Bronze & Copper Collector

Neither of my 2 F-268A's appear to have a recut 6..... However 1 of my 4 F-278's have a recut 6 as well as a specimen that I sold awhile back..... and 2 of them appear to have a stub of a previous 1 protruding beneath the last 1 ... see scans... None appear to have a recut R though..... nor a first 1/1

Possible, although the only clear incuse lines are on the bottom 4th. The flaw in the forehead also raises questions as this is obv. 5. Do you have a well struck mint state obv.6 to compare with? I only have an EF and on that piece, although it fits obv. 6 in all other respects there is no sign of incuse lines for the leaf vein at all on the upper leaf of the 4th group. There is however a trace of raised leaf vein - sort of obv.5 3/4 if you see what I mean. There is only a trace of wear to the highest points and none on that leaf, so rubbing isn't the problem. True enough, but I am reasonably sure that this is NOT an Obverse 5 because it does not have the scalloped top middle leaf that EVERY Obverse 5 (flawed or not- I have seen examples of both) that I have seen exhibits, and that I have NEVER seen on any obverse other than an Obverse 5..... (see scan)... Unless of course, this is some interim Obverse 6 variant, that eventually became the obverse 6 in 1861.... I don't have the obverse 6 coin mentioned in Iain Dracotts article for comparison..... It's possible that it is some sort of hybrid obverse spanning the 2 years (1860-1861) I would certainly suspect that this coin is closer to the Obverse 6 than to any other obverse, so given the information available, and the condition of the coin, I think that I would have to classify it as an Obverse 6 (maybe with an asterisk denoting it as a possible minor variant or precurser to the accepted obverse 6) And again, photographs can not substitute for direct examination....

PM left for you..... Thanks

F-542 = 1880 5 & D Bronze Proof----- R-19 1970 Edition...... Both my F-525 and F-527 appear to exhibit this feature.......

I think it is an F-532 It also appeaers to have a recut "T" in farthing....

Another valid reason Rob, and one which I would not dispute either...........

It's possible that they do it on some level to "hook people in"..... However, I think a more important reason that auction houses might underestimate the estimates is that, when the final hammer price far exceeds the estimates, they can claim either "how hot the market is, it's a great time to sell", and also to claim how successful they are at sales/auctions/etc, and that THEY (the auctioneers) are the company that you should use...... There are probably other aspects as well, but this, to me, is one of the most obvious.... Incidentally, I feel that in the DNW sale today, some items went rather cheaply, and others brought a significant premium....... I do note however, that the TRUE CLASSIC RARITIES brought excellent prices.... which is how it should be..... Those are ALWAYS in demand......

I finally got the confirmation.... I was the winner on the one coin that I wanted...... Now to wait for it to arrive.......

There is always the case of the 1963 proof 70 deep cameo slabbed by pcgs that sold for $40,250 in 2004 Heritage http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/v...336&Lot_No=4944 It subseqently developed spotting in the slab and was bought back by PCGS....... It's a HIGH premium for a common coin, just to say you have the finest known specimen... The grading fever can and does get out of hand all too often, but, as I have said before in other threads, certification does have its benefits, especially regarding detection of counterfeits and altered coins, something that occurs too often with rare date US coins, but not as predominent with GB coinage yet... a few dates not withstanding.....

I had emailed the 3 sellers that I knew.... and also contacted ebay directly.... They too contacted ebay...... as of now, fast by ebay standards, the fraudulent seller is not-registered any more... and has no items for sale..... score one for the good guys........

I've emailed ebay with several of the ripped-off links.. AND informed some of the sellers that their pictures had been ripped off and are being used fraudulently...... I doubt that Ebay will do much on my information, but hopefully, after the genuine sellers complain, they will be removed.... Let's see how promptly ebay reacts.... Good rule of thumb: "If it seems to good to be true, it is"...... Caveat Emptor..... Use common sense.....

Not familiar with half crowns (primarily Bronze & Copper), but insofar as regarding overdates/repunches, etc.... But for my 2 cents worth, it certainly has all the appearances of being that variety....

Q. David Bowers once wrote an article regarding exactly that...... Two coins, maybe a grade or so apart... the lower grade having more eye appeal.... He would go for the eye appeal every time... and I would tend to agree......

I would concur with the above assessments....

I Bid on one coin... Am still high bidder on the item.... Bid amount went up though.. So I know there has been at least one other interested party..... Still waiting for finalization........

This is an example of the PENNEY error mentioned above...... Here are the other rarities.... A model penny (F-799) and half penny (F-804) in silver ...

Agreed, It's vital that a collector learns how to properly grade..... To examine the coin and not accept some third party's decision.... I have seen many instances where a lower graded ccoin was more attractive that a coin that was certified at a higher grade.... Eye Appeal is important too..... My point was in the detection of counterfeits and altered coins...... A problem that proliferates here in the US.... I don't think that there are too many instances of phony rare dates around in GB coinage except for maybe the 1905 half crown and coins of that ilk.... Using the 1905 as an example, specifically, thre was a recent post regarding a specimen in one of the forums here as to whether it was genuine or not....That is one instance where a third party service can be of some use.... A collector may be able to GRADE the coin properly, but NOT have the equipment to detect a counterfeit..... The bottom line is, a collector should KNOW his/her coins (or whatever), and use EVERY TOOL at their disposal to make determintions regarding their collections. And a third party service should be considered just that, another tool, to be used if and when necessary, as an supplementary aid to the knowledge that they already have..... (again, the caveat would apply, that the US grading services know more about US coins thann GB coins, especially regarding varieties.... HOWEVER, an counterfeit and/or altered coin is still just that, and they have the tools to make a final determination....) I'll sum up by saying that I still prefer to place the coins in an album (there is nothing quite like viewing an album and seeing that all the holes are filled..... There is a sense off accomplishment about that that is very satisfying), BUT, with the higher prices that US coins command, it becomes necessary to use every tool available to help detect and combat the invasion of counterfeits that exist. The GB collector has fortunately NOT been exposed to that seedier side of numismatics yet, but an informed collector is a smart collector..... Thanks.... Another purpose that slabbing can serve, is to provide a safe INERT environment to store your coins ... This is really only applicable to EXTREMELY HIGH GRADE specimens that are highly subject to the environment......

This is a copy of a post I made in another forum last year with some addtional edits..... It is apropos of this thread..... I am an USA collector of some US coinage and of GB copper and bronze. While I agree that many (most) US collectors are much too caught up in the HIGH NUMERICAL grades (in search of perfection), and paying exhorbitant prices for otherwise common coins, there are some good points about slabbing. I have many low grade RARE coins, that I sent away to be certified by one of the REPUTABLE slabbing services, only because I wanted to use them as a means to protect my investment. Primarily by certifying that the coins in question were GENUINE and not ALTERED or COUNTERFEIT. Most of the scarce and rare dates of USA coins have been counterfeited because of the extreme prices that they are bringing. And, no matter how trained the collector, or how sophisticated he or his equipment may be, the fakes are capable of fooling even the best. The reputable (IMPORTANT) 3rd party services have the best equipment and are trained to catch these spurious specimens (a few do not). Although not perfect, it is still as near to it as you can get, especially when the reputable companies back their services with a guarantee. This is one GOOD reason to use them in some instances, although I too, like the feel of the coin itself. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is a compromise that must be made. To address the issue of errors in attribution, I whole heartedly agree. I have received MANY British Bronze coins that were mis-attributed from ALL the major services. The most common error being the "HONI SO" on Victoria's shoulder being confused with the designers signature. In conversations that I have had with PCGS, NGC, ANACS, PCI, and ICG at different times regarding the mis-attributions, the most common answer I received was "we could not positively confirm the variety". Off the record, they admitted that they did not have enough specialists in British coinage to do the job, and that some of the references that we "collector specialists" used, were NOT "recognized reference books". As comprehensive as Freeman is, there have been new discoveries NOT included within his book. Gouby and Satin, although accepted as Bibles within the community, are not accepted by the 3rd party experts even when documentation was forwarded along with the coins, whereas Freeman and Peck are. Quite possibly, if a 3rd party service were to set up a business in the UK, with the intention of focusing primarily in the coins of GB, then there would most likely be less of a problem with mis-attributions and a wider acceptance of slabbed coinage, at least in certain circumstances. However, when a NON-US coin, especially with an esoteric attribution, is sent to a 3rd party service that specializes in US coinage (as most of their business is generated that way), one should not be too surprised at the level of dissatisfaction involved. Thanks for letting me get this said.....

Thanks for the replies... At least now I have a rough idea of it's value.... I don't collect patterns as a general rule, but I might keep this one as a curiosity......

HI, Can anyone give me an idea of what this coin is worth??? I believe it's a Peck-1083 pattern penny.... I can't find any sales records of it, so I have no idea of what its value might be..... Thanks

If you compare the I's, they both look identical, with the same imperfections... Also, the linear circle about 5-6 teeth before Britt is clearly recut on the original specimen and appears to be the same on the 2nd example... It's not clear in the image, but I think that I can see the same flaw at that point... A clearer image or direct examination would settle the matter as to whether this is the same die or not.....

Hi Gary, Congratulations on finding another R/B half penny..... I think that they are apparently the same, as the top of the R, which looks like it's doubled or such, is actually slightly damaged..... If you look at the R where the apparent doubling occurs, it's NOT the same shape as a normal R, but rather narrower... If you laid the R's on top of each other, I think that they would match perfectly ....... Of course it's impossible to tell with any certainty without direct examination, but that's my first opinion..... Regards

1956 F-474 Obverse CLOSE-UP

1956 F-474 Obverse

1956 F-474 Reverse CLOSE-UP