secret santa

One day , when you're famous (or dead) this will be worth a fortune !

Pete, this is a really difficult question to answer. I've found that I concentrate on proceedings so much that I don't really notice who else is bidding, and i don't know many penny collectors by sight. I do know that several major collectors have sold their collections over the last few years and I don't have much of a feel as to who will be competing for these latest coins. I would think that it is the people with extensive collections that WILL be prepared to pay over the odds for the coins that they really want. Bidders should be made to wear their names on their clothes like footballers !

Maybe not - there's a huge range of coins but only a relatively limited audience with presumably limited funds, so collectors will have to be choosy about what they buy. When Laurie Bamford's collection was sold, prices were generally quite low (in my opinion) because of this. There will be some bargains !!!!

I'll just have one last say on the subject as someone with an obsolete Chemistry degree from the sixties. Acetone (dimethyl ketone) is an excellent organic solvent that efficiently dissolves all sorts of organic (carbon-based) matter, which is why it's used as nail varnish remover. When applied to a coin it will dissolve some of the dirt into a solution that must be wiped off, otherwise the acetone will simply and swiftly evaporate (its boiling point is below normal room temperature) and leave the dirt, possibly in a different place. The acetone will not react with the metal content of the coin. Just putting acetone onto the coin and leaving it to evaporate will therefore not achieve anything. But it does aid the removal of surface matter which must be wiped off with a cotton bud or something soft. Rubbing the coin gently with a cotton bud soaked in acetone should remove much grime without scarring the surface. That's the science but everyone will have their beliefs and opinions which must be tolerated - that's life !!

I've been reading this post with interest and have now cleaned some of my pennies with acetone and am very pleased with the results on some of the dirtier ones.

Thanks Rob - I'll go for the set of weights - hopefully they're cheaper than 2 or 3 sovereigns ! Can you suggest a source ?

Sorry Pete - credit to you !

I have weighed my 1967 heavy flan today and my scales registered 13.33 gm whereas it was catalogued at 13.43 gm - take your pick. The diameter is just about 3cm - measured with a school ruler so not over-accurate !

I have a cheap Chinese digital scale (called Professional-Mini) and today I weighed a penny that I bought a while ago and was advertised as weighing 13.43 gm. However, on my scale it weighs 13.33 gm. Is this sort of difference to be expected on different scales or does this suggest that my scales may be inaccurate ? Does anyone know what the most reliable (in terms of weight) modern coin could be used to test the accuracy of my scale ? I don't have anything of reliably known weight to my knowledge.

Yes, it was John who brought it to my attention and supplied the photo. Well spotted Matt. R

It looks like Nj to me but remember that Michael has produced his book from pictures that collectors have sent him and there's no guarantee that between them he's captured every different combination of font and width that was ever produced. I expect that there are more "varieties" to be found and especially with his book prompting collectors to look more closely at their own specimens.

I will dig mine out and measure it and weigh it. It looks like bronze to me and I can't think that the mint had any copper blanks laying around in 1967 ? R

Morning Prax - I am the proud owner of the LCA coin. What would you like to know ? R

Super coin.......

Also, what variety of 1858 penny does this occur on ?

Well done boys, this gives me another variety to look out for and another to list on my varieties website if you're OK with me using your photos ? Richard

Yes, it's a pity that Freeman decided to recognise the 1897 dot as a standalone variety, especially as he didn't uniquely categorise the notorious 1922 "reverse of 1927" or the 1946 "dot" (which he mentioned but did not categorise). Had he left the 1897 dot as a footnote, we'd have more consistency over these random blemishes, recognising them as accidents but still leaving people to collect them if they wish.

The debate on this continues - Gouby believes (as did Laurie Bamford) that specimens without the H are either from a filled die or a very worn die. What we need is a high grade specimen to add to the subject. Anyone got one ?

May I add my own thanks too, Prax. I find it fascinating to know some of the history of the great coins that come to market. It just adds to the joy of collecting. I remember the slender 3 going way beyond my budget and I never knew that an Unc open 3 was lurking behind the scenes. There are always more wonderful specimens to emerge and excite us all. Thanks again.

It's F762 because the reverse is upside down - if it's a normal reverse, it's F761 (both A+a).

Nice coin Prax - only 4 specimens I believe. Has it got upside down reverse ?

Is this waves thing documented anywhere ?

I thought that they only occurred in a very few of the "Martini" or "Heinz" sets but now it seems that they are in some of the standard RM sets as well - but very very rare.

Interesting - another obverse G + partial ONF. I've yet to see an obverse G with full ONF or an obverse H with partial ONF. By the time obverse H (Freeman 5) was introduced, the bottom leg must have completely worn away or been filled.

You won't regret buying this 1926 ME Pete - collectors need the odd beautiful coin to treasure, look at, show off etc. Much better than lying on a beach in the sun for 2 weeks and then coming back to a cold winter and diet a few thousand pounds poorer with nothing to show for it.