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.

1949threepence

Expert Grader
  • Content Count

    5,237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

1949threepence last won the day on August 22

1949threepence had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,257 Excellent

About 1949threepence

  • Rank
    Otherwise known as Mike
  • Birthday 06/16/1978

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Warwickshire
  • Interests
    Wine, women, coins, heritage railways and old black and white British films from the 1940's and 50's.

Recent Profile Visitors

19,130 profile views
  1. 1949threepence

    Had a field day on e bay......

    The $64,000 question, Terry.
  2. Yep, you're right. The one is definitely over a tooth. It just looked at first glance as though the P of Penny was to a gap not a tooth. I need to get me teeth and gaps sorted.
  3. Jon, I know these are a sod to tell apart, but I think that may be a 177 - P of Penny to a gap and colon between GRA and BRITT to a tooth. I hope one of the experts corrects me, I'm wrong, and it's a 175 or 176.
  4. 1949threepence

    Slabbing

    14 years later I know, but I use the same method as the guy in this video
  5. 1949threepence

    Had a field day on e bay......

    Very interesting. This particular variation is noted in the January 1971 edition of Coin Monthly. It's in an article entitled "Coin Varieties - pennies", by A,J.Braybrook, on pages 50 to 53. "1944 light toned, waves clear of exergue, Second 4 points to middle of waves" Here's a photo of the relevant bit:-
  6. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    No problem - this is one difference I recognise immediately.
  7. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    By the way, that's a cracking specimen, Pete.
  8. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    Sounds a plausible explanation, Terry.
  9. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    Definitely a 160, Chris. Here's a 161 - you can see immediately that the E of penny is tilted slightly clockwise and therefore out of alignment with the P. Yours is not:-
  10. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    Sorry, that should of course be upright E of PENNY.
  11. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    With the 160 it's PE - the upright P of penny points to a gap. The 161 is the EN. It has the E turned slightly clockwise, is now over a border tooth, and looks out of alignment with the P. The difference is clearly visible to the naked eye even when the two are not side by side. The scarcity of the 164A in high grade is relatively easily explainable. But with the rest, it's more complex. It may be something to do with the comparative scarcity of two or more year varieties in relation to each other. It might be connected to how many of the year itself have been collected in high grade, in the absence of collector knowledge at the time. If many, then inevitably, by random chance, there will be a few of the scarcer varieties amongst them. But I can't explain the 160 being difficult to find in high grade - it's got a C rating, so it hsouldn't have been as difficult as it was. Maybe it was just my personal experience which was out of kilter.
  12. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    At the end of the day, Blake, it's up to each collector to decide and set their own personal parameters, which may, in each individual case, increase or decrease over time. When I first started collecting pennies seriously, nearly 10 years ago now, I never imagined I would develop such a completist mindset during the intervening period. At that point, I would have said that one decent 1908 (for example) would have been enough. But as my interest deepened, so did the completist side. I suppose if something is worth doing, then it's worth doing well - and you only succeed by relentless pursuit of your ultimate objective. With regard to the different types and their popularity/notoriety, the clincher is what has charisma, and what doesn't. As you say, the 1890 dropped 90, is arguably a type in and of itself. Certainly recognised by Gouby, as we know. But not one which attracts a lot of attention. Conversely the 1934 missing waves, creates a bit more fuss. Moreover, you only have to look at what brings in the big money. Compare and contrast the F90, 1877 narrow date penny with an 1881H Freeman 103. The 103 is probably rarer than the F90, but head to head at auction, we both know the F90 is going to draw in the greater number of punters and get the most money. Probably because it's instantly recognisable. If a die No 1 under date ever does appear, it'll no doubt fetch in excess of £20k. Although maybe there isn't a Die No 1. Perhaps they considered the normal dies to be "No 1" and started at No 2. All very interesting and worthy of discussion.
  13. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    Again, found the 160 surprisingly difficult to get in high grade. 161 very easy.
  14. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    Maybe not, but perhaps the mindset was different then. Besides which, I'd say that if it's an obviously intentional difference, or differences, such the the progression through four types, of the F164, 164A, 165 and 166, then they are distinct types, albeit the differences are slight, but nonetheless recognisable. This surely lends importance. If Peck had discovered and published details of the 164A in 1958, I'd lay odds there's be a lot more around than there currently are. Same with mules where there are obviously incompatible reverse/obverse pairings. There have been enough minted for us to know that the minting was intentional, whether due to a broken obverse/reverse die necessitating the temporary substitution of an out of date die, or other reason. Same again with overstrikes whether intentional as a result of "good housekeeping", or arising from operator error. They are all distinct types which have gained popularity over the decades. Where it starts to get flaky is with tiny unintended differences such as sloping final ones on the 1861 or the far 4 on an 1864 crosslet. Quite a lot of these minor variations around - of interest, but not so much as to warrant separately trying to categorise them.
  15. 1949threepence

    F164a?

    Maybe he did, Richard, but wasn't too enthusiastic about including it as a distinct variety. I've just found this post made by Chris Perkins in August 2015, and quoting Michael Freeman's letter to him. In it, Mr Freeman states (extract):- So we nearly didn't get Reverse I by the sounds, which might have meant F69's and 76's being discovered by someone else - Gouby assigning a different number, perhaps.
×