Mr T

I wouldn't rely on the orientation alone as VickySilver says. Otherwise it could pass as a proof, though the cross above the orb on the crown is a little weak. Proof dies being used for currency coins is something that has happened hasn't it? Photos aren't great but maybe. It certainly looks better struck than most.

I seem to remember one of the more recent sovereign collection auction catalogues having some reasonably detailed information, though that only covers back to 1816 I suppose.

I don't get my coins graded by any service but I've always thought that, with regards to attribution and counterfeit detection, PCGS and NGC are probably quite competent when it comes to American coins but should be taken with a grain of salt for anything else. If CGS can't get their home market right then it's not a good look.

Glad to see it back. Some images on https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/victoria-bronze-obverses/ don't work but otherwise it's very useful. Nice work doing all the denticle counting too.

Doesn't seem to have happened again.

Yes, I left it out for simplicity as that reverse is only paired with one obverse - no questions or ambiguities there I hope. Okay I see - my main point of confusion was what die combinations existed, but yes you're right that Gouby's identifiers go beyond just the die combination. Many thanks.

I've been reading a bit lately about all the different types of 1953 penny and this is what I have come up with: 1952 pattern: toothed border on obverse and reverse (F243A) ???: regular proof set obverse and toothed border on reverse (BP 1953 L) ???: beaded border on obverse and toothed border on reverse (F244), from VIP proof set (in all VIP proof sets or just some?) ???: beaded border on obverse and no beads on reverse (BP 1953 N) Specimen set coin: beaded border on obverse and reverse (F245) Regular proof set coin: beaded border on obverse and reverse but obverse is slightly different to specimen set (F246) Is that correct? Are the VIP proof sets a separate thing the regular proof sets or not? And where did BP 1953 L come from? Was it also in proof sets? And have I missed any?

I logged in and noticed that there were a few unread posts that the forum considered read. Maybe that's just a consequence of the migration but I'll see if it happens again.

Okay, then that means the die combinations are: A+a // BP 1953 K B+a // BP 1953 M B+b // BP 1953 A C*+a // BP 1953 L/BP 1953 R C+b // BP 1953 P I've had a read through again and perhaps I've missed it but I'm not sure what the difference between BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R is - is it just the strike/finish, but they are both C*+a? Also, I assume Gouby means B and not B* is his letter.

Actually as I think about this further is the question now whether BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R are the same thing?

So, trying to make sense of all that: Gouby C* is the 122 rim beads. The Spink coin uses obverse C*. Excluding the toothless border there are six varieties - the toothed, the three mules, the regular proof and the specimen. Also, secret santa, you say BP 1953 L and BP 1953 R have the same die combination but they are different in your table. The Spink coin appears to be C*+a (which is what it should be in your table too I think - reverse b would make it not a mule). Also, does the Spink Numismatic Circular shed any light on the origins on these mules?

Do you have a copy of British Silver Coins by Peter J Davies? It says there are varieties of the half-crown, florin and sixpence though they are each listed as unconfirmed. The halfpenny varieties are discussed at http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/2853-unlisted-12d/

Looks like Freeman D to me which I thought was the only reverse used for 1880.

How did you count the edge milling?

Thanks.

Die fill is another possibility but I think Bernie has resolved it. He is registered as Mal on this forum and he replied to my PM but I haven't heard back from him since.

Agreed.

Annals Of The Coinage Of Great Britain And Its Dependencies, Volume 2 is available on Google books: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3tNcAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false I haven't had a good look at it but it looks interesting all the same.

Where does Gouby call it C*?

Thanks secret santa and Nordle.

Did you play around with the contrast or something to count the ones around the top? I kept getting lost and gave up because it wasn't clear what was and wasn't a denticle.

Still looks to me like there's a very faint and off-centre H under the date. I think most people would be open to the idea of another no-H die pairing but the examples that get put forward that don't have the correct die pairing are generally too worn to be conclusive, and given that the H is prone to die fill conclusive proof is really what would be needed.

True, though the denticles look a bit shorter to me (at a glance the Freeman 192A's long denticles are always quite an obvious feature). In any case, I doubt the last page has been written on pennies yet.

secret santa have you tried counting the denticles? Also, half of my previous post seems to have gone missing.

Seems like such a strange concept too to make your money appealing to people in another country altogether. Different time.