Cliff

Full pics as promised. Cliff

Thank you Cliff

Showing my ignorance but what is a "strike thru" please? Cliff

Coins arrived, all great, thanks Pete. Had intended for grandson but he may dip out when I compare with my own current examples!

It's had a wipe at least. Parallel lines mentioned previously very obvious in frankiew's first close up.

Look forward to receiving. Will add greatly to grandson's collection and further promote his interest. Much appreciated Pete. Cliff

As a slight 'aside'. Would like to see the pic of the BP1863Ab if still available please. Gouby shows one in his 2009 book, I have one (not the same coin as Gouby's) and would like to see if there are more about (as per secret santa's earlier post). I did PM davidrj a week or so back asking if a pic is still available but no response as yet.

Thanks for your contributions everyone. I'm 'away' at the moment but am keeping tabs via iPad.

I have the attached as a 1861H F26 but have no recollection of having seen the displayed BRITT intrusion into the LC before. Your comments would be appreciated. Cliff

Maybe making more of this than there is but I'm seeing slightly different pointings for the last T in BRITT?

Thank you all for your interest and for digging out the further examples Mike. I attach pics of my two other F26s which show different legend v LC spacing and state of the LC itself. Forgive my ignorance but was the planchet already stamped with, say, the teeth and Linear Circle BEFORE being submitted for minting? (just my meanderings as to what may have caused the different spacing). Seem to be back to "close to but not touching or intruding into the LC" but with different spacing?

Thanks chaps. I have a couple more F26s that I'll revisit later today. I recall that, although their Obv LCs in that area aren't 'of the best', the lettering doesn't actually intrude into the LC. Will confirm this evening. I did have a look at Richard Session's example to compare and his looks perfectly normal, with BRITT being close to, but not touching, an unbroken LC. Cliff

Michael Gouby shows two types of 9 for 1897 Pennies: Type 1 is where the centre loop is firmly connected to the down curved leg, Type 2 is connected by "what appears to be a thin thread". Is the attached a Type 3? Cliff

I have a bag of forty one 1967 Pennies, majority AUnc or so, collected from change from different parts of the country. Whilst not as pronounced as Terry's example, I reckon the colon between DEI and GRATIA is oval shaped. The remaining 13 examples are circular, or not far off. I haven't looked at any of the other colons in any detail, just skimmed and, apart from the colon before DEI (which seems to be a little 'out of shape' on the odd occasion) they all seem to be circular. I haven't looked at any other year. Do the attached examples qualify or are they 'fault in progress'? Cliff

As I see it, that is an excellent summary of my understanding of the situation and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for sharing your work (to date!)? I admire your undoubted dedication and patience. Hope your aching head has now improved? May I request your breakdown for the different 10 obverses, 6 edge types and 15 reverse types? I've had a couple of eye cataract operations over the last six months, wonderful results, and am now in a position to appreciate (if not always take in!) some of the finer detail now that I can see it!

Further to bhx7's observation: I've checked my ten examples of which only one has the reeding to the left of the hologram section. My, left reeding example, also has the bimetallic circle almost passing through the tip of a Leek leaf and the tip of the portrait neck cutting below the bimetallic circle. This 'potentially seemingly scarcer' example was mentioned in DaveG38's posting on 12th May where he says that he has "yet to encounter" this example. Has anyone else encountered the left/right reeding example and, with or without the tip of leaf or low portrait example? Regards Cliff

Pics as suggested, admittedly not the best pics ever but reckon they will suffice the purpose. Taking the given width dimension, point to point, is 23.23mm, I've measured 11.61mm from the bottom of the outer rim (using the ruler AardHawk spotted - thanks for the info) and extended the line across the coin. The graticules on the ruler are spaced at 0.5mm. To my eye (I'm due to have an operation on Monday to hopefully improve my vision) I can't discern any positional difference in relationship to the portrait and the edges of the coin. However, and this may be due to my poor draftsmanship, or positioning of the coin, I see the line, extended from the 11.61mm mark on the ruler, in line with the top of the E in REG on the opposite side of coin 1. The extended line on coins 2 & 3 cut the end of the tail of the letter R of REG. Points to ponder: There seems to be a gap(?) between the (top) metal inserts on coin 1, as there does, to a lesser degree, on coin 2. Coin 3 seems to have a snug all round fit. Sorry I can't provide overlays or further illustrate my points. My Hypothesis remains that the brass outer portion appears to be of varying width, the center portion 'fitted' accordingly and the 'stamping' centralized. Very willing to take on board anything those of you in possession of a tape measure may wish to submit.

Afraid I don't have the equipment (or eyes) to be able to do this, any takers please? In the meantime, here's my Heath Robinson approach: I see coin 1's brass lower width to the inner circle as being 4mm, coin 2 as 4.10mm and coin 3 as 4.25mm (all figures are very 'ish'). Don't know what tolerances were worked to but presume Royal Mint found them acceptable?

Sorry to keep banging on about these 'placements'. Further to Dave's "quick assessment" posting and Rob's suggested "off centre" strikings: Taking it as given that the portraits, emblems and characters are always the same size (as befits the Royal Mint technology) BUT, that there is some obvious movement. Is it then possible that the centre hole is not always exactly central? This would cause the inner ring (between to brass and inner metal insert) to appear in different positions on the Leek leaf and the truncation point etc). Having no mechanical knowledge I don't know how easy this variance would be to overcome when feeding in the centre portion? I submit three examples (not at all scientific pics) of the etched hologram section and truncation point which, to my thinking, demonstrate my point - that the width of the brass section is not equal/central around the coin?

Sorry folks, seemingly have inherited multi quotes and I can't get rid of them and don't know how I got them! Would like to express my thanks to Dave and Rob for their informed responses. Rob, I think your suggestion that the varieties may be due to off center strikes is probably the answer. If it is found that the Obv and Rev presentations are proportionally high or low at the same time would that seem to be due to the coin blank moving between the dies, rather than, perish the thought, any form of 'wobble' from the Royal Mint machinery?!? My knowledge of the striking process is not up to much so please forgive my next question if the answer is obvious: If it is that, for whatever reason, the Obv portrait and Rev strikes 'move around', would that not also impact on the micro dates (Probably the inscriptions on the Obv as well but I haven't looked at those)? My earlier examples A and B show the probable vertical movement of the reverse strike BUT, as far as these old eyes can make out, both micro dates, and the horizontal lines fore and aft, seem to be in the centre of the 'inner rim'. Is the 'blank' not so blank when it's fed in, with the outer rim already having been stamped up? Thanks for all your time and trouble Cliff I've checked six for the reverse dates: Three are OK, two not very good, one awful.

Example B:

My example B show the inner ring passing BELOW the leaf tip and lower down the thistle. The coronet headband is further away from the ring, as is the bottom of the flower stem. The ONE POUND LEGEND is much closer to the ring. The Obv is not shown but, the top of the coronet intrudes into the outer ring (as mentioned earlier in this thread). There is now a gap between the bottom of the bust portrait and the outer ring. These differences may have been discussed before and I missed them and would welcome comments. Will send example B pics once the system allows me!

I received two coins this morning. On checking I find two reverse variations (perhaps allied with Obv variations mentioned in this thread previously): My example A reverse shows the 'inner portion' ring almost passing through the leaf tip and towards the top of the thistle. The coronet headband is close to the ring and the flower stems almost touch the ring. The ONE POUND LEGEND is distant from the ring. On the Obv (but not shown) the portrait truncation disappears into the outer ring of the coin, with the top of the coronet is within the inner ring.

I've checked six for the reverse dates: Three are OK, two not very good, one awful.