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.

Mr T

Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

    1,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by Mr T


  1. 13 hours ago, secret santa said:

    Why would anyone get their coins slabbed by CGS ? Lot 2792 in their last auction was slabbed by CGS  as 1855 P1509 PT when it's blindingly obvious that it's a P1508 Ornamental Trident (with far colon after DEF to confirm it) !!!!! If they get that wrong, what else ????????

    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.


  2. On 24/12/2015 at 3:01 AM, secret santa said:

    I am currently producing a website which I hope will be useful for penny collectors to identify particular varieties. I am trying to bring together Gouby and Freeman varieties in one place with pictures and descriptions, including patterns and proofs.

    I'd appreciate feedback

    Merry Christmas

    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.


  3. 18 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

    Mr T . I see you've left out B+x . can't see why . X rev below Terry

    post-8880-0-91667200-1450797772_thumb.jp

    Yes, I left it out for simplicity as that reverse is only paired with one obverse - no questions or ambiguities there I hope.

     

    11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

    Mr T

    It's not quite right to equate a die combination with a Gouby identifier (e.g. BP1953A)

    Gouby assigns an identifier to each unique variety, i.e.  combination of year, die pairing, variant (currency, proof, overstrike, different metal, flan size, etc etc)

    So, for example, die pairing C+b exists as BP1953P (proof) and should be given a separate identifier such as BP1953Pa for the matt proof (for photographic purposes) which Gouby does not list.

    BP1953M (B+a) is the highly polished proof from the VIP set but I have a (B+a) which is much more like a circulation coin and therefore should have a separate identifier.

    In the same way that 1967 pennies exist as BP1967A (normal issue), BP1967F (heavy flan), BP1967G (brass) and there should be new identifiers for the cupro-nickel strike and the missing waves variety of 1967.

    Thus, we are not sure that BP1953L and BP1953R are the same variety because no-one has compared the 2 side by side. BP1953L is described by Gouby as a matt proof but my BP1953R does not seem to be a proof to me. They are certainly the same die pairing but may not be the same variety.

    Re his mention of B* in his letter - Gouby uses B* to indicate the highly polished version of Obverse B used for the VIP proof coin in his illustrations in "The British Bronze Penny" but does not include it in the list of varieties at the back of the book. If he did, it would be BP1953M (B*+a)  so my (B+a) would still need a separate identifier.

    Hope this is clear.

    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.


  4. 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.


  5. 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?


  6. Yes, I've got a couple of Beirut Victorian gold pieces, 1887 £2 & £5. The most obvious indicator being the off centre die axis, though a deficit of 4 milling lines on the £5 also helps together with missing finer detail. The gold purity is rumoured to be 0.89-0.895, but I haven't had this checked.

    How did you count the edge milling?


  7. just managed to get a close up of the bottom of the 1874 halfpenny. It maybe whats left of an "H" but not sure. Would have thought if the H was worn away so would have part of the rim or base of at least one of the Numerals. There is something there granted.

    Regards

    Brian

    Die fill is another possibility but I think Bernie has resolved it.

    On another point I tried to contact Mal Lewandon via Facebook but have had no reply. Can anyone that knows him ask if he still has the CD's for sale.

    He is registered as Mal on this forum and he replied to my PM but I haven't heard back from him since.

    • Like 1

  8. That Spink coin is a very interesting piece - it's only the second recorded occurrence of a pattern obverse which Gouby now calls C* and has 122 border beads as opposed to the 121 on the currency coin of 1953 and 120 on the normal proof of 1953. I have a specimen which I sent to the Royal Mint for verification and they thought that it was an early strike, probably from 1952 which was never adopted.

    Where does Gouby call it C*?


  9. This one was sold last year as a 'no h' and has good detail, however was on the 12+N pairing. It also went for £1500 so you'd hope the bidder knew what they were doing..

    Still looks to me like there's a very faint and off-centre H under the date.

    Please see citation of US 1922 cent "no D". I guess my point is that besides there being numerous examples with interesting appearances in the location of where the H would be, I have heard of many being summarily dismissed because of the die pairing only - IMO, not good science or logic.

    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.


  10. Interesting to read the report from the Melbourne branch of the Royal Mint where they had a Chinese general visitor who told the mint that shield back sovereigns were far more acceptable in the far east as the St. George reverse showed the dragon, the Chinese symbol in an humiliating positon.

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


  11. Yikes, I know Bernie et al get a bit upset as I say this but I don't see how we can be sure "no H" 1882s were not struck with other die combos. And whether the coin was struck in Heaton without the requisite "H" or London correctly with no mintmark would seem to be somewhat moot unless one attempted to match with metallurgy (even then would be a problem as I recall that planchet blanks derived from different sources). The coin would be a "no H" in either instance.

    If all accepted 1882 "H"s came from one particular die combo, it would seem logically to indicate that those are "no H" specimens but do not preclude another, or even multiple die combination(s) - though it does seem a bit farfetched; the point being that a particular coin or its brethren from the same die are what they are and do not directly exclude other possibilities.

    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).


  12. When I bought it at LCA a few years ago, someone there told me it had been found in a dealer's bowl !!!! So it had been around since issue, probably, and no-one had noticed that it has an ME obverse as well which is the most striking thing about it. So there may well be more.............................

    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.

×