1841 Victorian Penny - is this a far colon after DEF

Having looked at what few examples there are, the catalogue lists near and far colons like this:

My question being that a 1841 coin I have recently looked at seems to have a far colon, whilst the catalogue lists the date with near colon.


here is my coin, which obviously asks the question is this a new variety with a far colon?

I do not believe it to be a new variety and it seems you simply attributed your coin on the wrong line. I agree that the lines on the page could use some editing to make things clearer however. One line shows a colon close while the other line shows no colon at all. Perhaps someone should just enter Close or Far on the respective lines without depending on the existing lines which implies no colon at all.

If you look on similar year lines you will notice a little dash before the colon to denote far colon. Why 1841 was not done with the others I cannot explain but I made a change request adding the dash. Just waiting for approval.

N#4721

Oh dear - so I am not retiring or buying a super mansion 🤑

PeterFromNotts

Oh dear - so I am not retiring or buying a super mansion 🤑

No sir, not this time. Keep trying though because you never know.

I have a  few more queries to flag up yet, 1 a week is enough (keep fingers crossed)

Hi PeterFromNotts, the answer you have from the other member is wrong as they have made the same mistake you have made about the colon.

The 1841 penny has REG: (with colon) or REG (no colon) - NOT DEF: (near) or DEF    :(far) option, the near and far colon after DEF are only on years 1846, 47, 51, 53, 55, 56 & 57 as explained at the top of the image in the comments. There is no variety in 1841 of near and far colon after DEF, it is always far. Your coin has no colon after REG, which you wrongly identified and placed as having a colon because there is a colon after DEF   :, you essentially misunderstood the comments and confused REG & DEF. Your coin needs moving to the REG (no colon) line.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. 

Harrykeepthechange

If you look on similar year lines you will notice a little dash before the colon to denote far colon. Why 1841 was not done with the others I cannot explain but I made a change request adding the dash. Just waiting for approval.

 

N#4721

@Harrykeepthechange 

You are confusing REG (with a colon and without a colon) with DEF (near and far colon), they are two separate varieties, which occur on different year lines.

King

Harrykeepthechange

@Harrykeepthechange 

 

You are confusing REG (with a colon and without a colon) with DEF (near and far colon), they are two separate varieties, which occur on different year lines.

 

Canceled change request. 

Harrykeepthechange

King

Harrykeepthechange

@Harrykeepthechange 

 

You are confusing REG (with a colon and without a colon) with DEF (near and far colon), they are two separate varieties, which occur on different year lines.

 

Canceled change request. 

👍 it is a bit confusing and complicated, the Referee could have missed it as well - then the whole page would have been a nightmare of confusion of colons…

Hi King and others,

Still not wholly convinced that a line is inserted for my coin, please look at the following observations;  and it is the colon after DEF that I am really concerned about, I accept my coin has a near colon after REG: and in comments on the coin page that is indicated by REG:

In comments, it is plain that there is a difference between DEF: & DEF_:

The 1853 entry, which I have the coin, has detailed entry showing 

and I agree with the arrangement of the REG: (Near or Colon after REG), OT (Ornamental Trident), DEF_: (Far Colon after DEF), with W.W. (Inscribed initials)

however,  for the 1841 there are only 3 options

Proof which I haven't got

and the only remaining 2 options as I read it say
REG (Without a colon)

REG: (with a  near colon)

If you are saying that REG in the above means that all have a far colon, I feel that it would be better to annotate this row with REG:, DEF_:

As a newbie I await your comments
 

Might I also add that looking at the photograph of the 1941 coin. I agree that after REG it show no colon, yet what I consider is a far colon beyond DEF (DEF_:)   So I agree that REG, is correct - but look as much as I like I cannot see that it is accepted that DEF is always Far spaced unless otherwise noted.  

I still feel it would be better to have, DEF_:   on this line

My documentation was made together with the http://declanmageecoins.co.uk , who is unfortunately no longer amongst us, neither his website. He was a real specialist of British coins.

I don’t have any variety books for UK coins (so I am going off Numista and NGC), however REG and DEF are two different things, and the only variety for 1841 is with REG (with or without a colon), DEF has nothing to do with it on this coin and is just relevant for the coin years stated, there aren‘t any other options for 1841. Are the variety options for this Penny overall complicated, yes, but they are just as complicatedly recorded elsewhere and I think the information here explains it pretty well.

Why add DEF   : to the 1841 year line when it has no variety?

If anything on the 1853 year line where REG: is shown, it should be removed because for the 1853 the varieties are OT far : after DEF, or PT near : after DEF and with or without w.w. on OT far : after DEF. Here REG: has nothing to with it, and isn’t recorded on any other line, if anything this is the mistake (anomaly going against other lines) and should be removed.

King

I don’t have any variety books for UK coins (so I am going off Numista and NGC), however REG and DEF are two different things, and the only variety for 1841 is with REG (with or without a colon), DEF has nothing to do with it on this coin and is just relevant for the coin years stated, there aren‘t any other options for 1841. Are the variety options for this Penny overall complicated, yes, but they are just as complicatedly recorded elsewhere and I think the information here explains it pretty well.

Why add DEF   : to the 1841 year line when it has no variety?

 

If anything on the 1853 year line where REG: is shown, it should be removed because for the 1853 the varieties are OT far : after DEF, or PT near : after DEF and with or without w.w. on OT far : after DEF. Here REG: has nothing to with it, and isn’t recorded on any other line, if anything this is the mistake (anomaly going against other lines) and should be removed.

The 1841 also has the trident variants.

Sjoelund

King

I don’t have any variety books for UK coins (so I am going off Numista and NGC), however REG and DEF are two different things, and the only variety for 1841 is with REG (with or without a colon), DEF has nothing to do with it on this coin and is just relevant for the coin years stated, there aren‘t any other options for 1841. Are the variety options for this Penny overall complicated, yes, but they are just as complicatedly recorded elsewhere and I think the information here explains it pretty well.

Why add DEF   : to the 1841 year line when it has no variety?

 

If anything on the 1853 year line where REG: is shown, it should be removed because for the 1853 the varieties are OT far : after DEF, or PT near : after DEF and with or without w.w. on OT far : after DEF. Here REG: has nothing to with it, and isn’t recorded on any other line, if anything this is the mistake (anomaly going against other lines) and should be removed.

The 1841 also has the trident variants.

 

1841 only has OT, other years (as stated) have OT or PT. At least that is how I read it (NGC doesn’t mention trident variants on 1841)… I don’t know, you produced the info image, how do you interpret what you wrote?

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/great-britain-penny-km-739-1841-1860-59-cuid-1168088-duid-1322843

Really, still confused. This is why I attempted to make the DEF_: correction or change on that line. REG was never the issue as far as I was concerned. I have no catalogs or documentation to back up my thoughts and logic but still think that might be the right thing to do. I stopped and canceled the request because I thought others were more well versed at the subect. Perhaps it's time for the respective referees thoughts?

Correct, REG was not the issue - just how DEF was listed

I saw from other examples
DEF_:       as a coin with a far colon

DEF:         as a coin with a near colon

and interpreted 

DEF        as a coin without any colon 

PeterFromNotts

Correct, REG was not the issue - just how DEF was listed

 

I saw from other examples
DEF_:       as a coin with a far colon

DEF:         as a coin with a near colon

 

and interpreted 

DEF        as a coin without any colon 

 

Thats exactly how I saw it. I tried, it's out of my hands now and dont want to be involved at this point. Maybe you can contact the referee for guidance. Good luck my friend.

Thanks Harry

PeterFromNotts

Correct, REG was not the issue - just how DEF was listed

 

I saw from other examples
DEF_:       as a coin with a far colon

DEF:         as a coin with a near colon

 

and interpreted 

DEF        as a coin without any colon 

 

DEF has no relevance to your coin, it says REG (with or without colon) after in the year line of the 1841 coin (your coin, the coin in question), DEF (near or far) colon only applies to the years 1846, 47, 51, 53, 55, 56 & 57. 

„My question being that a 1841 coin I have recently looked at seems to have a far colon, whilst the catalogue lists the date with near colon.“

Could the problem here be that you read DEF on the year line instead of REG?

King

Sjoelund

King

I don’t have any variety books for UK coins (so I am going off Numista and NGC), however REG and DEF are two different things, and the only variety for 1841 is with REG (with or without a colon), DEF has nothing to do with it on this coin and is just relevant for the coin years stated, there aren‘t any other options for 1841. Are the variety options for this Penny overall complicated, yes, but they are just as complicatedly recorded elsewhere and I think the information here explains it pretty well.

Why add DEF   : to the 1841 year line when it has no variety?

 

If anything on the 1853 year line where REG: is shown, it should be removed because for the 1853 the varieties are OT far : after DEF, or PT near : after DEF and with or without w.w. on OT far : after DEF. Here REG: has nothing to with it, and isn’t recorded on any other line, if anything this is the mistake (anomaly going against other lines) and should be removed.

The 1841 also has the trident variants.

 

1841 only has OT, other years (as stated) have OT or PT. At least that is how I read it (NGC doesn’t mention trident variants on 1841)… I don’t know, you produced the info image, how do you interpret what you wrote?

 

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/great-britain-penny-km-739-1841-1860-59-cuid-1168088-duid-1322843

 

According to this the 1841 only has the OT: https://onlinecoin.club/Coins/Country/United_Kingdom/Penny_1841/

I've changed my documentation to include the 1984 

Sorry, I cant let this go and this is my final comment about this subject. Everything everybody is saying here is valid and all points and observations are clearly expressed and well taken . REG and DEF. Colon. no colon. near colon, far colon depending on year line. I think a simple note on the respective 1841 year line along with the REF notations for this one year should note that all DEF colons for this year alone are FAR colons. Close colon varieties for DEF for this year do not exist unlike many of the other year lines. This is where the confusion lies with those unfamiliar with this type coin and this particular date. Lets try to provide some clarity on that year line to make it less confusing for those trying to catalog their example.

very well put Harry, that’s what caused my confusion - other lines showing both Near and far types.

Just needs that bit of clarity.  

My last post on it - we are not all experts - just trying to make things easier for people to understand 

Just to make it clear with my new documentation

King,

do you mind making the CR of the year lines, I'll make the CR for the new graphic, if it's OK with you?

Sjoelund

King,

 

do you mind making the CR of the year lines, I'll make the CR for the new graphic, if it's OK with you?

I don’t mind doing it, (CR = change request, right?) but I would like to have a consensus on how. I think it is sufficient and understandable as is (others obviously not), so if that is the case and it causes confusion, it needs to be simplified to not cause confusion. eg instead of REG: or DEF__:, OT or PT etc should we have text, Colon after REG or Far Colon after DEF, Ornamental Trident or Plain Trident, etc? Or are we typing out the whole thing even when parts have no relevance, eg 1841 REG: (OT) FID : DEF   :  and REG (OT) FID : DEF   : ?

Then what about all the other similar coins, farthing, ½ penny, etc which are also recorded as REG: or REG., etc, this coin will be out of sync in the comment line?

I made a CR for the 1841 year lines already for clarity. Making clear that unlike many other date lines of the type, the first coin minted of the type does not have the near colon option for the DEF variety unlike many other year lines so prominently indicated all over the page and year lines of the same type.  Waiting for approval from the person who matters and will make the correct decision whatever the outcome.

1841 REG  DEF_:

1841 REG: DEF_:

I have started to verify all the years again to see what I really have to document, but I still think it'll be these three

1. tridents

2. DEF colons

3. REG colons

on the way to that I also “changed” the year lines, it's better to have DEF in front, since year lines are sorted inside the year by the comments! I have come to the 1850 coin so far, result below, and now I take a pause!

I‘m staying out it, I pointed out the mistake made by the OP and a member who replied, and explained it 3 times, it is not my fault they couldn’t differentiate between REG and DEF. I even stopped the member who replied making a fool out of themselves by requesting a change from REG to DEF__: and REG: to DEF:, which I am sure the referee would have declined, but just imagine if the referee also didn’t spot the mistake, then the whole year line would have been wrong and even more confusing to the coin page.
Then instead of just putting up their hands and saying „oh my fault we made mistake, thanks for pointing that out“ they both doubled down blaming the clarity of the page and how it was written, and claim that because they are not experts it is not understandable. 
 

Varieties are complicated beasts, all websites, books or catalogues pages are complicated on the subject. Just take the NGC page for this coin, it states REG with or without colon, then when the colon variant changes to DEF, states just „far or near colon“, without mentioning where in the text! At least the Numista page states far or near from DEF.

I still don’t believe that the 1841 coin needs DEF written on the year line, the only relevant information is REG with or without a colon, that is the only variety for that year and thus doesn’t need extra information like DEF__: or Ornamental Trident on the line because they are the same for both REG variants. 

I wanted a consensus on how to display the comment after the year line, to standardise it throughout the page, but the member who confounded the OPs mistake by also missing the difference has now resubmitted a change request.

I would say that the referee should read this thread. @peterjhalford 

While I already cited this thread to the referee on the CR so he can determine who the fool is here. We understood from the start, it was you who did not and we are tired of your constant hate,  attacks, disparagement of others, and insults. Fool.  Why the mods allow you to continue this childish, arrogant, insulting behavior is beyond me.

Might I say Harry, As a newcomer and asking what I thought was a polite reasonable question, I too was a little alarmed at the level of antagonism and dismissiveness at the responses from some, not you I would hasten to add, whom I have to be objective and level headed.

Thank you.

It was also my belief that one should be supportive even if being critical. I thank Sjoelund for taking the task in hand

Harrykeepthechange

While I already cited this thread to the referee on the CR so he can determine who the fool is here. We understood from the start, it was you who did not and we are tired of your constant hate,  attacks, disparagement of others, and insults. Fool.  Why the mods allow you to continue this childish, arrogant, insulting behavior is beyond me.

Harry, I never said anyone was a fool, I explained the mistake with the upmost care without hate, disparagement of others or insults. How else do you explain a mistake other than the facts? You made a mistake, so what, I don’t care, we all make mistakes, own it and move on. 
The way you talk is very much like a member who closed his account, then reappeared under a different name and closed it again, this member insulted me, he was either banned or left because the moderators asked him to stop insulting people and he stormed off in a huff.

Are you the ex member HarryG, trying desperately to get revenge?

PeterFromNotts

Might I say Harry, As a newcomer and asking what I thought was a polite reasonable question, I too was a little alarmed at the level of antagonism and dismissiveness at the responses from some, not you I would hasten to add, whom I have to be objective and level headed.

Thank you.

 

It was also my belief that one should be supportive even if being critical. I thank Sjoelund for taking the task in hand

Peter, I am so sorry if you felt any antagonism or dismissiveness towards you, I merely tried to explain your mistake in the nicest possible way with the facts.

Only you will know if Harrykeepthechange sent you a private message encouraging you to think the way you did about me, he is most likely a member who has been either banned by the admin or has changed his name multiple times to get revenge on me. I however have had the guts to keep my username for the entire time, unlike him. If this is the case I am sorry you got dragged into this, but I meant no disrespect to you, I don’t care if you made a mistake, we all make them and learn from them.

Sorry, said several posts ago, that it was my last post - this is.

Matter closed

Sjoelund

Just to make it clear with my new documentation

Would you (or any other mate) know if, for the rest of years, including 1841, the colon after “DEF” is always far? If so, maybe just a line with that info in “Comments” could help to avoid some confusions…

Sjoelund

Just to make it clear with my new documentation

I really hate to get involved this late in this spirited debate but your revised graphic implies that the 1841 has both near colon DEF: and far colon DEF_:  If people weren't confused before they will be if this graphic gets added.

Do NOT worry, all three are under revision! I'll try to make it simple for everybody

It would seem that some good has come from my original post - thank you all.

SPINKS only lists:

1841 Ornamental Trident 

1841 Proof

1841 Ornamental Trident no colon after REG

Anyone got a copy of English, Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the British Museum 1558 – 1958 by Wilson C Peck?

If you want the true variety catalogue have a look here Batty's catalogue of the copper coinage of Great Britain, Ireland, British isles and colonies, local & private tokens jettons, &c., compiled from various authors, and the most celebrated collections; : Batty, D. T : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Once you've come up for air let me know…

As promised, I have remade my three documentations:

If you agree to them, I'll make the CR?

You've added 1854 as having both DEF: and DEF_: whereas before it was only DEF_:

You've added 1850 as DEF_: but that coin doesn't exist.

The near colon.

Thanks, here is the near colon

Without the “false” year 1850:

Ciao

OK. So I assume the 1854 DEF: needs to be added to the 1854 PT year line to be consistent. 

Your original graphic did not include 1854 and having both. 

Hi

I suppose @king will do the year lines, yes, my slight knowledge has grown and even for the 1858 I have found “new” overdates! The question is only how far down do we differentiate?

Take care