Prax

Thanks Richard. Interesting, I did not know this coin had been identified in the 80s. Until the Andy Scott sale I assumed all the mules came from (VIP) proof sets and when I noticed that there was a currency mule I immediately thought that it was a new discovery.

Indeed Pete

Thanks for your PM. I am just posting my reply here for the benefit of all. Wow Richard I did not know another existed congrats on your 1953 and the discovery. I should edit my post to state “helped identify the second 1953 mule” . I am not sure who owns the mule but I know someone that does - Bernie. As far as the history is concerned - I was at Spink on viewing day, as you know once a coin reaches Spink they put it inside one of those plastic envelopes which inhibits (to skin) inspection/handling of the coin. I made a request to Edouard at Spink and had the coin examined. From having handled quite a few proofs in the past I sensed that this coin was not a proof let alone a VIP proof as stated by Spink. I immediately spoke to some of the penny boys about what I had just found including Steve Garr (an Icelandic collector of pennies), Jack (collector from Bagshot) and a few others. Surprisingly on auction day it was Emily bidding against me till the coin reached £2k+ and then it was him against a commission bid. The 1953 mule was the last lot and he too had exhausted his funds (after bagging most of the important coins like the 1860 mule) so the coin went to the bidder on the book. After reaching home I spoke to the usual penny boys and they all seemed surprised that a 1953 mule existed as a currency piece. Then somehow Bernie got involved in the mix and he found out who the buyer was and had the coin inspected. Bernie too thought it was a currency issue. The coin was in UNC grade and would fetch a MS 63 BN through PCGS but it had a small verdigris spot at 9 o clock. The reason I say it was currency issue is because not only did the coin lack sharp rims, mirror finish and clear details but also it was in high grade. Had the coin been an impaired proof it definitely would have retained its mirror finish considering there was hardly any wear. To me it was clear as day that the coin was a currency issue. I hope this helps.

Rob, I see your point that a completionist would collect all types including proofs, yet though we (penny collectors) call ourselves completionists we spend a lot more on (variant) washers than we do on proofs; so you infer that cost is not a factor. I believe that it is the money saved on not splashing at proofs, which drives the value of minor variants to Jupiter. Further you must also consider that most penny collectors go through many thousands (on an average I go through 300 pennies every week apart from regularly scrolling through ebay listings) of coins during their collecting lifespan. I wouldn’t say someone collecting sovereigns or halfcrowns would go through the same volume of coins as a penny collector. The time spent on digging through countless coins in the pursuit of stumbling upon a scare variant or to find something that hasn’t been recorded as yet is the fun part of collecting pennies. Even after memorising volumes of material I have found that new varieties keep shoiwng up and to talk to fellow lunatics about your new discovery over a drink is a MASTERCARD experience - priceless. Personally I have had the pleasure of unearthing the second known slender 3, the first known VIGTORIA and bringing to the notice of the community that the Andy Scot 1953 mule was not a proof but a currency issue (which to date remains the only known currency specimen) amongst making many other minor contributions to the community. The bottom line is most would be happy to acquire a proof coin for the price of an unc version but I feel the obsession with proofs stops there. Again this is why the 1951 proof is cheaper than the currency version in UNC. That said I am guilty of bidding (though my top bid was just slightly over half of what the coin realised ) on the 1933 Baldwin pattern (see we do make exceptions)

As a collector of currency issues pennies only, here's why I shy away from proofs. There are far too many scarce years and types within the penny series that can keep one so busy for a lifetime that the presence of proofs is best seen as a nuisance. Further unlike Silver and Gold, Copper and Bronze coins react pretty much with anything and lose their mint state. So to find something that has beaten the odds to survive in good nick is something I (personally) find fascinating. Consequently the tendency is to go for the currency issue because out of many thousands a handful have survived in decent grade as opposed to the 3 or 4 proofs made for the same year that are all probably still fine and dandy after spending time in a safe somewhere. This is possibly why proofs of some years are less expensive than the corresponding currency issues (think 1950, 1951, 1953 etc). I recently came across an 1895 2mm proof that sold for lot less than an 1895 2mm currency version in unc. Further most penny collectors are obsessed with varieties, one of every type is better than the sharpest or shiniest and this obsession feeds into the next generation automatically or the minute one unwittingly obtain a scarce variety. The joys of Penny collecting .....

........... and so it begins http://colincooke.com/collections/copthornecollection.html

Very scarce in that grade 78/80/82?

Sums up EU. I love Europe but would love for us to take our own decisions (or to make our own mistakes).

I suppose another word for currency issue.

Was commenting on coin strikes in another thread and I thought of posting something about the strange 1876H penny from the Elstree Collection (lot 2431). The coin had a mirrorlike finish but also had a dig by the second 'N' of Penny. I am curious to find out if this was really a specimen strike; if so I can't see why someone would try a specimen strike on a flawed flan (especially when you consider proofs are not noted for this date as far as I know). The other possibility is that it was indeed a specimen strike that was disfigured post strike. The final possibility being the coin is a genuine early currency strike, then again the flaw is most certainly post strike, considering the rest of the coin is in mint state why would anyone mess about with just one area of the coin? Was the mint testing the metallic composition, if so they could have done that prior to striking the coin? Another reason I suspect the flaw happened post strike is - if you look at the lower part of the N you will notice that it is cleanly struck even though the metal underneath had been scooped out, if the flaw existed prior to the strike then the N would not have been cleanly struck as the striking would have caused the metal to bend inwards around the flaw. Further the flaw was certainly not a lamination problem but a clear deliberate scoop of the metal post strike (from what I inferred). It was one to study carefully but at £600 I lost interest and because I did not have my microscope to hand while inspecting the coin I could not study the coin as much as I would have loved. The flaw was irregular in shape and depth of the dig was uneven. If he owner of the coin is on the forum I would very much want to hear his views or the views of anyone who closely examined the coin or from someone who has seen a similar flaw elsewhere.

All the very best with the sale.

They generally have a much better finish. Another thing with most VIP proofs (not all VIP proofs) is that they are made from sandblasted dies this gives the coins a Matt finish, which shows the coin's details in much lucid fashion. You might want to compare the 1953 VIP proofs to normal 1953 proofs to see the difference. I would recommend looking at the 1953 (because this is one year for which all strikes are fairly easy to obtain and compare) hapenny and six pence coins. Its best to see a few of these in hand as it helps you identify a strike accurately. On the 1953 proofs look at the bridge of the nose on the obverses and you will notice far more detail on the VIP proofs. However kindly note the most of the 1953 VIP proofs are not struck from sand blasted dies. Here's one that was http://londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=146&l=3414&f=o&s=l. Some of the VIP proofs also came in specially designed boxes. Based on the strike you can (broadly) classify coins as currency issues trial strikes specimen strikes proofs VIP proofs Matte proofs Patterns ? (possibly not but there are some 1860 beaded border pennies that I would add to the patterns lsit)

Gary, I have handled only 2 1909 dot specimens and they were both similar to your Specimen 1. However I must also highlight that I have come across many 1897 dot specimens. In most cases the dots are small specs almost between the O and N. However I have noticed that on some specimens the flaw is quite large (as the dot grows in size the positioning also moves closer to the top of O)

I agree Pete; I got mine for £1600 so not much fat there between mine and the coin in question. However if it were not for my 1871 I would have definitely bid. The 4 flaws I mentioned would missed the average collector’s eye, but then the average collector is not going to look for a choice 1871; so your point is well taken.

I was in Croydon Coin Auctions today and wanted to let anyone interested know that they had a nice 1871 penny for sale. CCA had listed the coin as UNC and prooflike. As far as I know the coin did not sell and had a reserve of £1200. I have to stress that I won’t give it an UNC grade because I noted 4 minor problems with the coin. 2 minor verdigris spots on the reverse one of which could amount to minor surface corrosion Minor bag marks Minor edge cut at 1 o clock And minor rub or a weak strike on the obverse especially by the rose and on the front wreath leaves Other than that the coin was a beauty I am sure it may be available for £1000, who knows. I have a better specimen and I am saving up for the 2 big auctions in May, so I did not bid but it is not a bad coin for £1200 and I would definitely recommend viewing the coin if 1871 is a date you are after. I have to admit that in my years of collecting I haven’t seen many better grade (save 2 or 3) 1871 pennies myself.

Bob you will find the info on Richard's site https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/victoria-bronze-obverses/ There is a difference in the number of teeth but the core is on Obv 2 the A of VICTORIA points to a gap whereas on 2* it points to a tooth. Jerry did I miss something there? Does that mean that a N over sideways N 1860 has been spotted with a 2* Obv?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/311208529997?limghlpsr=true&hlpv=2&ops=true&viphx=1&hlpht=true&lpid=122&chn=ps&googleloc=9045912&poi=&campaignid=207297426&device=c&adgroupid=13585920426&rlsatarget=aud-133395220626%3Apla-131843277666&adtype=pla&crdt=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff14=122 I prefer these especially with the dark rings that keep the coins still within their capsules. They are also acid free.

Contagious - and I thought such things happened only with me. Don't know how I managed multiple insertions of the same pic.

That's what I would call a true rarity. Nice coin Matt.

The Gouby book recommends that there's little point looking at date spacing as far as the pre 1866 pennies are concerned. I have spoken to both Mr Gouby and Mr Freeman and both have said that this is because there are far too many combinations as far as the pre 1866 reverses are concerned. I have also looked at the 5 rev f pennies in my possession of which 3 have normally placed dates. One has narrow date spacing and 1 has a widely spaced date with a lower trailing one (I have attached this pic for you to look at, I would like to highlight however that there are just 13 teeth between the two 1s in my example but 14 in yours). Hope this is of some use.

Looks like your son works in IT or he plays the markets. In the IT industry so long as the job gets done and one is contactable between 9:30 to 16:00 hrs UK time, no one cares. My wife, who also works in IT, and I made the best use of time (between 2002 and 2010) to see the world, we would be working from Nepal one day and from Thailand the next. After that owing to childcare responsibilities we are restricted to just 3 or 4 scheduled holidays a year, which have to coincide with my son’s school hols. This means we can no longer travel as much as we used to and my wife works reduced hours to ensure she is with my son at all times that he's not in school. I can relate to what your son is doing. My best wishes to him and to his fiancée.

Good buy Jerry. Does that mean your son is collecting too?

That's a good video. I would also recommend that everyone watch The Big Short to get a feel for how a handful of people dictate how the rest of the world lives its lives. More importantly there's an undercurrent that is shaking the fundamentals of financial institutions and it's time the average Joe understands it's possible for anyone to benefit from bankers' greed. And Markets is the mother of bankers' greed! Ideally governments will have to pass a law, allowing citizens to take the bankers to court, wherever it is proven that someone has been impacted because of market manipulation (just as is the case with PPI misspelling) but then we are not in Iceland (where the government has balls to stand up to bankers) are we? In Iceland anyone who had a mortgage would have had automatic refunds once the LIBOR scandal was exposed.But did that happen elsewhere? The (million dollar) question is 'should the real extent of market manipulation be exposed will there be anything in it for the average Mr Joe Bloggs'? Will it just be a fine on the banks and the prince and princess lived ..... story or will the people who bought silver at $45 or gold at $1900 an ounce be suitably compensated? My guess is probably not (because a PPI style framework is still not in place) but what's your take?

Time to play guess the grade then To be honest I couldn't have taken worse pics of the coin if I wanted to, but I will share the results of the exercise.

But is it not the Central Banks (of Russia, China, Turkey ...) that are actually buying?