|
|
The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com |
|
|
Coinpublications.com
Predecimal.com
Martinminerva
-
Content Count
364 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by Martinminerva
-
-
Link and/or picture, anyone?
-
And here's another with die clash marks like yours by the ribbon, and in front of Victoria too. They are the remnants of Britannia's drapery etc. from the clash with the reverse die.
-
2
-
-
Just die clash marks where the dies have come together without a blank in between, resulting in transferring of some of the opposite side's design into that die and so causing permanent damage that then is transferred to any subsequent coins struck from that die. Very common, especially in the Viccy penny series.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Raven Coins said:
Die fill to the E of Penny, yes, but different obv and rev combo (as Bernie says, this is a 5+E) to the E (or F) over B in BRIT pairs (4+G and 6+G respectively), and this one does not have that error. Suspect die fill (on any letter) is pretty common... What was being wondered is if there are more of the E over B 4+G and do they have the die fill?
-
1
-
-
Way out of my knowledge area in numismatics, but as a Classicist, it appears to read LINDI which is the genitive of LINDVM (Lindum) which was Lincoln. So, Estan on (=of) Lincoln ??? Or could it read LVNDI which is London ??
Hope that helps a bit! Probably not!
-
3 hours ago, Zo Arms said:I would agree with Bernie that mine is an obverse 4 and Martin's a 6.
The A pointing in Victoria is different due to rotation. As is the D of D:G: Martin's being extreme. Richard has mentioned the V of Victoria.
I think the R of BRITT on mine has been repunched, slightly rotated too.
Cracking find Martin.
Thanks, Bob. Just out of interest, what reverse is yours? On Richard's draft on his halfpenny page he (and I) assumed yours is a reverse G as mine is, but that was when we thought they were both the same obverse 6. Now we're sure yours is obverse 4, wonder if it's a different reverse too? Can you post a picture of the reverse?
-
3 hours ago, Bernie said:I could be wrong but the brown one appears to me as obverse 4 and the other obverse 6
I think you're both absolutely right. The original, brown one has minimal O of SOIT visible at the back of her truncation, but the redder one has the O near complete, so for me, yes, one is obverse 4 and one obverse 6. I suspect a rewrite of your half pennies page will be coming, Richard! So, two new discoveries rather than one! Whoever was on B repairing duty at the mint for these two dies was having a bad time!!
Any more of either obverse out there in forum land? Check your 1861's everyone!
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Bernie said:I suspect that these two coins maybe from different dies. One picture indicates the leg of R loop is inline with the serif of the I. the other coin, the loop of the R points above the serif of the I. This may be just an illusion that sometimes happens with digital photography, but full pictures of each obverse may confirm this one way or the other.
Good shout - I think you're right. Full obverses are already on the thread, the earlier one on page 22 and my one below the microscope enlargements, but I paste both in again here. The R you refer to has different degrees of rotation as can be seen by where the vertical points - on mine to a space, but on the original left of a bead. Keen eyed people might be able to spot other differences? So, wonder if it is two completely different dies, or just other subsequent repairs/alterations? What would be the chances of exactly the same E over B twice? The die crack on mine isn't on the original, so suggests mine is a later strike than the original if it is one die that has had other work done on it?
-
On 7/28/2023 at 9:24 PM, Zo Arms said:Am I seeing an F here? 1861.
I have found one of these too! It's an 1861 6+G, and can confirm it's actually an E over the B. On my specimen below, there is a bit of a die crack to the left of the E/B and some damage to the beads above. Wonder if that's connected to the repair? Worth recording on your Viccy halfpennies obverses page, Richard? @secret santa Feel free to use the pictures!
-
9
-
-
1 hour ago, SilverAge3 said:Philately has definitely fallen off.
As the saying goes, philately gets you nowhere... 😉
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, SilverAge3 said:Got removed
Apparently not. It completed and "sold" for £450, and the seller has left feedback as mentioned above. None of that could have happened if it was removed - unless something can be removed after the event, but I don't believe it can. A sale can be cancelled, of course...
-
1
-
-
On 2/27/2024 at 6:38 PM, Peckris 2 said:On 2/27/2024 at 5:04 PM, Martinminerva said:Just had a look back at that penny to see if any feedback left - no, of course, but noticed this for one of his previous recent "sales": Surprise, surprise!! If someone did "buy" the penny, rather than a shill bid, I would imagine we will be seeing a similar report soon... 😉
FEEDBACK FEEDBACK FROM BUYER/PRICE WHEN I wouldn’t trust this seller. Never have sent, provided wrong tracking number. Was trying to sell the same ring 2 times.s***t (491)£176.99Feedback of 90% says it all really.
The plot thickens slightly... Still no feedback received from the "happy" buyer, but the dodgy seller has left this positive comment below for the buyer... But of course, they could have left feedback for the shill, but wouldn't the shill then "reciprocate"?? Maybe someone has really bought it, and they're either ignorant, in for a major disappointment, or currently pursuing for a refund for item not as listed?!
FEEDBACK FEEDBACK LEFT FOR WHEN Payed promptly .polite and easy to contact.Buyer: 0***6Verified purchasePast month -
6 hours ago, jelida said:I actually think that Freeman marginally underestimated the scarcity of these.
I agree, and ironically even rarer in the lower Fair - Fine grades. Most that exist seem to be quite high grade, maybe EF to A.Unc - I think the theory is they were a notable difference to the usual LCW under shield even in the 1860's and were largely wheedled out at the time, leaving even fewer to circulate more heavily. It took me years to find one too!
-
21 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:I saw that. I don't smell a rat, I smell a dead heffalump...
Just had a look back at that penny to see if any feedback left - no, of course, but noticed this for one of his previous recent "sales": Surprise, surprise!! If someone did "buy" the penny, rather than a shill bid, I would imagine we will be seeing a similar report soon... 😉
FEEDBACK FEEDBACK FROM BUYER/PRICE WHEN I wouldn’t trust this seller. Never have sent, provided wrong tracking number. Was trying to sell the same ring 2 times.s***t (491)£176.99-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, secret santa said:Sold for £450 (maybe ?)
Which is nothing like enough for a genuine coin/sale. The "bidder" with 1 feedback "won" it. What chance we see it again at some point in the future with similar cock and bull accompanying...? 😀
-
1
-
-
There used to be a way of reporting an item to ebay for plagiarised pictures, I think.
The illiteracy of both his listing and his email to you reminds me of a certain marleybob and her numerous 1933 pennies!!
Current high (and repeat) bidder has a feedback of just 1. Shill bidding going on??
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, secret santa said:but is the same reverse (same photo actually) as the coin sold by London Coins in September 2019
Although in the seller's blurb he says: "Perfect specimens sell for 3000 pounds this is not perfect it's a circulated 102 Yr coin not cleaned not kept in a case a find in a large sack of coins."
Maybe a sack of coins fell off the back of LCA's lorry... 😉
The rat smells ever more pungent!
-
I smell a huge rat too. He changed the rev. picture on 19th Feb according to the listing revisions - previously it was a normal early rev penny. But neither rev goes with his given obverse - that's a modified effigy, if I am not mistaken. Methinks he has been "borrowing" pictures from anywhere he can get them. And with a feedback only of 8 (and all in the last month), any bidder must surely be a fool to go with it. But already 13 bids and price of £310 with a few hours left to go. But as we saw with that other seller recently selling "worn" Viccy copper pennies including an "1839 proof" and an "1860 over 59", and subsequent positive feedback from satisfied (but of course, utterly ignorant) buyers, there are an awful lot of fools out there. Worth reporting this one??
-
On 2/15/2024 at 10:13 AM, Martinminerva said:On 2/2/2024 at 12:29 PM, blakeyboy said:This 1849 would fool me- how can you tell is a wrong 'un?
The date digits are not quite in the correct font.
Here's a close up of another COPY 1849 in un-doctored condition. The digits are just not "quite right" - hard to explain, but clear if compared to a genuine specimen. Also, I've noticed the small WW on the truncation are also the wrong font (and a bit too big).
-
On 12/26/2023 at 10:02 PM, Zo Arms said:Not in hand yet. Christmas post delays etc. An unfair question I'll admit. Photos when it arrives.
I take it that it wasn't then... ☹️
-
On 2/2/2024 at 12:29 PM, blakeyboy said:This 1849 would fool me- how can you tell is a wrong 'un?
The date digits are not quite in the correct font. True for all of these copies (probably to do with how the dies have been CAD generated, I guess, as these are not pressure casts from genuine coins, thus the discrepancies with border beads and bust details). Worth adding that info to your page, Richard??
-
I had the error screen for over two weeks (on three different PC desktops, in two different locations and on three different browsers), but today for the first time it all works again. I even tried to follow links from the Predecimal.com shopfront and links from Google searches, all to no avail. God knows what happened. I do hope it doesn't happen again. Can @TomGoodheart confirm all is now ok?
-
Members beware! Just spotted this and already got multiple watchers...
Clearly one of those recent Chinese copies but which has been doctored to appear "circulated". More worrying still is if you search seller's other items he has several other Victorian copper "pennies", all copies, but all doctored to one degree or another to masquerade as something more genuine.
... and just looked at his completed listings and feedback and numerous similar doctored copies of various dates have sold for good money and buyers have left positive feedback. A fool and his money... a little knowledge... and other suitable aphorisms spring to mind. Caveat emptor!
-
3
-
-
Just a bog standard 6+G, I'm afraid. The B of Brit is supposed to be close to her head on obv.6.
-
1
-
Ebay's Worst Offerings
in Free for all
Posted
Somebody else now trying to jump on that bandwagon, though suspect this one is just total ignorance rather than fraud.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/266766404000?mkevt=1&mkpid=0&emsid=e11021.m43.l1120&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=6152c033966842d9bd5af6cdef42cc77&bu=43098541495&ut=RU&osub=-1~1&crd=20240413030842&segname=11021
I particularly like the "obtuse" reference!!