alfnail

Thanks for the pictures Jerry. Your ‘undoubled’ example of Ka does seem to reinforce that this is a different type of overdate to my Kb examples. Perhaps even more interesting are your middle 3 pictures which seem to not just show the protrusion top left (like an F114 Ma) but also top right too. I think you would be justified claiming this as a new type of F111 requiring documenting, Kc. Your F114 Ma (final picture) is exactly as I have seen myself. It’s interesting that MG says on his page 79 “the only part of the 1 that can be seen, on this example, is the small portion that sticks out centrally, half way up the 2”. I think, however, that the tiny protrusion top left can also be seen in his picture on Page 79 and may even be a clearer identifier than then protrusion halfway up the 2. I attach my own example as confirmation of this type.

Close up pictures would be good Jerry, I'm particularly interested to see your F111 Ka which matches Gouby's book.

Thanks Jerry, I think Richard has as 7 Known; guess this makes it 8

Quite pleased to find this one as a BIN on ebay.

In Bournemouth the moon rises 4 minutes before the full moon, so won't be high enough at our house to get good pics. Maybe someone on East Coast can grab a few good snaps, should look quite big, and brighter than usual as nearer perigee than usual, although not quite a supermoon 🌛

Hoping it's as clear tomorrow as it is tonight🤞

I wanted to dwell on this 1882 Obverse / Reverse pairing, and get some more views. Just to recap:- Gouby has the pairing as 1882Ha (P + p), plus overdate types 1882Ka (P + p) and 1882Kb (P + p) Freeman has the same die pairing as F111 (11 + M), but goes on to say in his footnote 23 that “All specimens of no. 111 believed to be 2/1. Only small sections of the ‘1’ are visible , as it seems to have been partially erased from the die” I have just spent a bit of time checking my previous sales of this die pairing, and find that I have owned 3 examples of Gouby type 1882Kb (P +p). Below are high-definition pictures of the overdates on 2 of these 3 coins, which I believe is an exact match with the small picture bottom right on Page 78 of MG’s book:- The red arrow shows an extra bit of the underneath 1 which I think can sometimes be seen on better examples. Whilst I do not have a high-definition picture of the 3rd piece which I have owned (now sold) I can still see that the bit I have highlighted in yellow (on the Alderley piece) can be seen on all 3 coins, and I feel this is a distinctive / fairly obvious feature of this type. I can also see from my past sales that I have sold many more examples of 1882 (11 + M) which have no evidence of an underlying numeral 1. Bearing in mind that the overdate is, in my opinion, fairly easy to see I am very surprised that Freeman believed there were no examples that did not have the overdate. If he had a number of 1882’s in his sample, with this die pairing, then surely some would not have had the overdate. Gouby, on the other hand, has 1882Ha as Rare and 1882Ka/b as Extremely Rare, which I think reflects my own observations. My second thought on this type is regarding 1882Ka; a full date picture can again be found on Page 78 of Gouby’s book. Whilst Gouby does not show a full date picture of his type 1882Kb I can see by examining my own pieces that the position of the numerals (and H) on my examples of 1882Kb seem to be in identical locations to the example of his 1882Ka. I also notice that the 1882Ka on Page 78 has all numerals (and H) doubled, and that there is additionally some ‘flawing’ between the base of the numeral 2 and the outer curve. This has left me thinking that Ka and Kb may both have been struck from the same die, but that Ka is just struck later after the die has become ‘flawed’, and that this flawing perhaps gives a false impression of a different (second) 2/1 amended die. I have looked at Richard’s ‘englishpennies’ website but see that he does not distinguish between Ka and Kb types. I am wondering if a member a) actually owns the Ka piece pictured in Gouby’s book or b) thinks they may have an example of this Ka variety. Apologies to any member who does not own Gouby’s book for reference!

Gouby says that the 1882Ha is 'Rare', and that the 2/1 variety (same obverse/reverse) is 'Extremely Rare'. I think that pretty much ties in with my own experience. I regularly try to spot 1882 types with fewer reverse teeth on ebay (Gouby's Reverse P), and then try to determine the obverse type if I find the right reverse. Clearly you need a decent ebay picture to have a chance of spotting the 2/1 overdate, which is seen on both Gouby (P+p) F111 and Gouby (R+p) F114..................with the 2/1 on the F114 being particularly difficult to see. I have also seen, and think I have pictures of, 1869's and 1864's with several different date widths.

The 1860/59 clearly has the zero over the narrow date style of numeral 9, as the 'overlay' picture (RHS) below demonstrates; perhaps the same style of numeral 9 was also used for 1858's. Bearing in mind that no 1858 overdates are seen on type without WW, doesn't this imply that it must be a 9/8....... not an 8/9? Several have mentioned 8/9, but wouldn't an over-dated 1859 already have the WW on the truncation?

Hi Mike, I think that it references the protrusion highlighted in the pictures on this thread from January last year. It was when I also thought, like Rob, that the top of the underneath numeral/s looked like a 4. There are also some other high-definition pictures on that thread which may be a useful reference for some members. 1858/3 Penny - British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries - British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

I suspect that Pete has just bought that 1858LRSD Cliff, no doubt he will be able to confirm..... think he almost made the post at same time in the 'coin acquisition of the week' thread.... so I wouldn't spend a lot of time looking for it on ebay or elsewhere.

V over Inverted A is 1860 for penny, and 1854 for half penny

Just been checking my past sales and found one which I had marked as 1875Ax with 5 now over a gap. Think definitely a different date style, also noting that the numerals 7 and 5 seem more distant from exergual line.

Agree that F79 is underrated, quite pleased with my own example.

Nice one Richard, hardly seen any of those!

You have to fight for Party rights.....volume up for this one! Boris Beastie Boy!!

Afraid not Richard, although was sorely tempted. Difficult to justify when trying to thin down my collection.

NGC-PF64BN

Sure, Mike, here it is.

620,000 Yen Hammer on this 1841 penny last week, but when you convert that to approx. £4,000 then it doesn't seem so bad. Would prefer it to my 1839 proof, even though it's a grade higher.

There's a battered 1855 FID 3 colon dots been listed on ebay this morning, as a £10 BIN, if anyone's after one as a filler. coastalcoinsuk

Didn't Dave also get robbed several years ago on his way back from a Midland Coin Fair?

Yes, it was meant to be a play on words!!