Mr T

For those interested a new reference book that is available on online has been written about the Jubilee Head Sovereigns. You can see it at http://issuu.com/jammdesign/docs/jubilee_brochure/1

133 years later we can never be sure - in any case, I think where the coin was struck isn't that relevant - it's the absence of a mintmark that makes it a desirable coin. It is possible too there are other no-H die combinations too but so far there have been no examples that prove it (all other no-H coins appear to be worn beyond proper identification or that have the barest traces of a H left).

That sounds about right - I suppose everyone has been too interested in finding a Freeman 192A for so long and didn't give this any more than a second glance.

Do you know its origins? Given that it looks well circulated I'm thinking there may be others out there.

Ah good - I thought I was going crazy because I counted the beads on both a 1927 and 1928 and got 184 both times.

What coin did you count 187 rim denticles on? I've counted the rim denticles on a couple of Freeman C/Gouby d pennies and get 184.

Yes I agree - in any case Freeman 192B is an intriguing piece as the only known example seems to have seen a bit of use. I don't suppose anyone knows the circumstances in which it was found? Was the Heritage coin you mention posted about here?

As jelida said, it's the proto-1927 reverse, not the real 1927 reverse (Freeman didn't distinguish between the two). The four different 1922-dated pennies are: Freeman 192: 3+B/Gouby C+b Freeman 192A: 3+C/Gouby C+c Freeman -: 3+C/Gouby C+d (the proofs for the 1924 proof sets) Freeman 192B: 4+C/Gouby D+d (the one secret santa is referring to, first mentioned at http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/9753-1922-penny-with-1927-reverse-confirmation/?p=125335) I hope I got that all correct!

Not sure how far off it is but apparently it is being written: http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2015/02/morton---eden_s-jeremy-cheek-retires-.html#

I don't have my copy of Freeman available at the moment so I might have things the wrong way around but it looked to me like the I in BRITT on obverse 11 is just to the right of a denticle while it is firmly between denticles on obverse 12, and the : on obverse 11 points between denticles while it points at a denticle on obverse 12. Not sure - it looks like there's a mark where the H should be in your photo. All the same, the Royal Mint would have tried new dies before sending them to Heaton, unless this reverse die was first used in an earlier year.

Never done it but I've seen others post their experiences when they try and more often than not they get fairly rude responses. I do remember someone on another forum saying they'd told a seller they had incorrectly described something and the seller did take the coin down but basically said, I'll take you on your word but if you're lying then bad luck to you.

I'm thinking 11+J - if you look at the photos in Freeman the I in BRITT and the : after BRITT point at different things on obverses 11 and 12 and the image here suggests obverse 11. That said, I think the images in Freeman show a more hooked nose on obverse 11 in spite of obverse 12's description.

As others have said, I'd only let the seller know if I knew them, otherwise it's seller beware. It's tough but if the seller hasn't done their research and hasn't shown due diligence then it's not my job to do it for them. Also, I've had to source all of my books on British predecimal varieties from England (postage and the exchange rate don't help) and if any local sellers don't wish to go the same lengths then that's their problem. Also, anyone who signs up here and asks a question about any coins they have will always get an honest answer, usually within a day.

The weights and measures would have been dictated by law, so the tolerances may well have been too - I believe Acts of Parliament are available online but I don't know if all Acts back to whenever the copper penny was first produced are available. Also, even if you find the tolerances, it would likely be an ideal case - sticking to the tolerances for silver and gold coins would have been much more important.

There's a link to it in a thread on this forum somewhere - I only downloaded it a few months ago myself.

Available here: http://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ.shtml It's a bit slow going tracking down articles of interest though.

I know of no such book that covers all of that in one (but would love to be proved wrong). A New History of the Royal Mint covers mint operations I think (I haven't had a good to read to see what exactly it covers though). There's a Royal Mint annual report from the late 1800s on Google Books but I don't think most of the records are easily available. For varieties there are Michael Gouby's books on pennies, Michael Freeman's book on bronze coinage, Peter Davies' book on silver coins and Michael Marsh's books on half sovereigns and sovereigns, though I think they're probably all out-dated to some degree or other. David Groom has some books on bronze and silver varieties too but they only start from 1900.

Yes I'll see if I can got onto him during the week - unfortunately the halfpennies are a bit unloved and there's no good up-to-date reference with decent pictures (that I know of anyway).

Is https://www.facebook.com/MalLewendon or https://www.facebook.com/malcolm.lewendon the guy? Wasn't sure on the spelling of the surname.

I've had tape across coins before but it's always from someone who doesn't know better (doesn't sell many coins or sells coins even though they're not a collector) so I let it slide. I've never had it across a proof though and that would be pretty annoying.

Is the CD or the articles more up to date?

Was there a symbol for guinea like there is for pound?

Has anyone tried counting the denticles on this coin? I got 158 for the obverse but none of the pictures I can find are good enough to see whether the reverse has 184 or 185 (the denticles on the Heritage photos at http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-george-v-modified-effigy-penny-1926-au-details-altered-surfaces-pcgs-/a/3042-29971.s?ic4=OtherResults-SampleItem-071515%C2'>

No closure once again but I was reading Marsh's The Gold Sovereign and noted that he thought the 1927M sovereign existed, even though both Australian catalogues (McDonalds and Renniks) note that there are no known examples and neither the Bentley Collection, the Hemisphere Collection or the Park House Collection had an example.

So the 1922 proofs use the new reverse? That complicates things further...