Australian penny varieties list

robbiegal · August 28, 2015, 12:55:44 PM

And then there is the difference between a variety and an error. I.e. is the double nose 1962 penny a die variety or a die error? Same for the broken N 1925 which I believe is die error, not die variety

Basil · August 28, 2015, 02:05:34 PM

I found this yesterday looking for the Byrnes pdf,

http://www.afscoins.com/images/pdf/Australian%20Coin%20Varieties.pdf

Some wierd varieties on it,i have the 1918 dot(die chip ?) over top scroll Penny somewhere,its also listed in Renniks.
Surely a die error and not a variety,i'll post some Pics. if i can find it easily.

JeffH · August 28, 2015, 03:14:56 PM

Yes, I consider a variety is one where the a die is made with a difference to other dies in the year. If the die has a problem -chip, crack, damage etc.- or there is foreign matter present I would call that an error.
However where a particular error is found on several, or even many, coins caused by a particular problem many people refer to that as as a variety. So, I haven't spent time to try and decide which might be which on the list.
The aim of the list (at least for me) is as an 'aide-mémoire' to know what to look for when sorting through a lot of pennies. So, varieties and faults are all worth looking for.

Maybe I should entitle the list "Things to look for with Pennies (as well as high grade and beautiful toning)!

autocoupler · August 28, 2015, 06:07:02 PM

Not trying to steel your post Jeff, just thought a couple of pics are better than words.
1945 larger dot after KG. Possibly a cud.
1945 where the 4 and 5 are wider apart. Found approx. 1 in 8.

DOT AFTER KG

4 & 5 WIDER APART

4 & 5 CLOSER TOGETHER

Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='78334' dateline='1440669867'I have searched through hundreds and hundreds of the 1951 penny looking for the missing PL
alas, never found one ..... one day ... never know

Here's one RG

robbiegal · August 28, 2015, 07:37:30 PM

oh wow
that must be worth a bomb!!

Robster · August 29, 2015, 12:53:59 AM

:agreed:, great condition as well.!!

JeffH · August 29, 2015, 06:17:25 PM

Just a point of clarification with the 1951 missing PL. I assume that I need to be looking at the denticles to identify as a London mint coin. Is this correct?
And what is the easiest check for that? (I notice that autocoupler's penny has the Y lined up with a denticle.)
It is a good looking coin too.

Fordprefect · August 29, 2015, 07:50:16 PM

The London PL has a different 5 in date. The Melbourne mint is a Serif Font.
Have a look at both and the difference is easy to spot.

1951 PL London No Serif

1951 Melbourne Serif 5

1951 Perth Serif 5 Dot MM.

And the one your looking for :-

1951 London Missing MM

JeffH · August 30, 2015, 05:46:15 AM

Thank you. It is easy once you have seen what to look for. Good picture are a great help. [Also see the denticles relative to the Y is as I suspected.]
I will add a note to the list.

Robster · August 30, 2015, 11:04:46 AM

Very helpful. :ok:

autocoupler · August 30, 2015, 02:58:00 PM

The 51 London F P posted is high grade :drooling:

autocoupler · November 30, 2016, 08:40:10 PM

Fred Lever has a couple of interesting articles in the latest CAB mag. One was centered on the 1943 I Penny with long reverse denticles, where he provided one particular image of a coin that displayed a stepped recess around the outer rim, and asked if anyone had seen one similar. I know Fred visits this forum, and the first few images below are of a coin with the same characteristics which I have been led to believe is a ram strike?

Freds other article focused on missing mint marks and whether they were accepted as genuine and not die fill. I was interested to read his opinion on the 1951 PL Penny with missing PL, where he said it was suspect and more than likely a die fill as all examples seen so far had a hint of the mint mark remaining. The latter images below are of one example I posted previously, as well as a very high grade example posted earlier in this thread by Ford Prefect. Both coins IMO are not weakly struck, and show absolutely no sign of a PL mint mark in the vicinity of the third and fourth large denticles after the Y of PENNY. Would be interested in any opinions

Unicorn · November 30, 2016, 08:54:31 PM

Excellent photos as always Auto! The 43 is very interesting (geez I'm going to have to dig mine out now) and I agree there appears no sign of the PL. Top stuff! :good:

echidna · November 30, 2016, 09:17:25 PM

The stepped recess around the outer rim is only visible on better grade examples of the long denticles variety.

http://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/81292898_max.jpg

Strangely I've seen a similar thing on a number of 1940 K.G pennies.
Just visible on this pic:

autocoupler · November 30, 2016, 11:39:58 PM

Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='102124' dateline='1480501471'Excellent photos as always Auto! The 43 is very interesting (geez I'm going to have to dig mine out now) and I agree there appears no sign of the PL. Top stuff! :good:

Thanks uni, but I can't take any credit for that excellent pic of the high grade 51 no PL, it was just copied from Ford Prefects post and re entered.
As for the missing PL, in Fred's article he mentions that the Royal Mint did send the Perth Mint a reverse punch/die of their 1951 PL penny design with the PL removed, so is it wishful thinking to suggest the Perth Mint may have pressed an unknown number of these?

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='102125' dateline='1480502845'Strangely I've seen a similar thing on a number of 1940 K.G pennies.
Just visible on this pic:

That 1940 K.G is interesting echidna, the recess appears to navigate the entire circumference, which should rule out any action from the collar? I'm really not up with the mechanics of the minting process, but could something like this be the result of a oversized planchet?