Bronze & Copper Collector

Sort of reminiscent of the PCGS Farthing Mule dispute earlier this year........

Hussulo is correct..... Probably the best book encompassing ALL the bronze coinage is the Freeman opus....... For a work SPECIALIZING in JUST the bronze pennies and expanding upon Freeman I would recomend The British Bronze Penny by Michael Gouby...... http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/BPbook.htm For the extremist, there is also SATIN GUIDE to the VICTORIAN BUNHEADS from 1860-1865 Additionally, there are many unrecorded and or minor variants such as recut letters, date spacings, etc.... Peck is excellent for the COPPER coinage

I believe it to be an F-67....... Obverse 6, Reverse H, Rarity R-12......... A scarcer variety of the 1874's

Not as bad as this ebay listing was.... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018

Teg, The coin you linked to in your post is being sold by Michael Freeman, so it must have more value than you or I expect! <gggg>. Bob C. Thank You Bob, I was just going to make note of that fact, and I see that you beat me too it...... Honestly though, I' not really sure that I see it....... It's a POOR specimen.... I would love to be proved incorrect. Indeed the fact that this almost certain 1672 has a very low 2 is interesting. Most 1676 (types) are 1675 with a broken 5. It's not 100% infallible - but after 1672 nearly all CII farthings have the last O of CAROLO between the hair ribbons. This does not. Colin Cooke did not believe in a 1676 farthing, the closest chance you could get would be a 1679 with a possible inverted 9. Mr Freeman has been proved wrong on new (Victorian) farthing dates before. I don't think that early farthings are his speciality. So a difference of opinion then! Teg HI Teg, Although I do collect farthings, they are not my specialty, but you do make some VERY valid and astute observations, and, as I tend to doubt that this is a 1676, I am inclined to give credence to your assessment of this coin......

Teg, The coin you linked to in your post is being sold by Michael Freeman, so it must have more value than you or I expect! <gggg>. Bob C. Thank You Bob, I was just going to make note of that fact, and I see that you beat me too it...... Honestly though, I' not really sure that I see it....... It's a POOR specimen....

ain't it the truth......... Amen...

Although I feel provenance in important, it does not play a vital role in acquisitions.... I have the Colin Adams F-21 (acquired via Laurie Bamford) No ticket, but informed as such by Laurie. I acquired 2 coins from the Laurie Bamford sale as the original purchaser..... The images from the sale document the coins I have the Freeman F-76 WITH his ticket. I HAD (and sold) the Freeman F-27 WITH his ticket (and that was a selling point) [i have a better exaple now]. I have the Colin Cooke F-530 (mounted in an album) but I have his envelope mounted in the back for future use/reference when needed. I have a few coins from the Dr Nicholson collection (mounted in an album), but I have the envelopes mounted in the back for future use/reference when needed. I do NOT go out of my way FOR provenence, but if it can be documented or noted, I try to preserve the information...

Congratulations Hussulo

Annoying laptop keyboard..... Should have said "BEST OF LUCK"

Glad to have helped..... Bet of Luck....

Batty has a few varieties listed.... See attached pdf Copy_of_1839_quarter_farthing.pdf

Bramah only seems to list one variety also....

Yes I too have a Vicky one. The only real way you can tell is to look at it through magnification. That's not to say real ones don't exist however they are quite are rare and valuable. I have only seen genuine British examles on more modern coins from the 1970's. I have got a two tailed coin but it's not British. NICE !!!!!!!!!

Chris is probably correct.... These turn up periodically on ebay..... I think I even have one somewhere.......

I've seen them sell for 4 times that amount..... with higher shippng too.... That WAS a bargain.....

Well Done!!!!!!

He was lucky. I've had cheques and coins not arrive at their intended destination both as buyer and seller, and internationally too. Two lots I won in the Heritage sale of June last year, resurfaced in the US in January. That's 7 months after posting. The 1881H penny mentioned in the footnote to lot 111 of the Bamford sale I am led to believe turned up after 11 months. Moving away from coins, a letter I sent to Southampton University was returned to me after 3 months - addressee unknown! Presumably the 15 - 20,000 staff and students of this institution will not be too happy that they have ceased to be. Another instance involved a letter posted in Bolton (10 miles away) with a Philipines Post redirection stamp. The postal service does a reasonable job in getting most of the letters to where they are intended to go, but sometimes the wayward ones leave me a little bemused. Close.... The 1881-H took 8 months, and arrived in a post office body bag.... for damaged or ripped envelopes....... I've had 7 or 8 (that I recall) incoming (UK to USA) packets get lost as well as a few domestic packages..... Most were of relatively minor value, but one packet did contain an 1860 farthing mule..... I don't recall any outgoing packets getting lost, although I once received notification from UPS that my envelope arrived empty.....fortunately I had the address on the packet inside which was later found and delivered to the addressee.....

Looks like a VERY EARLY strike.....About 10 years early...... LOL.....1864 not 1874...... Seriously though, from the image,, it looks like an F-48, crosslet 4

Low grade also......

I have one in my collection and know of 2 or 3 more.....

Heritage Ultra High Relief Wire Rim Coin Facts Coin Gallery

Always at a premium when it has a date...... great acquisition

Hi Bob, There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity. The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety. In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far. In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia. To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion. Best wishes, Ron Guth Actually, according to Michael Freeman's designations in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", the attribution is F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A)...... Obverse 1 is described as having Round Beads, Obverse 2 and later Obverses as having a Toothed Border.... Reverse A is described as having Round Beads, Reverse B and later Reverses as having a Toothed Border...... "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (1986 and 2006 editions)" is considered the authority for Bronze Collectors. Peck for tin, copper and bronze.... Although neither is absolutely complete, their respective descriptions are the accepted standards for attribution and are considered authoritative. In virtually every instance of a new discovery or variety, that discovery only complemented the text and/or added information, and did not change the information already in existence..... Krause merely designates TB/RB and gives no accompanying text to ensure that the proper attributions are made and might be the text that is referred to in the quoted text. Possibly the proper question should be; "Is this coin an F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A) as listed in Freeman?", the variety that is universally accepted as a mule.

Hi Bob, There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity. The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety. In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far. In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia. To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion. Best wishes, Ron Guth This is in response to the suggestion that the round beads are actually toothed beads that were LAPPED, or struck from worn/polished dies.... (Highlighted and BOLD within the quoted remarks).... It is my understanding that there is NO doubt that the ROYAL MINT used ROUND BORDER BEADS in the initial striking of the bronze coinage on all three denominations (Farthings, Half-Pennies, and Pennies)... This has been documented as such, as well as the fact that there were difficulties with the design and they were therefore redesigned with a TOOTHED BORDER.... There are HIGH GRADE examples of all denomintaions which show this clearly. There are records that document the fact that a ROUND BEADED BORDER was the original design... It has NEVER been suggested (to the best of my knowledge) that a ROUND BEAD BORDER was the result of a defective strike, polished/lapped dies, etc..... It has ALWAYS been acknowledged to be the original design, and then later that year (1860) changed to the TOOTHED BORDER.... The mere suggestion that this is the case sends up red flags and begs the question that "If the ROUND BEADED BORDER is the result of DIE WEAR/POLISHING/DAMAGE, then how did it happen that the ROUND BEADED BORDER was released into circulation first...." ALSO, why has there been NO question of attribution or question of LAPPED dies in relation to the OBVERSE DIES....... Calling a WORN TOOTH a BEAD does NOT make it so........ In the example of the 1922 "PLAIN" cent, it is known that there were NO Philadelphia mint cents struck.... We KNOW that it is an error from a worn/filled die... As such, we can document the various stages as the die deteriorated..... There were also different reverse dies used..... That with the D missing completely and the strong reverse being the most desireable..... I have a PCGS specimen of the missing D with the WEAK reverse, still rare although not as valuable as the STRONG reverse... I also have an ANACS example of the WEAK D, an intermediate stage, and FAR LESS valuable than either of its siblings.... In any case, had there been a 1922 PHILDELPHIA MINT coin struck, the 1922 "PLAIN" would STILL NOT be a PHILADELPHIA MINT COIN.... IT would be MOST ACCURATELY a "1922-D NO D" or "MISSING D".... Calling a WORN TOOTH a ROUND BEAD as a means of making an expedient explanation of a question at hand is counterproductive to discovering the TRUTH , and in this instance also does not instill confidence in PCGS's GUARANTEE.... Using another US coin as an example, the 1866-S dime notoriously has a WEAK mintmark and is quite often not visible on worn specimens..... HOWEVER, calling it an 1866 as another 3rd party grader, NOT PCGS, did in certifying a specimen, does not make it so.... The 1866-S is relatively common, the 1866 Philadelphia mint coin is significantly RARER.... The proper attributions can be made by using die diagnostics, as should be used in this case... In the case of the 1866 Dime, the other 3rd party grader tossed it off as a "CLERICAL ERROR" and refused to offer or provide any guarantees... PCGS has ALWAYS stood behind its certifications; will they continue to do so???? Or will they continue to obfuscate the issue by presenting speculations that do not fit the facts????? Admittedly there are new discoveries being made, but until this coin is examined by experts knowledgeable in THIS series (farthings), we can not have a satisfactory resolution to this attribution..... This raises an issue too... Which experts (and what were their qualifications insofar as GB coinage?) originally examined and certified the coin???? Also, which experts (and what were THEIR qualifications insofar as GB coinage is concerned, especially as this was a re-examination) studied the coin in its second review (the one that prompted PCGS letter standing behind its original attribution????? Calling a duck a swan does not make it one..... A rose is a rose is a rose...... It's up to PCGS now state in open forum exactly what their guarantee will be... For the protection of the OWNER, if he is unable to sell the coin due to this controversy.. And to any potential buyer of this coin, should someone take a chance on the coin and trusting in PCGS stature....... This coin has a significant value, and I;m sure was originally purchased with PCGS's attribution factoring heavily into the transaction....