alfnail

Really love the golden lustre!

That's nice Pete, looks like large date numerals so guessing paired with plain trident, can you confirm plz? I'm still looking for a high grade 1856OT for my own collection.

Thank you Michael, it's yours.

I have a better spare one of these for sale, but need a net £100. Save me bothering with ebay when the clocks go back if anyone is interested.

Yes that's him Pete, well remembered, not so daft. Remember you are a Luminary Poster so you know far more than a Junior Member like me.

The 1898B was also mentioned in the LCA March thread earlier this year, and I posted reference pictures:- I always check for type B when I see an 1898, and I think they are much rarer than a 1 in 14 chance. I do know a collector who put one of these (think EF+ / aUNC) on ebay about a year ago for £400 BIN. He was offered £250 which he didn't accept. Not sure if he still has it, but could ask if anyone wants.

Will do, of course, Richard, and thanks for the comment. I have one in at least GVF, previously shown on this forum, but was surprised to see this one from a dealer who specializes in bronze. I had to look at an 1875 narrow date as well to confirm my thoughts, but was safe in the knowledge that it was an improvement on my 'normal' F72 anyway, so not a massive risk. A good loupe is needed with this variety. Give me a day or two, must add my F21 to your list, will check for others. Jerry Annoyingly that F72 was sold at Hanson’s on 22nd August Lot 116 for its low estimate of £50. I bid on it through Saleroom and had a message returned saying I was the highest bidder only for the auctioneer to not accept my bid even though I am pretty sure she saw it on her screen. I had the video link on and had been watching closely for over an hour to make sure I got my bid in……….pain in the ass but at least pleased it finished up with a serious penny collector like Jerry. https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/hansons/catalogue-id-hanson10084/lot-31ad4583-9aef-4eec-ad9f-a65f0106050a

....and both are 1940's by the way

I attach some exergue line pictures which I believe confirm what Richard has posted, one attached to this post and another to follow on immediately, both from UNC pieces.

Thanks for your comments Jerry. I have just examined all of my pieces in the 1841 to 1849 date range. In my own collection I have 14 coins in the 1841-43 range, all of which have the complete upward tail on the 4’s. As mentioned earlier I have 11 x 1844 of which 4 have complete upward tail and 7 have the plain type I pictured earlier. In the 1845 to 1849 range I have 35 pieces, covering all documented varieties, and it would seem that they all have plain tails to their 4’s, but like the 1844’s they all do seem to have a part of a broken upward tail, to a greater or lesser. I can add some example pictures if anyone wishes to see. So to try to answer your question, ‘yes’ I think there is clear evidence over the period 1845-49 of defective punches being used on all dates. Also, I have never myself seen a complete upward tail on a penny in this date range, so ‘no’ I do not think the complete upper serif returns at some point. It is beginning to look to me like the year 1844 was a transition year after which no puncheons remained which had the complete upward tail, and that the broken punches were then subsequently used throughout the 1840’s. I am, however, not an expert on actual events which could have taken place within the Royal Mint, so wonder whether other members may be able to make better comments. What is the likelihood of several numeral 4 puncheons being made around 1840/1 and then being used throughout the entire 1840-49 date range, with no further puncheons being produced i.e. an acceptance by the RM that the original number 4 puncheons were still satisfactory for years 1844 onwards once they started to break? The cross bar 1854 does not come into this!

Thanks for your reply Matt. It did fleetingly cross my mind that defective puncheons may have been used when the plain tail dies were first made, but I guess I may have mistakenly dismissed that idea thinking that the die makers would not knowingly want to make faulty new dies which had 4’s with the main part of their tails missing. I’m now thinking that may be exactly what happened, and it would certainly explain why I have never seen a piece which exhibits both a plain tail and tails up. Perhaps it was recognised that the very pointed tail of the 4 was always going to be a weak spot, and if they bothered to make a new puncheon then that would soon get damaged too. My findings over the years are that the type with complete tails is far rarer that the plain type.

....and the plain tails 44's

I am currently trawling through my Victorian Penny collection looking for opportunities to thin it down, but without disposing of anything I may later regret. I am currently looking closely at my 1844 pennies, of which I have 11 examples which I have kept up until now due to various die variations. Of these, I have 7 coins which I have categorised as plain tails to the numeral 4’s, and the other 4 coins have both 4’s with their ‘tails up’. I also believe that these 11 specimens cover 8 different date styles when one includes a further detailed analysis of exact numeral locations. Something which I had previously noticed, but have now had the opportunity to examine more closely with a digital microscope, is that all of the coins which I have classed as ‘plain tails’ seem to have the remnants of the upward tail to both their numeral 4’s. I am wondering, therefore, whether all 1844 dies started life with their tails pointing upwards, and that the plain tail ‘variety’ is merely the result of many dies becoming ‘clogged’ through use. If this were the case, however, I think one may expect to find some specimens where the two 44 numerals exhibit the two different tail types, i.e. because one would expect the clogging of the two numerals on at least one die to occur at different times. If members are Victorian Copper Penny enthusiasts then this may be of interest. In that case, perhaps such members could check their own collections to see if they can locate a coin with both tail types. Also, if anyone can think of an alternative explanation I would be grateful if thoughts could be shared. I attach example pictures taken at 100x mag. starting with the ‘tails up’ numeral type. On a further posting, which will follow on immediately due to picture size, there will be 4 examples of the ‘plain tails’ types, where I believe that upward tail remnants can still be seen on all the 4’s. Please note that all 7 of my plain tails coins have remnants, not just these 4 examples…………. I have kept a few obverse duplicates in my collection when paired with different reverses, for example where a single obverse is found to be paired with both the DFF and a non-DFF reverse. I can add higher definition pictures of given numerals if desired!

Thanks for your views on my farthing. I think I may be sorely tempted to part with it for that price as I only really collect Victorian pennies. I just keep one high grade piece for all other denominations and monarchs from George III to Elizabeth II, but guess I could find another high grade more common Victorian farthing to fit the bill. Hhmmm

Yes, I was meaning has anyone seen this on a Freeman Obverse 5 rather than Obverse 2. Interestingly the N/Z reverse is also seen paired with two different Obverse 2 dies, one with the R of BRITT rotated anti-clockwise as described by Bob (same as my F16 Obverse 5) and another with the R just slightly rotated, but this time clockwise as pictured below. This 2nd N/Z Obverse also has several other different repairs e.g. to the R of REG. I think these multiple obverses paired with the rare N/Z reverse may have been previously discussed on the forum.

Found this F16 with a rotated R in BRITT. I have not seen this on any of the 7 examples I have previously owned, anyone else got one of these?

It is believed that coins are often struck using dies from a previous year, but without altering the date. Similar to your 1869/1868 example, in the Victorian Copper Penny series the 1849 is clearly much rarer than an 1848 but the documented figures are 268K and 161K respectively. The best example is the 1852 Royal Mint Parliamentary return of 236K but no one has ever seen an 1852, so presumably those bear a date of 1851.

Lot 2408, is it just me?

Many thanks for feedback on my 1844 Farthing, have just looked myself at past sales on LCA website and see that it does compare well with all their past sales, apart from one which sold for £1400 +BP which is clearly much better

Being a penny collector I don't have a great deal of knowledge on Farthings; just wondered if the Farthing experts could perhaps give me a rough idea of value for this 1844 specimen.

Hi Pete, your post reminded me of the one I bought on ebay a few years back, sold as a group of 4 half pennies (!), bought for £40 and sold the rest for well over that.....so essentially a 'freebie'.......happy hunting

Agreed, prefer coins not to be slabbed, but I have kept just a few CGS graded until now as thought would devalue by removing.......they are now coming out.......and definitely not paying £99 out of principle.

Here is the aforementioned trident flaw, also a close up of the numeral 8. If my coin has a trident flaw which Rob’s doesn’t, but Rob’s has an 8 flaw which mine doesn’t, then by my reckoning that must mean the two coins have been struck from different reverse dies.

Apologies there is a reverse die crack through the right hand prong of the trident, sorry about that.

......and the two Reverse E close ups.....