DrLarry

here is the full image

oh OK sorry I thought I'd crop it from the middle of the 1 to the middle of the 6 to make it easier but sure I'll load one tomorrow

Sorry the last time I came in before this most recent one was a few years back when ill and was a bit bonkers. Hence I don't know @Rob .so thank you for the direction I did not know he had book interests but I will ask him now I do know.

OK so you were advising me to talk to someone on the forum thank you for the context.

apologies for my ignorance which Rob?

yes I rang him yesterday and asked, he said possibly the page needs updating and they dont have one. But thanks

I have purchased a number of complete mistakes over the years. The worst was a slabbed 1837 Penny which when it arrived from the US turned out to be a half penny. It is so difficult buying in the US when they slab everything to use my eyes to check. Of course the seller was adamant it could not be a half penny because the NGC had told them so

I am surprised that you cannot buy them from china it would be a much better sale than a fake penny and a lot less straining on their side , but obviously not any easier on Victoria's

I saw one of those for sale the other day I nearly bought it

I am glad someone has a sense of humour on here I was starting to wonder

After finding that 2009 silver proof in the Family Silver proof set with great shreds of metal hanging off the side I am not sure how good the quality control is this one got through 9 years ago I only noticed it when I saw scratches on the inside of the capsule and realised the silver shards were so high they were damaging the plastic. Oh I see on yours the fingerprint is on the coin not on the capsule. In all the pretty images of them preparing the proofs they are wearing lovely white gloves

yes logically what you say is the case this one does provide evidence for it. I just wondered if anyone had experiences where something they sent was questioned by the company. I was searching for experiences rather than answers, as you say I have answered my own on this one.

The other issue here is that the artist/engraver in the case of the Bronze series was contracted to make the stamps for the legend initially if I understand his diaries correctly. It would seem however that he made some kind of error and miscalculated which meant that corrections had to be done and the dies altered. It has always been in the ambiguity in the references to the process that for the life of me I cannot settle on. It says quite clearly in the statements in the house and explanations given at the time and after that the "original design could not be completed in the process because the engraver (L C Wyon) ha made the relief too deep and the new metal made the original design unmanageable. It suggests that the engraver was sent away to recut or remodel the design to a simplified form which we see now . The Pattern Bronzes pretty much seem to follow the extant version we are used to , but some suggestion is made to a die with alternatives (perhaps) standing Britannia , a more complex design (altogether more beautiful than the one we have) that suffered because of the technical difficulties. THe engraver had to make alterations. Ok so we do not have much to go on but certainly it would seem, reading between the lines , that this Britannia was not what he really wanted or originally cut, possibly with a number of now lost characters in the design. It seems more that the politicians and the more conservatives were insisting on a seated Britannia (as had been the way ince 1672.) Of course I know it is most unlikely that we will ever know but if the page remains open that one day we may discover what these designs might be , perhaps in some archive that was sent along with the image of the "standing Britannia " with the family to New Zealand or in some other archive. One day in some dusty old place some of the workings of the Royal Mint at this time may be discovered. This approach seems to be of no interest at all even to the ardent of penny collectors. It was for this reason ad this reason alone that I pointed out the artistic anomalies , the artistic errors that are such rudimentary school boy errors in the design that it surprised me that no one seemed to find such criticism of the "holy grail" or the strange story that must be part of this regarding the signature. I shall read again all the diaries of L C Wyon ( not that they are of great use) or perhaps the problem is that I am only reading the diaries as presented to us in the the book by Mr Attwood. any ways the point I am making is that there seem to be radical alterations of the lettering from the older curly style in some dies to a more "solid" lettering style and on many specimens you can clearly see the overstamping which is a style change so yes they can any one be over-punched, but Wyon cut the punches originally for the farthing, half penny and the penny. I believe that the original style was the more slender , "fancy" lettering you see altered and this may have been due to a second set of punches he had to prepare (less elegant or more robust). By saying that the artist cut the punches for the lettering , whilst I respect that you can use any old C or G lying around a set of a particular style were made by him for purpose.

A general question: The other day I was looking through the US site on Ebay and saw that someone had sent away "a lauer miniature with corrosion" to be slabbed by the NGC grading company. Does anyone know if slabbing is so cheap in the US or perhaps you can get freebies that would make sense of sending a tiny token 13mm damaged worth about £1 at a push to them for grading? Also do these places not have some kind of ethical customer service where they might say "stop" to the person asking such a token being slabbed? I noticed a price tag on it of £49 or maybe $49 cannot remember!

True ...but I suppose in most cases discoveries are made looking in the wrong place for different answers and daring to look

yes the new varieties post makes sense except that the question over what constitutes a variety keeps cropping up ( and I dont want another list of what someone thinks is the definition of variety again please) . I might go through the posts and try filter out all the debate closing down possibilities and make a separate list which is just "possibility and discovery" rather than the endless debates that torpedo things before they even set sail.

yes I have noticed in the Charles II coppers there seems to be some very ambiguous number types in the last number ...thank you

However I tend to find the opposite happens under the mud especially within letters I seem to uncover some lovely additions (although most just seem to call them overpunching) I think they don't get seen because they are hidden behind muck or it is assumed that they are just damage , I would imagine that this strange shuttle in the 1879 is a case example that must have been noticed for years until someone made a reference to it somewhere and then others are found. and hence we end up with a new variety (by whoever is the gatekeeper of this word). I will now go and check my examples of the 1673 to check so thanks for that. I think it is nice to keep re-asking such questions and pointing out discoveries so that the "lone plougher" can be part of a shared experience. Perhaps it would be useful to have a topic specifically listing examples such as the ones mentioned which can be added to and easily accessed. I am not sure what we would call such a topic ....or if it can remain an open minded topic , searching for possibility rather than closing discussion down.

Yes I think that just about sums it up it's a numbers game really and simply illustrates differences in approaches to collecting, in the lone furrow ploughing group myself and prefer the activity of ploughing , planting seed and seeing what grows , rather than taking the perfect ear of wheat and pressing it in a book to be admired. A lot seems to get missed under lustre but I am happy to have both. When something is so bright and perfect it is easy to be blinded by the beauty. I imagine this is why in more recent years varieties have been found as access to microscopes is now much easier and hence more opportunities arise to look more carefully and discover things. There is nothing wrong with the brightest and the best and of course the most expensive, but likewise I find nowt wrong with the mud of the ploughing types.

I asked the question of the forum if there might be out there somewhere the same error that we have seen on the 62 penny . Of course the easy answer is that it is a re-punched C except there are a few aspects of it that seem to suggest that it there may be another possibility. There is a scar that seems to extend the top of the doubled up serif which also seems flatter and broader. I have found a few specimens of 61 and 62 half pennies which seems to show alteration. My main interest in the C of VICTORIA is in the penny and that small piece of metal which presents itself floating between the two ends. I know it is of no interest to most and is simply one of those ticks (of which there seem to be so many) that crop up which illustrate to me approaches and processes at the mint in the early years of the 1860's. Of course they are speculation but I like to ask questions. So the question was is it possible that a C over a G might exist? I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with the forum. I thought it was a place that one could find anomalies and ask members to search around through their own examples to see if we can piece together some history (lost to us ) on the die types and use , alterations and errors . i feel that repunched letters or alterations i looked at systematically might help us understand a little more about each die used. When someone posts something I enjoy going to my own collection and looking at what others have noticed in their own studies I suppose I imagine others do the same.

I needed another one to try and understand it the 1879 , mine was too worn to have detail enough to seek an explanation. When I originally posted it and you responded saying you had one I felt that the conversation on it then died ...I am afraid I want to try and understand why things happen and whilst these are industrial processes that must allow for some variation and errors just how and why seems to be ignored. it makes me keep searching to find a rational explanation or at least how such events occur. I am a bad collector I have little or no interest in the objects themselves , but have a simple desire to understand why. something occurs and if so what was the human impact (if any). I need to know if the twit that engraved an R instead of a B twice in 1861 and 62 were the same person and if so what happened and or if there is any "human record" of the workers , their errors, and the solutions. Some such processes must have occurred , management must find these problems as someone is allocated time to resolve the issue. The whole debate on what constitutes a variety seems to me to have so many tight restrictions that I find myself becoming less and less interested in them . I fully understand that we have hardly no written evidence for any part of the Bronze inception and or process in the early years and or records from the Royal mint on pretty much anything so there is no process by which to follow any line of inquiry,. Considering that in some errors a lot of effort is made to resolve such problems , you would have believed that fragments of data might have been saved from these "fires", if, as a public office they were licenced to record the manufacturing process, supervision notes, disciplinary mistakes and yet there is nothing. It then relies on collectors to find them, and try make sense of them and the rules seem to follow strange guidelines i cannot make sense of. So I have become less and less enchanted by collecting bug, as it seems to me that some external characters decide what is the history and what is irrelevant. I may well be carefully picking at straws hoping not to move any part of the status quo but it is hard to imagine a more frustrating situation which seems to give us so little to go on to enable explanation of events, or process. It does seem so very strange to me n respect to the penny issue or the bronze that it caused so much upset that questions were asked over and over again in parliament . Columns in the popular press relate to it yet when these fires occurred no one found it of of any historic interest to attempt to examine the issues ad write on them. It seems to have left a void and when there is emptiness it is all too easy for gatekeepers to decide what is interesting and what is not. I will keep seeking answers and explanations but there do not seem to be any and all the books seem to be outside of the reach of most collectors. or in ivory towers in a few very limited sites around the country , hence it seems an almost impossible hobby either having nothing at all or just the process of accumulation to make it work.

but in all honesty there seem to be so many strange "varieties" that under the microscope almost every penny I pick up has some strange anomaly of one form or another , I love the concept of diversity in all things and of course each penny has the right to be as is...but it gets a little expensive on pen ink writing all the overprints, over this over that, doubling ups alterations...I spend my time these days painting oils paintings

no not anymore I have given up I just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

I will stick to 1879 space shuttle ...they are less subtle