1949threepence

Burn marks would be virtually impossible to remove without severely damaging the coin still further. What a pity you didn't discover them before you burnt the sofa ~ you might have made a few quid

There was some wear to the convex shield, which brought the reverse at least, down to EF. Still a very nice coin, nonetheless, with considerable lustre. I'm not surprised it fetched £2560k. Take a look at this one for sale at the online coin website for £3950. Still some slight wear on the shield, much more expensive, and in my view, not as nice as the e bay offering. Here's the image for ease of reference ~ hopefully not too small It brought roughly £1000 more than it was worth because of dishonest selling. The coin was EF or nearly so and called A UNC by the seller. The last high grade example I sold was also bought from London Coins. It was graded by them as A UNC and downgraded by me to GEF with all of the flaws mentioned (so I lost money rather than making a £1000 profit by lying). I'm not surprised it brought £2560 either, I'm f***ing gobsmacked!!!! Lol, remember your reply John when the 1869 sold at over 2k, notice your remark, "dishonest selling"and then the other remark "I'm f***ing gobsmacked!!!! " Now if it wasn't dishonest selling, i wouldn't have been trying to make my point in my 15 posts or so last night Anyway, am done now, until another comes along I did make a point in my post about the example being sold in on line coins for £3950. Doesn't look markedly better than the one on e bay. Slightly more detail, yes. But no lustre. More dishonest selling given that it's on offer for 154% more than the e bay one realised ? I'd say not. I'd also say that 1869 pennies have amazing cache in the already highly prized & charismatic bun penny series, and any halfway decent example is going to fetch a lot of money.

Akmost certainly dipped, the tell tale signs are there. But a fair price for what is in IMO a GVF rather than EF coin. If you chose to re-sell, I don't think you'd lose out in the current market. Incidentally, some of what I take to be Martin's personal collection are shown on Tony Clayton's website. None of them look dipped or in any other way tampered with ~ and he has some really good stuff.

I reckon its a case that the coin design would be backwards on the die, the 6 was due to be repaired, so logically the workers mind may think recut the third digit, when it is actually the second because of the design being reversed....does that make sense Sort of, Colin.....but it's too late at night, and I'm too mentally tired to really think it out properly. I'll take another peek in the morning. Thanks anyway.

I never knew that to be the case, there are certainly some examples where no attempt has been made to fill the previous digit, but others where there does appear to be some effeort at hiding the repair. I always assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the impression of the new digit lead to metal movement that would weaken the image of the underlying digit. This would also explain why a lot of the underlying digits always appear thinner than they would have originally. I also have coins that seem to show that the underlying digit disappears with time, exactly why this occurs I do not understand yet, and still need to really put soem effort into studying it. Glad this question was asked, we may be able to try and put some logic to it Oh and why we are on the subject would anyone like to put any logic to delayed overdates. Why 1865/2 farthings, why no 1863/2 or 1864/2, was it just that they had enough dies for 1863 and 1864 but went a bit short in 1865, or did they find them in the back of a cupboard in 1865 and think, we can utilise those I've often wondered that as well ~ as for the 1862 8 over 6 penny, what's that all about ?

Wasn't there a really good thread about coin photography, somewhere else on the forum ?

Some overstrikes are clear, but that one isn't. You need, and quite reasonably requested, a close up pic of the date, and it seems a bit unintelligent of Cookes to simply send you the existing pic.

Indeed, the 1967 article is an excellent one, and casts more light on the 1882 riddle. Thanks to Bernie for that. I'm leaning more and more towards some sort of trial run at the London Mint made ~ as the article suggests ~ towards the very end of 1882, in anticipation of re-opening.

....and the link to Part 2 is here

If you could do a screenshot of the article and upload it to an image hosting site like Imageshack, it would make a very interesting and historically significant piece to link to, and view in its entirety.

Very interesting debate. In fact both theories sound equally plausible to me. Sadly, we will never know, as all hard evidence has been lost in the mists of time.

Finished at £828 David No last minute bidding there then. It was at £828 for quite some time before the auction ended.

Thanks for the info

I was about to suggest so they could be piled on a vertical hook for temporary storage. But I see the actual answer is there anyway. Incidentally, why a square hole instead of a round one ? @Peckris2 ~ what happened to Peckris1 ? Bring back the old Peckris, I say

How many London Mint 1882 pennies would you say have survived (all grades)? Freeman has them as R17 (16 to 50 in existence). That was in 1985. Given their unique status, there's likely still the same number now, but most of those will be in private collections, which will probably not see the light of day for a very long time, if ever. That includes the prime example Bernie showed us a few weeks back. 16 to 50 is a fairly wide estimated range. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say less than 40. I bet there's maybe 10 which will come up for sale in the next 3 years, say ~ and the sales points could be anywhere. Mind, most of them will be flat discs. Gouby quotes R9 for the 1882 London penny which is "2-9 possibly known". Although he doesn't say exactly how he comes by this estimate I wonder if he doesn't count the flat discs? That is a distinct possibility.

Absolutely. A decent pic of the entire collection(both sides of the coins)would be good, so that we knew exactly what Adam was looking for to complete the collection.

There was some wear to the convex shield, which brought the reverse at least, down to EF. Still a very nice coin, nonetheless, with considerable lustre. I'm not surprised it fetched £2560k. Take a look at this one for sale at the online coin website for £3950. Still some slight wear on the shield, much more expensive, and in my view, not as nice as the e bay offering. Here's the image for ease of reference ~ hopefully not too small It brought roughly £1000 more than it was worth because of dishonest selling. The coin was EF or nearly so and called A UNC by the seller. The last high grade example I sold was also bought from London Coins. It was graded by them as A UNC and downgraded by me to GEF with all of the flaws mentioned (so I lost money rather than making a £1000 profit by lying). I'm not surprised it brought £2560 either, I'm f***ing gobsmacked!!!! You are not the only one John, i wonder how long it is before someone actually realises and wakens up to his WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY OVERGRADING just to make some money. Strangely enough, i was watching the 1869 on my iphone whilst pretending to work really hard, and i could see the initals of the winning bidder at the time, unlike when you use the pc and go into ebay from there. Anyone else have an iphone and the watched auction to check if there's does the same, there's an ebay app for the iphone (free) so you might need to download it and then check from there "Caveat Emptor" definitely applies at the high end of the coins market. Personally, I always do my own grading from the picture given. It may well be that the buyer was totally well aware of the overgrading description, but still wanted the coin. Given the bronze market these days ~ especially for buns ~ I'm still not surprised it fetched £2.5k. It's an attractive lustred coin and compares favourably with the online coin 1869, for which almost £4k is being asked.

There was some wear to the convex shield, which brought the reverse at least, down to EF. Still a very nice coin, nonetheless, with considerable lustre. I'm not surprised it fetched £2560k. Take a look at this one for sale at the online coin website for £3950. Still some slight wear on the shield, much more expensive, and in my view, not as nice as the e bay offering. Here's the image for ease of reference ~ hopefully not too small

Nor me. Although given the obviously limited run, I'd say it only one or two die pairs is more probable than not. We just don't know, do we

There's definitely an impeccable logic in suggesting that high grade London Mint 1882's will indeed, be rarer than 1933's. Something probably not often thought about.

How many London Mint 1882 pennies would you say have survived (all grades)? Freeman has them as R17 (16 to 50 in existence). That was in 1985. Given their unique status, there's likely still the same number now, but most of those will be in private collections, which will probably not see the light of day for a very long time, if ever. That includes the prime example Bernie showed us a few weeks back. 16 to 50 is a fairly wide estimated range. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say less than 40. I bet there's maybe 10 which will come up for sale in the next 3 years, say ~ and the sales points could be anywhere. Mind, most of them will be flat discs.

Wankers with leveraged positions trading money that doesn't exist in some kind of 'game' that no-one fully understands. That's about the size of it. Doesn't it piss you off intensely that a few bloated, up themselves, individuals have so much unmitigated power I just found a brilliant summation of the argument against the cuts! Here is the link (it says it all much more logically, fluently and coherently than I could ever hope to) : http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/there-is-an-alternative-the-case-against-cuts-in-public-spending.cfm Good summation, although I do take on board some of Rob's arguments as well. There are certain moves which might lead a cynical person to believe that the government is not being entirely truthful with us. For example, the news last night that a "universal pension" of up to £140 per week, irrespective of National Insurance contributions, being dangled as a carrot. Apparently this won't get going until after the next election, which, assuming the coalition doesn't fall apart before then, will be 2015. Note the operative phrase: after the next election. What a transparently blatant attempt to scoop the grey, female and baby boomer vote in one fell swoop. Or am I the only one to think this cynically ? Yes it came from Vince cable, but he's only acting as Cameron and Osborne's puppet. The money's there when they want it to be, Peck. Either that or they're lying.

Wankers with leveraged positions trading money that doesn't exist in some kind of 'game' that no-one fully understands. That's about the size of it. Doesn't it piss you off intensely that a few bloated, up themselves, individuals have so much unmitigated power

Not good, but at least better than that strange lightweight material they used to use for East German D marks.

Someone must have thought it to be an 1882, it sold for 230 quid Easy to tool such a deception as well. Just file off the "H"