Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Bronze & Copper Collector

Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

    1,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by Bronze & Copper Collector


  1. If my memory serves me correctly the following would probably provide the most plausible explanation.

    I seem to recall reading about copies of coins made for jewelry purposes that were of the proper gold content. They were adequate for the purpose of the wearer but would not fool a collector or dealer.

    If you placed them side by side and examined them you could and would see the difference. However, if you simply did a gold content test they would match. Oftentimes they would be bought alongside genuine coins for melt.

    I have seen bracelets and necklaces with these type copies. They included  British sovereigns, US $20 & $10 (necklaces), and $5 & $2 1/2 (bracelets,  cufflinks  & rings. Also Austrian 20 (not sure of the denomination) Ducats,, French 20 Francs, and Mexican 50 Pesos.

     

    • Like 2

  2. 7 hours ago, scott said:

    been dabbling on and off, not bought much recenly, and forgot about the site for a long time, found plenty of exciting things, not bought much in the past 12 months (few edward Ist), have been going through variants or my pennies, and decided to see if I could tick a few off, was looking for 1908s... and found a 8 coin worn penny lot on ebay.... and landed this instead

    1909s.JPG

    Well Done


  3. 10 hours ago, secret santa said:

    Ah yes, I hadn't recalled that or even seen it when looking through it last night - I bow to your superior knowledge, Gary 😡

    Don't necessarily blame yourself Richard. I was using what I believe to be the 3rd and final edition from 2003.  I don't know what edition that you have. I don't think that particular information was in the earlier editions from 1999 and 2001. At least I looked fast in the 2001 edition but couldn't find it. Of course it was late and I was tired, so I could have missed it.

    Screenshot_20220612-033633_Adobe Acrobat.jpg


  4. 52 minutes ago, secret santa said:

    I can only find a mention of an 1862 penny on page 31 which he describes as "as for Number 38" with 2 struck over 1, and which "should be included as Satin 38A", but none of the 1862 2 over 1 examples that I've seen are the F38 die pairing. I'm not sure that John is correct here.

    Or have I missed something ?

    I don't have the book with me right now, but I'm referring to the S-38 (F-38) obverse 2, reverse g.  Throughout the book, he lists (current information at the time it was published), known specimens,  known die pairings, finest known, estimated values, etc.

    When I get home I'll try to post an image.


  5. I'll defer to those better acquainted with the series and its intricacies.

    However, although it defies conventional wisdom and logic, to me at least, it looks most like a 8/9.

    Much as Bramah states (in extrapolation), the most likely source of the line to the right between the upper and lower loops of the 8 would be an underlying 9.  The knob within the lower loop on the left side, although potentially from either a 3 or a 5, could also be from a 9. The slight curved line within the upper loop lower right side, could be from a 3, but also and to me, more likely a 9.

    A strange conundrum to have an earlier year recut over a later year, yet not impossible.

    When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.


  6. 23 minutes ago, jelida said:

    The problem is that there is no sure way to differentiate between an inverted V and die fill of the crossbar of the ‘A’.  We often see impaired bars to the letters E, F for example and accept them for what they are, but if the same happens to the bar of the ‘A’  we see it as an overstrike. There is no way of knowing, excepting that perhaps in a very high grade coin a microscope might show an undeniably formed edge where the bar should be. Otherwise it’s wishful thinking. I know, I do it too.

    Jerry

    Agreed.

    The only reason I mentioned the A was because, if I did not, someone else would almost be sure to mention the weak/missing crossbar, perhaps thinking that I had missed it.

    My primary enquiry was regarding whether or not the repunched R & I were previously known.


  7. 29 minutes ago, secret santa said:

    I have in my own collection a similar example regarding the A/V. I have described it as follows:

    there is a clear and sharp but very thin crossbar to the A, possibly as a result of the A being repaired with an overstruck inverted V punch, leaving the the faintest but sharp remains of the crossbar, similar to the residual 8 of the 1861 F30 6 over 8 (see below under 1861 F30). The cross bar is barely visible in the above photograph but clearly and sharply visible at an angle under a magnifying glass. 

    1934385356_1860F10invVzoom.JPG.a3b7d4f0ca525401289816bf8911e734.JPG

    Hi Richard,

    Is yours also on an F-10? Asking because I don't see the repunched R or I.

     


  8. I'm not sure if this has been reported before.

    An 1860 F-10 penny with a repunched R & I in VICTORIA.  Second punch on both is at a slight angle to the first.

    Additionally, in the image, it appears that the A in VICTORIA is an inverted V. I believe that to be a false impression of the photography. Quite candidly though, I can't really tell if the crossbar of the A is just crud, very faint, or actually missing.

    Pictures to follow.

    Your thoughts and opinions please.

     

    1860 F-10 R over R, I over I     OBVERSE reduced.jpg

    • Like 1

  9. I am posting close-ups of the back of Victoria's head and of the base of her bust.

    On both specimens there is s distinct gap between the back of Victoria's head and the B of Britt, thereby precluding it being an obverse 6.

    Upon examining the base of Victoria's bust, I see no trace of LC WYON appearing in any position which would indicate either obverse 2, 3, or 4.  Ergo, by eliminating the other obverses and by having the space where it would be without exhibiting the signature, I would determine both coins to be an obverse 5. 

    Coin 1, behind Victoria's head

    Coin-01  close-up behind head.jpg


  10. 5 minutes ago, secret santa said:

    You sold me this penny  as probably the first suggestion of the existence of the F27. You'll see that the top of the gap between helmet plume and head is very narrow and appears to me to be smaller than your examples. But it's a brave man that makes a firm decision.

     

    1704788832_1861F27rev.thumb.JPG.2589c5072b29054a35bd5a153bf1b5c7.JPG

    I remember that coin Richard. It was sold to me by Laurie Bamford, with the tickets from the Freeman auction as Michael Freemans F-27. THAT coin I'm sure of.

    In rexamining my posting, I'm now leaning toward the 2nd coin being more of a possibility of being a reverse F with the narrow gap. I'm a little more hesitant with the first coin now.  At least I have an undisputable F-27 in my collection.

    I'm just re-reviewing coins I put aside a long time ago as possibles. Still learning, still searching for varieties, and still looking for an F-19 (among others)

     

    • Like 1
×