1959 Melbourne Penny With Perth Obverse

[echidna]

" />

PCGS say its Melbourne.
With a Perth obverse ?
Unfortunately not.
Missing mintmark or filled die instead.
Still interesting.

[nealeffendi]

Any chance it IS a Melbourne reverse with a Perth obverse?
But not a missing mintmark or filled die, but instead a reverse die that was correctly prepared by Melbourne and for use at Melbourne (so correctly sans mintmark), but then wrongly included in a batch of dies sent to Perth. As it isn't a variety that is known to variety collectors it would require a small run such as might occur when they started to strike in Perth and then quickly spotted the lack of a dot (or alternatively a decent run where the error was spotted and they scrapped the run (less a few like this one that they overlooked)). I think the run was decent as the reverse die shows evidence of a die clash above the 19.
 And the appearance of the penny is typical of Perth and not Melbourne, didn't their "experts" spot that?

[Mister T]

Certainly looks like a Perth struck coin.

[Basilstate]

Great Pics. as usual Echi. Nightmare,for me at least,keeping up with the hundreds of errors and varieties in Oz. pre-Dec.

[echidna]

Any chance it IS a Melbourne reverse with a Perth obverse?
But not a missing mintmark or filled die, but instead a reverse die that was correctly prepared by Melbourne and for use at Melbourne (so correctly sans mintmark), but then wrongly included in a batch of dies sent to Perth. As it isn't a variety that is known to variety collectors it would require a small run such as might occur when they started to strike in Perth and then quickly spotted the lack of a dot (or alternatively a decent run where the error was spotted and they scrapped the run (less a few like this one that they overlooked)). I think the run was decent as the reverse die shows evidence of a die clash above the 19.
 And the appearance of the penny is typical of Perth and not Melbourne, didn't their "experts" spot that?

Hi Neal

The Melbourne reverse is different if you compare the alignment of denticles and lettering.
So its definitely Perth.
A 1957 missing mintmark has been reported.
This one is similar and is a missing m or just a filled die.
I guess you would need another example to confirm which.

[autocoupler]

Any chance it IS a Melbourne reverse with a Perth obverse?
But not a missing mintmark or filled die, but instead a reverse die that was correctly prepared by Melbourne and for use at Melbourne (so correctly sans mintmark), but then wrongly included in a batch of dies sent to Perth. As it isn't a variety that is known to variety collectors it would require a small run such as might occur when they started to strike in Perth and then quickly spotted the lack of a dot (or alternatively a decent run where the error was spotted and they scrapped the run (less a few like this one that they overlooked)). I think the run was decent as the reverse die shows evidence of a die clash above the 19.
 And the appearance of the penny is typical of Perth and not Melbourne, didn't their "experts" spot that?

Hi Neal

The Melbourne reverse is different if you compare the alignment of denticles and lettering.
So its definitely Perth.
A 1957 missing mintmark has been reported.
This one is similar and is a missing m or just a filled die.
I guess you would need another example to confirm which.

Nice photo echy, and a good thing to have.

Am I seeing things, or is there a hint of a dot above the first full large denticle to the right of Y? Whatever it is I'm seeing, it's just right of centre and probably a fraction higher than normal.

[nealeffendi]

IIRC the '57 Perth Penny has 3 dot positions based on the 3 hubs used (and they each had the dot on the hub), so the "no dot" '57 Perth was a filled die.  Was the '59 Perth penny struck from dies struck off a hub with a dot or were they struck from a sans dot hub?

[echidna]

" />
" />

Hi Auto & Neal

The dot seems to be in exactly the same position on all 59 Perth pennies so yeah probably on the hub.
So I'd agree that this example is most likely a filled die.
Still somewhat interesting.

[autocoupler]

Another lovely photo echi. Yep, I was seeing things, no dot there.

[echidna]

" />
" />

Another example.
Cant see any trace of the dot.

Still unclear as to whether its a missing mintmark or filled die.
I guess you would need an UNC example to be sure.