1925 British Half Penny

I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy way to
tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny varieties by using
the relative position of the colon between the T & O. I am less clear on
how to tell the difference between the two 1925 half penny varieties. Does
anyone familiar with that series have a way to tell? Does the same clue
apply?

Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy
way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny
varieties by using the relative position of the colon between the T &
O. I am less clear on how to tell the difference between the two
1925 half penny varieties. Does anyone familiar with that series
have a way to tell? Does the same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the designer's
initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type II, it is less than
2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial and
prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy
way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny
varieties by using the relative position of the colon between the T &
O. I am less clear on how to tell the difference between the two
1925 half penny varieties. Does anyone familiar with that series
have a way to tell? Does the same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the designer's
initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type II, it is less than
2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial and
prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of any
initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or raised and
quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy
way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny
varieties by using the relative position of the colon between the T &
O. I am less clear on how to tell the difference between the two
1925 half penny varieties. Does anyone familiar with that series
have a way to tell? Does the same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the designer's
initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type II, it is less than
2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial and
prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of any
initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or raised and
quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy
way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny
varieties by using the relative position of the colon between the T
& O. I am less clear on how to tell the difference between the two
1925 half penny varieties. Does anyone familiar with that series
have a way to tell? Does the same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the designer's
initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type II, it is less
than 2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial and
prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of any
initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or raised
and quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

They are raised, and have periods after them. And yes, they do wear
quickly, but I wouldn't think so badly that they would be undetectable,
especially on the Type I.

James

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy
way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny
varieties by using the relative position of the colon between the T
& O. I am less clear on how to tell the difference between the two
1925 half penny varieties. Does anyone familiar with that series
have a way to tell? Does the same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the designer's
initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type II, it is less
than 2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial and
prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of any
initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or raised
and quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

They are raised, and have periods after them. And yes, they do wear
quickly, but I wouldn't think so badly that they would be undetectable,
especially on the Type I.

James

So is the location of the initials the only feature that defines the
"modified effigy"? If so, I'm out of luck, unless I can educate myself in
rim differences. Most of my half cents from the 1920's and before average
VG-VF, and I can't see the initials on any of them.

Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy
way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny
varieties by using the relative position of the colon between the
T & O. I am less clear on how to tell the difference between the
two 1925 half penny varieties. Does anyone familiar with that
series have a way to tell? Does the same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the
designer's initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type
II, it is less than 2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial and
prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of
any initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or
raised and quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

They are raised, and have periods after them. And yes, they do wear
quickly, but I wouldn't think so badly that they would be
undetectable, especially on the Type I.

James

So is the location of the initials the only feature that defines the
"modified effigy"? If so, I'm out of luck, unless I can educate
myself in rim differences. Most of my half cents from the 1920's and
before average VG-VF, and I can't see the initials on any of them.

Quoting again from Freeman: "[Reverse B, the "Type II"] The distance from
the center of the exergual line to the edge directly below it is 3 mm,
whereas on reverse A [the "Type I"], it is 2.2 mm. The size of the border
teeth has been increased and the rim is thicker than on reverse A."

I just checked my set, and it is indeed an eyeball difference, but only
barely so. The greater height of the exergual line on reverse B is due to
the larger rim/dentil width, it seems to me. Best would be to check your
1924 and 1926 side by side to see that difference, then match up your 1925s
accordingly.

In my opinion, the whole topic is anal, but the good folks at Whitman
foisted this upon us when it made its albums, so we have to live with it.

Wait 'til you get that 1860-1901 penny album and have to scrounge up an 1860
"L.C.W. below foot" variety to fill that hole. That'll keep you busy for
more than a fortnight.

James

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly easy
way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British penny
varieties by using the relative position of the colon between the
T & O. I am less clear on how to tell the difference between the
two 1925 half penny varieties. Does anyone familiar with that
series have a way to tell? Does the same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the
designer's initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type
II, it is less than 2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial and
prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of
any initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or
raised and quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

They are raised, and have periods after them. And yes, they do wear
quickly, but I wouldn't think so badly that they would be
undetectable, especially on the Type I.

James

So is the location of the initials the only feature that defines the
"modified effigy"? If so, I'm out of luck, unless I can educate
myself in rim differences. Most of my half cents from the 1920's and
before average VG-VF, and I can't see the initials on any of them.

Quoting again from Freeman: "[Reverse B, the "Type II"] The distance from
the center of the exergual line to the edge directly below it is 3 mm,
whereas on reverse A [the "Type I"], it is 2.2 mm. The size of the border
teeth has been increased and the rim is thicker than on reverse A."

I just checked my set, and it is indeed an eyeball difference, but only
barely so. The greater height of the exergual line on reverse B is due to
the larger rim/dentil width, it seems to me. Best would be to check your
1924 and 1926 side by side to see that difference, then match up your
1925s accordingly.

In my opinion, the whole topic is anal, but the good folks at Whitman
foisted this upon us when it made its albums, so we have to live with it.

Wait 'til you get that 1860-1901 penny album and have to scrounge up an
1860 "L.C.W. below foot" variety to fill that hole. That'll keep you busy
for more than a fortnight.

James

I'm still looking. My Whitman folder has holes for the 1860 round beads,
toothed beads, and L. C. Wyon on obverse. I have the "toothed beads", but
not the other two. Well, having been a large cent variety fan for several
decades, I suppose these few UK variances are chicken feed. I guess another
problem would be relying on my 1965 Bressett Guidebook of English Coins,
after becoming spoiled with all the US large cent references.

Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly
easy way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British
penny varieties by using the relative position of the colon
between the T & O. I am less clear on how to tell the
difference between the two 1925 half penny varieties. Does
anyone familiar with that series have a way to tell? Does the
same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the
designer's initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type
II, it is less than 2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial
and prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of
any initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or
raised and quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

They are raised, and have periods after them. And yes, they do
wear quickly, but I wouldn't think so badly that they would be
undetectable, especially on the Type I.

James

So is the location of the initials the only feature that defines the
"modified effigy"? If so, I'm out of luck, unless I can educate
myself in rim differences. Most of my half cents from the 1920's
and before average VG-VF, and I can't see the initials on any of
them.

Quoting again from Freeman: "[Reverse B, the "Type II"] The
distance from the center of the exergual line to the edge directly
below it is 3 mm, whereas on reverse A [the "Type I"], it is 2.2 mm.
The size of the border teeth has been increased and the rim is
thicker than on reverse A." I just checked my set, and it is indeed an
eyeball difference, but
only barely so. The greater height of the exergual line on reverse
B is due to the larger rim/dentil width, it seems to me. Best would
be to check your 1924 and 1926 side by side to see that difference,
then match up your 1925s accordingly.

In my opinion, the whole topic is anal, but the good folks at Whitman
foisted this upon us when it made its albums, so we have to live
with it. Wait 'til you get that 1860-1901 penny album and have to
scrounge up
an 1860 "L.C.W. below foot" variety to fill that hole. That'll keep
you busy for more than a fortnight.

James

I'm still looking. My Whitman folder has holes for the 1860 round
beads, toothed beads, and L. C. Wyon on obverse. I have the "toothed
beads", but not the other two. Well, having been a large cent
variety fan for several decades, I suppose these few UK variances are
chicken feed. I guess another problem would be relying on my 1965
Bressett Guidebook of English Coins, after becoming spoiled with all
the US large cent references.

The difference between U.S. large cent variety collecting and British penny
variety collecting is that there is a network of dealers here in the U.S.
who can get you most any Sheldon or Newcomb variety of large cent you want,
whereas Stateside dealers in British coins are very few and far between, and
even the better world coin dealers in the U.S. really don't know much, if
anything, about penny varieties. I suppose Spink and Coincraft provide a
similar service for European collectors, but it's a matter of access.
Couple that with the embryonic 1950s and 1960s information about the rarity
of some of those penny varieties, which then dictated what was called for by
the folders and albums, and you have a difficult situation today. I looked
for over twenty-five years before I found an example of the 1860 "L.C.W.
below foot" penny. Most dealers' eyes would glaze over if I even brought
the topic up.

The standard reference to the farthings, halfpennies, and pennies of 1860 to
1967 is The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain, by Michael J. Freeman. IIRC it
was fairly recently released in a new edition, or at least a new printing.
It's well worth the price of ownership, as it discusses and illustrates all
those varieties, as do the large cent references.

James

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
I need some British copper help. I am aware of the fairly
easy way to tell the difference between the two 1926 British
penny varieties by using the relative position of the colon
between the T & O. I am less clear on how to tell the
difference between the two 1925 half penny varieties. Does
anyone familiar with that series have a way to tell? Does the
same clue apply?

According to Freeman, on the Type I obverse, the B of the
designer's initials is 3 mm from the rear bust tip. On the Type
II, it is less than 2mm from it.

The rims on both sides of Type II are somewhat more substantial
and prominent than those on Type I. HTH.

James

Thanks, James. But on first inspection, I can't see evidence of
any initials at all on the bust truncation. Are they incused or
raised and quickly worn away on a circulated coin?

They are raised, and have periods after them. And yes, they do
wear quickly, but I wouldn't think so badly that they would be
undetectable, especially on the Type I.

James

So is the location of the initials the only feature that defines the
"modified effigy"? If so, I'm out of luck, unless I can educate
myself in rim differences. Most of my half cents from the 1920's
and before average VG-VF, and I can't see the initials on any of
them.

Quoting again from Freeman: "[Reverse B, the "Type II"] The
distance from the center of the exergual line to the edge directly
below it is 3 mm, whereas on reverse A [the "Type I"], it is 2.2 mm.
The size of the border teeth has been increased and the rim is
thicker than on reverse A." I just checked my set, and it is indeed an
eyeball difference, but
only barely so. The greater height of the exergual line on reverse
B is due to the larger rim/dentil width, it seems to me. Best would
be to check your 1924 and 1926 side by side to see that difference,
then match up your 1925s accordingly.

In my opinion, the whole topic is anal, but the good folks at Whitman
foisted this upon us when it made its albums, so we have to live
with it. Wait 'til you get that 1860-1901 penny album and have to
scrounge up
an 1860 "L.C.W. below foot" variety to fill that hole. That'll keep
you busy for more than a fortnight.

James

I'm still looking. My Whitman folder has holes for the 1860 round
beads, toothed beads, and L. C. Wyon on obverse. I have the "toothed
beads", but not the other two. Well, having been a large cent
variety fan for several decades, I suppose these few UK variances are
chicken feed. I guess another problem would be relying on my 1965
Bressett Guidebook of English Coins, after becoming spoiled with all
the US large cent references.

The difference between U.S. large cent variety collecting and British
penny variety collecting is that there is a network of dealers here in the
U.S. who can get you most any Sheldon or Newcomb variety of large cent you
want, whereas Stateside dealers in British coins are very few and far
between, and even the better world coin dealers in the U.S. really don't
know much, if anything, about penny varieties. I suppose Spink and
Coincraft provide a similar service for European collectors, but it's a
matter of access. Couple that with the embryonic 1950s and 1960s
information about the rarity of some of those penny varieties, which then
dictated what was called for by the folders and albums, and you have a
difficult situation today. I looked for over twenty-five years before I
found an example of the 1860 "L.C.W. below foot" penny. Most dealers'
eyes would glaze over if I even brought the topic up.

The standard reference to the farthings, halfpennies, and pennies of 1860
to 1967 is The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain, by Michael J. Freeman.
IIRC it was fairly recently released in a new edition, or at least a new
printing. It's well worth the price of ownership, as it discusses and
illustrates all those varieties, as do the large cent references.

James

Thanks. I'll look for a copy of that reference so I can retire my nice
little Bressett book to bookcase heaven.