|
|
The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com |
|
|
Coinpublications.com
Predecimal.com
Bronze & Copper Collector
-
Content Count
1,369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Posts posted by Bronze & Copper Collector
-
-
What is the grade of this coin and it ha a verdegris its okay to cleaned it soak i mineral oil.
is this a normal 1962 penny?What is the grade of this coin.its okay to soak it in mineral water verdegris on it, Bought it one euro no harm on cleaning it.
Normal 1862.....
-
Anyone got any ideas of the value please ?
It looks like an F-282 7 & G ... the most common of the 1861's, and damaged....
not too much value in it.....
-
It continues to amaze me how much is unrecorded on coin varieties, considering the time periods involved. I know there are people who question the definition of a variety, but these are all obviously from different dies or at different stages in the life of a die.This information obviously appeals to some collectors (myself included!!) and should therefore in my mind be investigated and recorded. I believe if Peck would have had the time he would have explored such variations, and comments in his publication confirm this, I know Colin Cooke always intended to do the same with farthings, but in all denominations it will be a massive undertaking.
Thanks for sharing!!
These are consider minor varieties compared with something that I just posted in confirmed unrecorded varieties... An 1861 Half Penny, Obverse 6, Reverse F, unrecorded in Freeman, although acknowledged by Iain Dracott....
-
Here is a specimen of an 1861 Half-Penny, Obverse 6, Reverse F... Unrecorded in Freeman, ackowledged by Iain Dracott as having only known of one specimen.... Here is confirmation.....
Double incuse lines and more of the O of HONI SO visible......
The coin is Red-Brown... Digital images reflected off the slab. so I had to scan it for the best detail, although it dulls the color a bit...
-
1
-
-
Wow B&CC. The extent of your collection never ceases to amaze me.Thank You.....
-
1861 1/1 F-276 6 & E First 1 over higher 1
1861 1/1 F-279 7 & F Last 1 over Lower 1
1861 1/1 F-277 6 & G First 1 over higher 1
1861 1/1 F-282 7 & G Last 1 over HIGHER 1
1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 1) Each of these are different
1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 2) Each of these are different
1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 3) Each of these are different
-
These are the different 1/1's that I have.... I also have some 6/6's etc..... I can probably find images of these when I get the chance....
1861 1/1 F-276 6 & E First 1 over higher 1
1861 1/1 F-277 6 & G First 1 over higher 1
1861 1/1 F-279 7 & F Last 1 over Lower 1
1861 1/1 F-282 7 & G Last 1 over HIGHER 1
1861 1/1 F-282 7 & G Last 1 over LOWER 1
1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 1) Each of these are different
1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 2) Each of these are different
1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 3) Each of these are different
-
1861 halfpenny 1 over lower 1 in date? Can anyone please help me confirm this please?
I know of an F-282 1 over lower 1........
several other 1/1's also, first 1, last 1, depends on the variety.....
I can post a list of what I have when I get in front of my desktop.....
-
-
Update on the coin in question:
I received a phone call from the owner of the coin today.... They received the coin back from PCGS after having resubmitting it for reevaluation of the attribution.
PCGS CONFIRMED their original attribution of this coin and maintains that this coin IS a TB/BB MULE.
Although many users of this forum disagree with this attribution, including myself, I am the only one who has actually viewed the coin and is most qualified to speak against it.
It is the owners position that he took the necessary steps to correct a possible error on PCGS's part, and was very gracious in accepting the criticism heaped upon the coin. I can not and do not disagree with this. I therefore understand and accept the owners request that, when the coin is relisted at auction, since he did take the necessary corrective action, that NO more disparaging comments be made in OPEN forum regarding this coin. Also that any such acts of posting in an OPEN forum and belittling the coin will be treated as slanderous statements and will be reported to the proper authorities....
At this point he feels that any comments made against the coin should be directed toward PCGS, who at this juncture, have now examined the coin twice and arrived at the same conclusion..
As for myself, I am just posting this to keep the forum members abreast of the latest news in this saga. I did purchase the coin and return it as I was not convinced of the attribution, am content that the seller more than extended himself in sending it back to PCGS, and believe that the onus is now upon PCGS to make things right if it should ultimately prove that we were correct.
-
Thanks guys,I have emailed Michael Freeman hopefully he can shed some more light on it.
Excellent idea.... He can refer to his original notes.....
-
Footnote 11 in Freeman, lists the thickness as 2.25 mm..... No weight given.....
-
Hi BCC,I received it today those are my pictures posted (sorry they aren't perfect just abit rushed tonight). It definitely is on a thicker planchet than normal and weighs 5.91 grams which is over weight (Freeman does not mention what F327 should weigh?). It is just about as thich as a young head half penny.
What I need to ascertain now is whether it is a reverse M or K. If it is K which my initial hunch points to then it is either unlisted or a thick planchet error.
Freeman lists the thick planchet as 2.25 mm thick....
(Maybe I passed on a good buy???.. It happens).....
-
Hi all I recently picked up a thick flan 1876 H Half Penny, which I presume is Freeman 327 R18. The strange thing is that the date doesn’t seem to be as narrow as it should be i.e. reverse M. If you look at the picture in the book the top sheriff of the 6 is in line with the leftmost fold in Britannia's dress. On my coin it is in line with the second from the left, also I can't see any signs of a sandal on her foot. Could it be reverse K? Any thoughts, I haven't had much time to research it yet.Pic 2 weight.
pic 3 date.
HI Hussulo,
I had watched the coin on ebay but had my doubts..... I had meant to email you about the coin to see whether it WAS a thick planchet...... Please keep me posted......
-
No, there is no "easy" way to tell. I have Freeman and think I understand the difference but could not swear to it as per RBC above.With the following information, you can easily prove that a specimen is NOT a true NO H, or, with a bit more research, prove that one is an F-112.......
Quoted from Tony Clayton's very informative website...... http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/penny.html
(My comment: it would help to have both obverses to compare as you relate to the information below........ Both reverses too, if you're not familiar with those either)
"The 1882 penny without mintmark is particularly rare (and not in Peck), but watch for worn coins where the mintmark has been worn away. A variety with the bar missing from the H is known. The following is a description of how to tell a genuine 1882 no H from an 1882H penny, as kindly related by the Penny specialist Bernie:
The identifiable features of the genuine non "H" 1882 penny are a flat shield on the reverse, NOT convex. Victoria has an apparent hooked nose, caused by a weak die strike in the area of the eyeball. The "R" and the "I" in "BRITT" should not be joined; a very small space should be visible with a magnifier. There is a tuft of hair protruding from the back of the neck, left of the ribbon knot. This tuft of hair is always visible on very worn specimens. The "H" variety can be clarified by examining the space encapsulated by the inner ribbon, as if the uppermost section forms a point in this triangulated section, then it is the common variety. The rare non "H" does not terminate in a point because of the tuft of hair mentioned above.
I should add that there are two types of obverse and reverse for 1882H pennies, and that the 1882 No H penny has the less common types - having these characteristics does not ensure that it is a No H, but having the characteristics of the other types confirms that there was an H even if worn away. "
-
No doubt about the availability of the '82 H and varieties, but still I would think of this as not being just a rare variety but a distinct issue from the mother mint - just check to see (and the comparison is NOT fair) what a red uncirculated full lustre 1909 S VDB cent would go for in comparison to an ordinary 1909 cent! Also, the 1918 and 1919 KN, and to a lesser extent the "H" issues command very high premiums in the better grades when compared to their Royal mint issues of those years.I guess it just seems illogical.
Possibly also because any purported 1882 NO H (F-112) pennies are NOT.... I believe 2 were sold recently.... I have EXTREME doubts about the one, and am not convinced on the other........ Mine is well worn (and acquired from an unimpeachable source), yet identifiable using the diagnostics listed on Tony Clayton's website.... (an explanation of what to look for from Freeman & Gouby, which can easily eliminate the "pretenders" and help confirm genuine specimens.....) a few years back, a major auction firm sold a purported 1882 no H that even the consignor did not believe to be that variety and when I requested and examined images, it was obvious it was NOT an F-112.....
Potential buyers may be VERY hesitant to purchase a coin in low grade for a large amount of money, regardless of how rare it is, because they are not sure that it is that variety.......
Despite the results of the Bamford sale, I'm sure that if a SUPERB QUALITY specimen became available, it would command the premium that it deserves (relative to the series, not in comparison to the same rarity in US coins.... an issue that enables to to own many of the classic rarities in the Bronze series, and is slowly resolving itself)
-
Does anyone posting to this forum have a good picture showing the 6 over 8 overstrike for an 1861 ½d? Having never seen one, I'd like to know what the features are to help ID a piece being posted on the CU forum. Thank you in advance.Just the pictures of the 6/6 that I posted on CU....... As I said, to the best of my knowlege, the 6/8 is actually a 6 over higher 6....... which looks similar to the 6/8 F-30 penny, but is not the same.......
-
-
According to Iain Dracott's definitive article on Victorian Bunhead HalfPennies.... He mentions for 1870, 1871, and 1873, that "some have wider dates"........
-
The F-17 in higher grades are very difficult to find and command a large premium......
It just occurred to me that there may be a reason for this coin being fairly common in low grade but pretty rare in say EF and above. Quite simply, a new coinage was launched in 1860 and many people who were not naturally coin collectors put examples aside. Given that this variety would in all probability not have hit the streets until 1861, most 'keepsake' coins would already have been happily sitting in drawers. It is also extremely unlikely that collectors of the time were that interested in such esoteric varieties, and hence F17 became quite scarce in the higher grades.
-
Off the top of my head, I think I have somewhere between 5-8 of them... not counting another 8 or so that I have disposed of already...... MOSTLY LOW GRADE THOUGH...
The F-17 in higher grades are very difficult to find and command a large premium......
-
Yes...
The son definitely follows in his father's footsteps.... He was a highly respected coin dealer when he was in business
-
The coin in question has been returned.... and a full refund issued....
We will be informed of future developments in the investigation of what this actually is....
I'd like to thank everyone for their input and commend the seller for his integrity and forthrightness in this transaction.......
-
Latest Update....
I have been in conversation with both the seller and the owner of the coin, and it has been shipped back to him today..... Amongst the reasons given for my doubt were the following.....
1: The rock formation to the left of the lighthouse is as on the toothed border, not as on the beaded border....
2: The Beads (?) are closer to the rim than on beaded border, very much like a toothed border.... touching in some areas, indicative od a toothed border........
3: The Beads (?) seem a trifle thicker that beads, more like teeth......
4: The 0 in 1860 is touching the linear circle, which it does not do in any known specimen of the mule.....
5: It appears to be an obverse 3, not am obverse 2....
The owner will do further investigation and follow-up studies on the coin, and will keep us informed of the progress and any ultimate determination.....
New Purchase
in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Posted
An IMPRESSIVE error.....