1925 British Half Penny

Bruce Remick

unread,

Mar 5, 2009, 8:32:23 PM3/5/09

to

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?

Mr. Jaggers

unread,

Mar 5, 2009, 8:51:20 PM3/5/09

to

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

Bruce Remick

unread,

Mar 5, 2009, 9:20:11 PM3/5/09

to

"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gopvi...@enews4.newsguy.com...

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

unread,

Mar 5, 2009, 10:18:32 PM3/5/09

to

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

Bruce Remick

unread,

Mar 5, 2009, 10:39:35 PM3/5/09

to

"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message

news:goq4m...@enews5.newsguy.com...

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.

Mr. Jaggers

unread,

Mar 5, 2009, 10:55:07 PM3/5/09

to

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

Bruce Remick

unread,

Mar 6, 2009, 8:04:22 AM3/6/09

to

"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message

news:goq6r...@enews4.newsguy.com...

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.

Mr. Jaggers

unread,

Mar 6, 2009, 8:31:39 AM3/6/09

to

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

Bruce Remick

unread,

Mar 6, 2009, 9:25:38 AM3/6/09

to

"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message

news:gor8j...@enews4.newsguy.com...

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

Mr. Jaggers

unread,

Mar 6, 2009, 9:44:43 AM3/6/09

to

Here's one source:

http://cgi.ebay.com/BRONZE-COINAGE-OF-GREAT-BRITAIN-M-J-FREEMAN_W0QQitemZ330299458897QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Coins_Supplies_RL?hash=item330299458897&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177

James

unread,

Mar 12, 2009, 1:42:05 PM3/12/09

to

I am sorry. On reflection it was not a very helpful comment! I am guilty
of an off-the-cuff remark. Please put it down to a long day!

The real diagnostic is the BM. If that is not visible, then the coin
is so worn that the difference in value is very minor.

The head is definitely of lower relief than previously. I suggest that a better
way is to get a 1926 or 1927 coin (same as 1925 modeified effigy)
and a pre-1925 coin for comparison. The other point is that the rims are very
thin on the unmodified coin.

Once again, apologies for the previous unhelpful comment.

--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC

... If it's not broke, let me take a crack at it.

Mr. Jaggers

unread,

Mar 12, 2009, 2:15:47 PM3/12/09

to

No problem, Tony, we all have those days! 8>)

> The real diagnostic is the BM. If that is not visible, then the coin
> is so worn that the difference in value is very minor.

It's not so much the value as it is the need to indulge a nasty habit we
Yanks have of snapping coins into albums that call for certain varieties.
If I had my druthers, there would not be two openings for 1925 halfpennies,
nor two openings for 1926 pennies, but just one each. Then the issue would
be moot. But since the albums (which were manufactured back in the 60s,
when collecting was more wide-eyed than it is today) do call for the two
different varieties of each, we need to be able to tell the difference, and
worn British bronze coins are the norm over here.

By the way, for those readers who may have the wrong impression, the BM that
Tony is referring to represents the initials of the obverse designer, [Sir]
Bertram Mackennal.

> The head is definitely of lower relief than previously. I suggest
> that a better way is to get a 1926 or 1927 coin (same as 1925
> modeified effigy)
> and a pre-1925 coin for comparison. The other point is that the rims
> are very thin on the unmodified coin.

Excellent advice!

James

Jud

unread,

Mar 12, 2009, 11:22:54 PM3/12/09

to

Mr. Jaggers wrote:

> It's not so much the value as it is the need to indulge a nasty habit we
> Yanks have of snapping coins into albums that call for certain varieties.
> If I had my druthers, there would not be two openings for 1925 halfpennies,
> nor two openings for 1926 pennies, but just one each. Then the issue would
> be moot. But since the albums (which were manufactured back in the 60s,
> when collecting was more wide-eyed than it is today) do call for the two
> different varieties of each, we need to be able to tell the difference, and
> worn British bronze coins are the norm over here.

Ditto for 1922 no D cent, 1955 DDO, 1965/1966/1967 SMS half dollars,
etc etc.
Whitman was a 'market maker' for certain coins, just because there was
a hole for them in the album.

Mr. Jaggers

unread,

Mar 13, 2009, 1:26:09 AM3/13/09

to

One could ask, "Is there an opening in the album for it because the coin is
popular, or is the coin popular because there is an opening for it in the
album?" Whitman, of course, being an American company, was much more more
attuned to the collecting practices of Americans than to those of the
British. Someone in the design department was assigned to do the layouts
for the folders and albums, and that person likely followed what was in the
popular reference books of the day, namely, the Redbook and Bluebook. No
less an authority than Ken Bressett had edited the Whitman reference for
British coinage, and he made mention of the two varieties of 1925 halfpenny.
The album design person likely had no clue as to how big a deal this was
among British collectors, and so, voilą!

James