1895 thick 5

[tour60]

Looking at these I am wondering if these are 2 different 5's, or is this thick 5 just the result of a worn die?
All opinions welcomed.

[coinguy]

Either a worn die or a worn coin. All the numbers look slightly thicker.

[rjd65]

Hello. I've studied these extensively. The position of the 5 can be quite varied. The '189' were identical for all dies used. Only the 5 was individually punched onto each die. Even though the 1895 Royal Mint Report states that 16 obverse and 5 reverse were consumed, analysis of over 200 examples by me has identified 8 reverse dies based on unique die break patterns observed. The position of the 5 on some of these are almost identical. Only by overlaying date images of very high grade examples is one able to discern the difference, if no die breaks are present. Your two images are of coins minted from two different dies. Although the position of the 5 appears almost identical you can discern that the 5 in the lower image is tilted slightly more counter-clockwise or, conversely, the 5 in the upper image is titled slightly more clockwise. With a 30x magnifying loupe you may be able to see a few circumferential die breaks assuming the coins are later die states. Each of these reverse dies was married to two unique obverse dies - again based on die breaks. Neither shared a marriage with the same obverse die. If you have a look at the obverse of each coin with a 30x loupe there is a decent chance you will see two different die break patterns. The coin in your upper image was minted with the most prolific reverse die (married to two unique obverse dies) and comprised about 25% of all 1895. The reverse die clash appeared early after being married to a second obverse die. The die break pattern on that second obverse die is very interesting. If not too large, I'll try to include an image of that pattern. Your coin likely has some of these obverse breaks as well as a distinctively weak lower rim. Cheers, RD

[rjd65]

1895 Obverse.png (1.04 MiB) Viewed 215 times

[Bill in Burl]

To me, all of the digits in the bottom photo look "fatter". For many years with the Vicky large cents, the handpunched in the last digit, in this case with just the 189 on the naked die. It saved the mint from having to make a new master and/or subpunches. Nice answer rdg65. If you've dived heavy into Vicky varieties, we may know each other.

[tour60]

rdj65 you are correct about the obverse on the clashed reverse, but I can only see the crack through the G and A.
The obverse of the other coin has a crack through the R in Victoria. Thanks for the input.

[tour60]

I also have one with obverse cracks through the I in Victoria, between the R and A of gratia ,and the last 2 A's of Canada.

[tour60]

And then there is this one. A crack through the N in Regina is hard to spot in this pic. Other cracks are well developed.

[rjd65]

The reverse of your last image should depict the following die breaks. The date on this reverse die is the most aesthetically pleasing of all the 1895s - evenly spaced digits and reasonably level with one another, although some observers may consider the '5' a bit far. The die preparer took great care when punching the '5'. This reverse die is also married to two unique obverse dies.

1895 Reverse.png (1.04 MiB) Viewed 151 times

[rjd65]

Based on your description you have this one too. The reverse die break may not be visible since the obverse die that was used on your coin was the first marriage. This reverse die also had two marriages. Divorce was rampant in 1895.

Picture2.png (1.09 MiB) Viewed 149 times

Picture1.png (1.22 MiB) Viewed 149 times

[rjd65]

I have one more thing to add. Based on your description of the obverse of the second (lower) coin in your original image I stand corrected and believe these two reverses are the same die. I lifted the left side of your lower image a wee bit and that tilted the 5 clockwise. Both 5s are now essentially identical. Unfortunately this die had only one die break in later die states that passed thorough L16 and L1. The lower coin in your image was the first marriage and exhibits more circulation wear. That's why the digits are 'fat'. The die breaks through L16 and L1 probably won't be visible or extremely discrete and weak. For confirmation the obverse of this first marriage should appear like the image below. All the breaks may not be visible on your coin, as the image shown is a late DS.

Picture7.png (1.12 MiB) Viewed 148 times

[Phil413]

rjd65, Looks like you've done some nice work toward cataloging the 1895's! Someday I hope there will be catalogs available for all dates of Victorian large cents.

Are you working on any other years?

[rjd65]

Thanks for the kind feedback. During the peak COVID lockdown period I decided to study my large cents. Rob Turner's book Dies and Diadems was inspirational in this regard. Unfortunately he was reluctant to allow other researchers to use his die numbering system to publish additional studies. So I came up with another system that shares one attribute with the 1859 Haxby System. Instead of PC59-xxx, I use DCyyDm-or to identify marriages (DC = Dominion of Canada, yy = year, D = denomination, m = Mint location, o = obverse die number, r = reverse die number). Obverse and reverse dies for a large cent would be designated as OyyCm-xx, and RyyCm-xx respectively, where C = Cent. I use the same system for other denominations F=5c, T+10c, Q=25C, H=50c. If the Heaton Mint (located in Birmingham) minted the coin in question, m = b. Royal Mint coins have no designation. For example, an 1898H Large cent marriage might be designated DC98Cb-11 which is comprised of dies O98Cb-1 and R98Cb-1. An 1897 DC97C-23 is comprised of dies O97C-2 and R97C-3. Coin DC97C-63 (a different marriage) is comprised of dies O97C-6 and R97C-3. So far the system seems to be working well. Die breaks are obviously the primary differentiator but when none are present (early die state perhaps) and no other markers are available the die is designated SxxCm-100 or 200 or 300 etc (S=side in question) depending on what die number I'm at. There will never be a SyyCm-4 and SyyCm-400 concurrently. 400 may be unique and married to a unique (based on die breaks perhaps) opposite side. I just can't prove it yet, but the marriage alone may be enough if no others marriages are thought to exist). It gets complicated if both sides have no breaks or any other markers. Fortunately those instance are very rare in the case of large cents. The aim is to keep the numbering system as simple as possible, ensure no ambiguity and ultimately be able to discern what coins are minted from dies that didn't last long. There are always a few dies in any mintage that did the lions share of the work and there are those that did relatively little work. Seeing this divergence is the interesting and fun part of die tracking. I have only formally analyzed Charlton Obverse C4 coins (1892-1901). Plan is to eventually establish a website similar to the Haxby site where community input can expand on known dies. Published Royal Mint die use figures can then be verified and Heaton die use (data which doesn't exist) can be ascertained and would undoubtedly be of particular interest. Apparently someone is working on a 1876H, 1881H,1882H Large Cent Die Study. This would be a monumental undertaking since a total of about 6 million of these years were minted, probably using a couple hundred die marriages at least. The hybrid aspect could make things very complicated as well. The neat thing about die studies is they are self authenticating. Many collectors have their coins TPG for authenticity reasons especially when counterfeits began surfacing. A counterfeit, even a very good one, will never be able to mimic known die breaks. For now usually other mean are available to discern they are fake. So TPG (for authentication) isn't really necessary if one has credible die studies to access. The grading standards of some of these TPG leave much to be desired as well. Market grading to attempt to achieve a higher price will not fool knowledgeable collectors. Now and then, I used to post pics on this site of coins outrageously graded too high.

[tour60]

I look forward to your website. It will be a great help to many of us.

[Bill in Burl]

A great deal of research has already been done and published in your Vicky years so you shouldn't duplicate or counter. The 5 of us who wrote the 2011 65th edition for the Vicky variety section in the back had probably twice as many as the 80 pages we were authorized by Charlton to use at the time and had many more in reserve. Almost all off us have the coins that we used to start and continue with the year-long project. We also completely went through and corrected the Charlton reissue of Griffin's extensive research and texts because Charlton had displayed new photos with the wrong Griffin numbers and text of new material. Charlton never issued our corrected text, so NEVER use Charlton's Monograph 1 to ID any Vickies. Also, Rob Turner's 3rd book on just the 1890 and 92 was published a few years ago and is a must for any library for Vicky collectors. The photography and research is stellar. The Dies and Diadems already covered the '81's. There are 2 active posters who have been conducting heavy research into the 1884's and 88's, as I have loaned coins to them for the research for the last few years.

You should try to contact Rob Turner again, after showing him some of your work. Maybe he will acquiese and allow some restricted use, but who knows. He DID allow PCGS and Charlton (I think) to use his numbers. The person doing the Obv 1 (76, 81, 82, 84) detailed research tretise uses a little different numbering system. His work is complerte and looks excellent, but not published print or website yet.