1920 No Dot (English/London), Does It Exist?

And here's a picture ....
http://www.pacificrimonlineauctions...ny_i12970207

Thanks for pointing that out Mr T.

Now I can see that ADMISLSE indicated their first auction, not their 3rd ..... sorry, my eyes aren't that good, been missing a lot of stuff lately.

Will see if I can find the other eh!

I keep looking, and haven't found one yet that I could say was definitely a 'no dot, London'. Hard to tell with most of the images that are provided.

Certainly haven't held one in my hand.

This particular coin is very close to the top of my list of wants.

One day ......

The June 2012 CAB Magazine has the Rev of a 1920 penny on the cover. On P5 in the middle of a small para detailing the items on the cover it states:

"A choice UNC 1920 Plain Penny from an important collection being offered by Pacific Rim Online Auction. (Image courtesy of Pacific Rim Online Auction)"

The same image of it also appears in an advert for the Auction on P12.

Yep

The dot below / no dot, plain (Indian obv) can be pretty difficult to differentiate, particularly in lower grades.

Sometimes very difficult to pick between marks / wear and the dot.

It doesn't help that often the reverse of the dot below is often poorly struck up, nor that the lower dot seems so much more susceptible to die fill.

The dot above the top scroll in the 1920's is fairly blatant though, so less difficult to compare wear with the dot.

I think there is also some conjecture as to whether the 'no dot, Indian' (plain) variety was actually ever minted, or whether they are all dot belows with filled die errors.

I am happy to be corrected here, as I don't know, I just remember reading an article posing the question once.

Either way, it certainly exists as a variety now, and in abundance relative to other 1920's.

It'd be nice if the pricing guides would differentiate between the Indian and London obverse dies, as so many see the Indian obverse as the 'scarce - no dots' as listed in the catalogues.

A real trap for new players.

Nancy - the 1920 no dot, Indian obverse is often referred to as the 1920 plain, in an attempt to differentiate it from the much scarcer London obverse, so I'm guessing the one you've referred to is not the one we are trying to find.

Thanks for the effort though.

According to Fred Lever's article in CAB Magazine in July 2012 "The Lever Ultimate 144 Collector Penny Date Set" he has listed both the Indian & London obverse dies for the No Dot 1920 Penny. But yet again I'm not so sure about his rarity listings associated (he states; chance of finding in a bulk lot of pennies):
1920 Indian Obv No Dot: 1:10
1920 London Obv No Dot: 1:100

Interesting to hear different perspectives.

I put a fair bit of stock in to Fred's research, but I have to admit I struggle a bit with 1:10 for the plain. Certainly not the frequency I have seen, however I don't noodle so much so perhaps that influences occurrence.

I would qualify that statement with this:
I know Fred has a lot more experience than myself dealing with varieties and errors, and have learned a lot through his documentation.

As for filled die double dots, my thoughts are that this does occur, given the difficulty in seeing the dot below.
There are 'tells' for the double dot, such as die cracks in certain positions. Specifically to the 'W' in 'WEALTH'.

Not really useful for proving a double-dot, as I'm sure the die/s used did not start out with this flaw, just as I would be confident in assuming that if there was more than one die pair used it would be very unlikely that a crack would appear in exactly the same spot (possible, though - structural weak point?).

It is useful though if unsure about whether you have a dot above top scroll or not, as if the crack is there it stands to reason that it is probably a double dot rather than a dot above top scroll, possibly with a filled bottom dot error, or the bottom dot worn away.

The absence of the crack doesn't prove that it is a dot above top scroll, but the presence of the crack does point strongly to it being a double dot.

I qualify again - others know more than I on this topic.

Must do some more reading, and I should check out John's site for his perspective .....

Actually, must do some more work, but will watch this topic with interest.