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.

alfnail

Sterling Member
  • Content Count

    590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Posts posted by alfnail


  1. Yes, think re-cut F, pretty sure have seen this several times. Similar to the more well known 1841Bramah 2c variety pictured below, although this time the underlying F protrusions are higher. If one looks at enough copper pennies I think repairs to every letter (and numeral) in the legend can be found, although some are far more obvious than others. All the B2c's I have seen also display those faint marks around the DEF Colon, which I believe must to be repairs to both dots......again dot repairs are often seen, although I think perhaps less common. 

    1841 Bramah 2c DEF F Repair.jpg

    • Like 1

  2. When I first became aware of this suggested variety I was a little sceptical that it really could be another ‘inverted die’ mistake. Of course there are several established legend error varieties of this type, for example the V/ Inverted A’s seen on the 1860 penny and 1854 Half Penny, also the rare 1861 overdates 8/6 and 6/8, but the positions and distance of the relevant letters on the 1858 penny seemed to make an F/B mistake less plausible. Also the protrusions of the underlying B on the first picture I saw were not entirely convincing. I decided to hold judgement until I could acquire a high grade example; pictures of this coin are now attached.

    Shot at 120x magnification the top two pictures are the F and B from the actual coin. I have then lassoed (by hand) the bits of B showing under F, highlighted these in yellow, and amended the image in PhotoStudio to 50% transparency……..this is bottom left.  The final stage, bottom right, is an overlay of this picture on top of the B of BRITANIAR.

    It seems to me that the protrusions are a good match, and a strong indication that this is indeed a valid error variety, but I would welcome the views of other members.

    I have only seen a handful of coins struck from this amended die. If Pete has acquired 3 then I think he has done very well. Perhaps once that ‘Victorian Copper Penny’ book is written he will be able to sell his spares at the same price as say an 1861 6/8! :rolleyes:

    1858 F over B in DEF.jpg

    • Like 3

  3. I bought an 1876, sold as without an H, many years ago. I no longer have the coin and disposed of it before I had my digital microscope, but I have located the old image which is now attached. My notes against this coin said that if tilted to the light then a very faded H could still be seen, although the H is not visible on the attachment. Was a low grade and cleaned piece.56ae395db6038_1876NoH.jpg.eae6d246fb275a

    • Like 1

  4. Perhaps Secret Santa is playing games with us all, and the Elf tree is where he grows his ‘wonderland’ pennies.

    I have already sent him my Christmas ‘wish list’ letter, and can’t wait until the big day arrives………..but please no chocolate coins this year………..just your 1843DFF would make me very happy!


  5. I told someone about a rare coin only a few days ago after he had already listed on ebay..........because he is a mate and I wanted to see him get a fair price. If he hadn't been a good friend then I wouldn't have said anything, tried to buy it myself cheaply and sell for a profit.........that's the only way I can afford to buy pieces like the ones selling at the next LCA without upsetting the wife's holiday plans B)


  6. I wasn’t able to attend LCA this month so left a couple of postal bids, and now find that Jerry has nabbed both of them.

    Re. the Gouby 1875Hf which Jerry mentioned, I have seen the double ended ribbon on this date only four times, so think it is quite rare, although difficult to check features on many ebay sales because pictures generally not high enough definition.

    Interestingly this exact same obverse die is also paired with an 1876H wide date, and I believe that variety is far rarer. I wrote to Michael about this back in 2011 and he agreed with me that ”it is more than probable that the obverse die was carried over from 1875 for use with the 1876 wide date penny”……..and I think he planned to include in revised pages to his 2009 book when time permits.


  7. That 1897 is most definitely NOT a Higher Sea Level F148. It's not the first time I have seen slabbed 1897's with this wording. Perhaps because the sea is higher than on the previous 1895/6 reverse this "High Sea Level" wording has been used, but please don't be mislead into thinking this is the rare 1897 F148 variety..........because that will hurt you later.

    I picked up an 1893/2 at LCA a few years back, sold in a group which had been missed, think must be quite an easy one to slip through the net.

    The chap selling the 1863 open 3 has not to my knowledge signed up to Predecimal, he is a very genuine highly recommended ebay seller.


  8. Hi Bob, cracks on the F14 are very interesting.

    Attached are 3 pictures of F14’s all with different reverse die cracks, one of which is the same as your own piece. These cracks are of course mutually exclusive, so this means that there must have been 3 different reverse dies used on this rare variety. I also think that the piece sold by Colin Cooke in the Crocker sale may be yet another F14 reverse, but my reference picture is not high enough grade to be sure. On that coin there seems to be a different flaw running between the ship and a border tooth to the right hand side.

    Did any member happen to buy that coin and can put up pictures to confirm or otherwise?

    post-8122-0-35896500-1449399186_thumb.jp

    post-8122-0-88874200-1449399245_thumb.jp

    post-8122-0-02556600-1449399264_thumb.jp

    • Like 1

  9. Thanks for your best wishes with my sales Bernie, think my F7 may be on a par with the Spinks one, but will probably keep this in my thinned down collection......there are some I am going to struggle to let go, despite the constant ear bashing from my wife about my children never wanting them, so might as well spend the money.......I wonder if this mid (late) life crisis is something that all numismatists have to suffer! :unsure:

    P.S. Learnt how to do intentional smileys now!!

    post-8122-0-48975000-1449301663_thumb.jp

    post-8122-0-67735900-1449301679_thumb.jp


  10. Hi Bernie / Pete, afraid those Spink patterns weren't mine, although I did watch the auction most of the afternoon thinking I may pick up an F7 on the cheap, or at least somewhere near the top estimate. Wish I hadn't wasted my time now as was impinging on 5 o'clock drinks time and then went for about 3x top estimate. I was also interested in Lot 1362, an 1874 without H which seemed to have a spike on top of lighthouse, but somehow talked myself out of that one too....have to set a limit and stick to it.

    I do have an F763 (Gouby A1 + B) in a mid grade, the one with rotated R, which I may part with in an effort to ruthlessly thin down my collection.

    Thanks for your best wishes on the 1863 Die 4 Pete, it has quickly achieved 9 watchers since posting late afternoon, already 1 offer but not quite near enough the mark.


  11. I have an 1855OT Penny with this dot on forehead, picture attached. I will immediately follow on with a close up of the ‘spot’ and also the VICTORIA T repair which I have found on all 4 specimens of this coin which I have ever owned. Bob is correct that there is one for sale at LCA on Sunday, LOT 2792 CGS75 Ex Dr Findlow. I won’t be bidding because I think my piece is better, but will be interesting to see what it now sells for….lol.

    When I gave the additional ‘dot’ examples of 1854, 1858 and 1859 in my earlier post I decided to leave out this 1855 example because of the more irregular shape and I did not want to confuse the issue further; perhaps that was a mistake. Again, on this 1855 I think that a flaw exiting the top of the spot can be seen under higher magnification.

    Whilst I have owned four of these specimens I do not think they are at all common. I have probably looked for it on well over a thousand 1855’s over the years and only ever seen a handful.

    post-8122-0-16885600-1449218188_thumb.jp


  12. Hi Ian, I don’t confess to know much about silver so will need to leave that question for other members to answer; it would be interesting to hear some views. Whilst I have given 4 examples of dots on Copper pennies none of these is often seen. I think the same applies to Bronze Victorian pennies (my other main collection) where the famous 1897 dot penny, and now the 1875 canon ball penny are also seldom seen. Michael Gouby has said (page 92 of his book) that the dot on the 1897 penny was “originally thought to be an identification mark, which has since been discounted”. So, on Victorian pennies this feature seems to be rare, but present, on both Copper and Bronze even though they have different chemistry……...so perhaps it will be the same for silver…….but I have yet to go to ‘the dark side’!!

    • Like 1

  13. My view is that such dots, seen on several of the Victorian copper pennies series, are not intentionally placed in these locations, but rather the result of a ‘foreign body’ like a piece of grit getting on to the die. The minting process then impresses into the die leaving a small dent, generally quite circular in shape but not always……….most things take a circular shape when hammered!

    I think that the resulting effect is often to leave a weak spot (no pun intended) on the die from which subsequent flawing can originate; I think this far more plausible than the dots being deliberately placed in these positions to prevent further cracking, and Brian has already confirmed that on his 1853 OT there is no additional flawing around his dot………...so the dot came first!

    I attach a further picture of an 1858 dot penny (undocumented) where one can more readily see flawing around the dot. Collectors may also be aware of an 1854PT penny with a dot in the field under the first I of VICTORIA, and also an 1859 penny with a dot near to the border teeth above the DEF colon……….these latter two coins under high magnification also show weak flawing around the dot. The 1854 and 1859 have now been categorised as varieties by CGS, although I am not too comfortable about that. Whilst an interesting feature, I do not think they are true varieties because created by fluke of minting process rather than being an intentional or erroneous action of a person.

    post-8122-0-44364600-1449130372_thumb.jp

    • Like 2

  14. I think I have answered my own question!

    It seems that I already have an 1853 Ornamental Trident GRATI.A penny in a bunch of lower grade coins I was going to sell. It has identical date and other obverse features as my dot coin paired with the Plain Trident reverse. Whilst it is lower grade I cannot see any signs of flawing around the dot so that would seem to fit with what one would expect i.e. this obverse die was first used paired with the OT reverse and then subsequently paired with the PT reverse once this latter type of reverse was introduced later in 1853. It would of course still be good if another member could find an 1853OT Dot penny in high grade where any signs of flawing around the dot would be visible if present.

    Still quite interesting I think to discover that in 1853 a single obverse die was used paired with both OT and PT reverse dies.

×