Curved-Base vs Flat-Base Lettering

Curved-Base vs Flat-Base Lettering

Issue Statement

One of the central diagnostic features discussed in relation to the Unicorn Penny concerns the form of the reverse lettering, specifically the distinction between curved-base lettering (CBL) and flat-base lettering (FBL). The interpretation, reliability, and historical use of this distinction has been the subject of scholarly discussion, particularly in relation to early cataloguing practices and later varietal standardisation.

Summary of the Critique

Fred Lever, a well-known authority on Australian pennies and die varieties, has questioned the evidentiary weight placed on curved-base and flat-base lettering distinctions in early catalogues.

Lever argues that:

• Curved-base lettering is not a discrete or binary diagnostic, but a phenomenon that can arise gradually through hub degradation, die wear, and tooling processes.

• There is broad continuity of curved-base lettering across George V pennies from the mid-1920s through the mid-1930s.

• Early cataloguers, including John Dean, employed the term “curved-base letters” broadly and sometimes imprecisely, prior to the development of modern die-state and high-magnification analysis.

• In this context, Dean may have assumed continuity of curved-base lettering in 1931 and failed to recognise that what later became known as the benchmark dropped-‘1’ Indian-obverse variety (the 2+A coin) actually featured flat-base lettering.

• Accordingly, Dean’s P31D entry may not reliably support the existence of a distinct fifth 1931 penny variety.

This critique raises a legitimate methodological question: whether early use of CBL/FBL terminology can sustain later varietal conclusions once more refined classification frameworks are applied.

Analysis

The above concerns are important and merit careful consideration. However, a closer examination of the 1931 penny varieties - with attention to degree and prominence of expression rather than the mere presence of curvature - leads to a more nuanced and internally consistent conclusion.

It is correct that curved-base lettering persists across a wide chronological range. However, in 1931 its expression is generally more subtle. On the reverses associated with P31A, P31B, and P31C, curvature at the base of the lettering is present but restrained, often requiring close inspection to identify (see images below). Attribution in these cases is, therefore, a measured judgement rather than an immediately obvious visual classification.

Crucially, because curved-base and flat-base lettering can coexist on the same coin, classification cannot rest solely on the presence of curvature in isolated letters, but must instead reflect a prominence of letter-base morphology across the reverse as a whole.

When all four 1931 varieties are compared side by side, the relative prominence of curved-base lettering in P31A, P31B, and P31C becomes evident. In these varieties, curved-base lettering is present in up to half of all the reverse letter bases, producing an overall appearance that could justifiably characterise a coin as containing curved-base letters.

By contrast, in the benchmark dropped-‘1’ Indian-obverse variety as later standardised in numismatic practice by the designation P31D, the expression of curvature is confined to one (at most two) letter bases, and is very subtly expressed. In practical terms, the reverse overwhelmingly displays a flat-base character. The distinction, therefore, is more categorical than interpretive. A reverse in which the vast majority of letter bases are flat cannot reasonably be classified as curved-base, regardless of the presence of some minor or ambiguous curvature in a one or two of letters.

Note: The above images are presented for illustrative purposes only and should not to be relied upon (due to shadowing and other photographic artefacts) for evaluation of individual letter bases.  Only proper physical examination of individual coins should be used for analytical purposes.      

Dean himself directly contrasts flat-base and curved-base lettering in an illustration on page 38 of his catalogue (see image below). Although very subtle curvature can be detected at the bases of the letter “R” and the right-hand “A” in the illustrated 'flat-based lettering' example, the classification is determined by the prevailing character of the lettering as a whole, not by isolated or marginal curvature. 

The very subtlety of the distinction between curved-base and flat-base lettering in the 1931 varieties is itself informative. It indicates that Dean’s designation of the 1931 varieties as curved-base was not a product of imprecision or assumption, but of careful visual assessment within the limits of the classification framework available at the time.

It is important to recognise that Dean’s publication was intended specifically to catalogue coin 'varieties', which by definition focuses on subtle physical differentiation - the foundational principle of variety collecting. His work was not a general survey, but a focused exercise in identifying fine morphological distinctions. To argue that Dean misclassified this entry, therefore, requires evidence of a broader pattern of comparable inaccuracies elsewhere in his work. In the absence of such a pattern, it would be an improbable coincidence for a single misclassification to occur precisely at the point where it is now necessary to negate the existence of the Unicorn Penny.

On this reading, it is more consistent with Dean’s role as a variety cataloguer that he was describing a coin whose reverse lettering genuinely presented as curved-base, rather than overlooking a reverse whose overwhelmingly flat-base character would have been apparent.

Another key premise underlying Lever’s critique is the suggestion that John Dean may have assumed a general continuity of curved-base lettering into 1931, and therefore failed to recognise that the P31D (2+A coin) contained a prominence of flat-based letters on the reverse legend.  A close examination of Dean’s original catalogue, however, does not support such characterisation of his methodology.

Dean demonstrably did not treat curved-base and flat-base lettering as a minor or incidental feature, nor did he rely on broad chronological assumptions. On the contrary, by providing photographic illustration and explanation of the differences between curved-base and flat-base lettering, he intended for the distinction to be both meaningful and diagnostic.

More significantly, Dean’s own catalogue data shows that he did not assume continuity even within narrow chronological ranges. For the 1919 penny, he identified seven distinct varieties, five exhibiting flat-base lettering (P19A–P19E) and two exhibiting curved-base lettering (P19F–P19G). Likewise, for the 1920 penny, he recorded a mixture of flat-base and curved-base varieties across seven sub-types (P20A–P20G). These classifications demonstrate that Dean was willing to recognise, record, and segregate curved-base and flat-base reverses within a single date coin where the evidence warranted it.

This pattern is inconsistent with the notion that Dean applied a generalised or sweeping assumption of lettering continuity. Where mixed characteristics existed, he identified them explicitly. Where they did not exist, there is no evidence that he inferred them.

Against this background, Dean’s classification of the P31D variety as exhibiting curved-base lettering carries particular weight. If the coin Dean observed had, in fact, displayed a prominence of flat-base lettering consistent with what later became the standard dropped-‘1’ Indian-obverse variety, it is difficult to explain why he would have misclassified it - especially when no comparable misclassification is evident elsewhere in his work. Dean did not hesitate to record flat-base lettering when he saw it, even where it disrupted chronological expectations.

The most parsimonious interpretation is, therefore, that the coins Dean examined and recorded as P31D genuinely exhibited curved-base lettering, and that this variety was subsequently eclipsed in practice by a different, slightly more readily discoverable flat-base dropped-‘1’ type.

Response

When degrees and predominance of letter-base curvature are properly distinguished, the evidence resolves coherently. Most 1931 penny varieties exhibit a sufficient prominence of curved-base lettering. The benchmark dropped-‘1’ Indian-obverse variety (2+A) exhibits unmistakable prominence of flat-base lettering and John Dean’s extremely rare “curved-base” dropped-‘1’ Indian-obverse entry aligns better with the Unicorn Penny rather than with the later benchmark classification.

Accordingly, concerns raised regarding curved-base and flat-base terminology do not undermine the Unicorn Penny hypothesis. Instead, they clarify the historical record. It is unlikely that a coin whose reverse lettering is overwhelmingly flat-base would have been designated as “curved-base” by a cataloguer whose explicit purpose was to distinguish coins on precisely such subtle morphological grounds. Dean’s record, therefore, supports the conclusion that a curved-base dropped-‘1’ Indian-obverse 1931 penny existed and was observed prior to later standardisation of the variety framework.

Lever’s suggestion that Dean may have assumed continuity of curved-base lettering into 1931 is not supported by Dean’s work. Dean demonstrably treated curved-base versus flat-base lettering as a fundamental diagnostic feature, illustrated it photographically, and differentiated it repeatedly within single-date issues such as 1919 and 1920. In the absence of any pattern of misclassification elsewhere, there is no evidential basis for assuming that Dean failed to recognise flat-base lettering in 1931.  The simpler and more consistent explanation remains that the P31D coins Dean observed genuinely exhibited curved-base lettering as he noted, and that this variety later fell into obscurity as a different flat-base dropped-‘1’ type became the market benchmark.

Scholars, researchers, and collectors who wish to submit a comment or critique are invited to contact the author (Dr. Yuri Rapoport) at 1931unicorn.penny@gmail.com

© Copyright protected

The contents of this website are protected by copyright law.  Copyright in this material resides with Dr. Y. Rapoport B.Sc SJD