/keys were, some of the offsets are very pronounced. You have to remember that every Obverse die struck for 1881 was an 1876 die that had the single-serif N's repunched to make them full serifs, except for a single one that slipped through...the single-serif 1881 is one of the scarcest of all the Vicky varieties. Because every handpunched element on ANY Vicky cent took 2-4 whacks, with each whack coming days or weeks apart, due to the rehardening of the punch and annealing of the die. The guy with the hammer very very often couldn't exactly get them exactly on top of each other .. instant variety! Since 1881 was the 2nd year that the Royal mint was striking full-thickness cents (the 58's & 59's were 1/3 thinner), the steel used in the hubs had a hard time taking the pressure/punishment of striking bronze coins rather than copper. This resulted in portions of the letters in the designs chipping off the hub and creating more need for cleaning up the dies by handpunching repairs .. again, instant varieties. Enjoy your coins ... they look nice.
The 1859 is a Narrow 9 - Low 9 and here's an image of that Here's what a Re-punch looks like on a 1859
Been here all the time and I only comment when there is a question about the large cents. I usually don't say anything if it's just one of the "I found this" posts.
Thanks @Bill in Burl and @Rick Stachowski - Mainly, I'm curious if there are any known varieties that these match. Kind of like CONECA and John Wexler categorize varieties with an identifying catalogue number. As I said in my original post, I know neither are a match for anything in my Charlton catalogue - but I'm wondering if they are significant enough to warrant "being named." (Aside - he NAMED NAMES! haha...) As for the Machine/Strike Doubling - I'm curious if you have a different definition of that term. Neither are flat and shelf-like; both show clear separation of serifs.
Yes, you can look in the old Zoell books/pamphlets and they would have them and the photography would be correct and individually numbered. You can also go to Jack Griffin's 1992 book, "Some die varieties of the large cents of British North America and Canada" and use his extensive reference guide and numbering system. The originals are hard to find, but Charlton reprinted it after Jack died under the same title, but also as Monograph 1. There are no real "names" for 98% of all the varieties, but Charlton numbers, like DP#'s 1-5 for the 1859's, micro D, the '82 Obverse anomalies, as well as a few others, are in use. Most of any actual "names" for the varieties came from common usage over the years on coin and web sites, or research material. If you look at pages 266-268 you will find Griffin, Zoell, or Turner numbers for most the 40 varieties that we put in the book and had already been published somewhere. Those ID'd by Griffin # are correct by Griffin description in the original work. We wrote the Charlton variety section before we proofed the Charlton Griffin reprint. However, you must be VERY CAREFUL when using the photos. Jack's original work had no photos, only descriptions that were first, and foremost, based on date spacing and then describing any other anomalies. Photos were taken by Brian Cornwell (who ran/runs ICCS) and the photos were put away for safe-keeping as Jack's work carried on. Bill Cross, who ran/owned Charlton's had promised Jack that he would republish his works, along with photos, if the photos were still available. Somewhere along the line, there was a disconnect and the wrong photos were attached to the original, correct descriptions and Griffin ID numbering system. The photos will picture a valid variety, but the written description does not match the picture. DO NOT ever use the photos in the Charlton reprint as your Griffin numbered ID. Three of us collectors that wrote the 2011 Charlton variety section went through the reprint and noted all the errors that we found that involved the photo/description mismatches and they are at Charlton (and have been for over 5 years). We found an error rate that approached 40%, with some of the dates way over 50% incorrect. Again, DO NOT use the Charlton reprint as a reference if you are using the photos in the book.
