Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Your name is 1949 threepence - should be 1949 penny. Everything is not as it seems. :ph34r:

And the 1949 penny is significant because ... ?

My point about joining groups is that if you don't know anyone outside of social media, you are unlikely to be invited into a social circle randomly unless already acquainted. I'm not sure I or anyone else would want to accept a Facebook invitation to join given their ulterior motives. Because Facebook blocks those who aren't allowed access, this has to be the biggest hurdle to getting new faces. At least on this forum you can post as a guest in some areas, and register as a member without being automatically blocked from communicating. Although social media is unquestionbly more popular than a forum, I still fail to see how it can provide the ease of access of the latter.

I'm not sure who isn't allowed access to Facebook? Yes, they block accounts they think are false, spamming, or abusive, and they remove content deemed offensive (though not often enough when it comes to far right postings), but on the whole it's open to all.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

As quoted above. The “quote” button doesn’t  show annotations to another’s post,  at least not on my iPad.

First point - because Mike is known on this forum primarily for collecting pennies not threepence  - I think Rob intended a gentle joke.

Second point-  yes, almost anyone can become a member of Facebook- that’s their business model, and what has made them so wealthy-  but that is not the same as having full access to an individual site or group, which depends on how the site is set up. For example, a group might be set up as “open” in which case anybody can gain access, or “closed”, which means you can apply to join  for access, which may be granted or refused by a group moderator,  or indeed managed by a “bot” if so set up. An individuals site likewise may not be fully accessible unless you ask to become a “friend”, and this status is granted. Or a site may be secret, and not show up on Facebook searches,  then you would have to be known to and approached by a site moderator and invited to join. Who knows, there may be other options too, to cater for paedophiles, terrorists, the Mafia, the Secret Services , the KGB - indeed whoever Facebook thinks it can make money out of.  Or am I just being too cynical?

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jelida said:

Second point-  yes, almost anyone can become a member of Facebook- that’s their business model, and what has made them so wealthy-  but that is not the same as having full access to an individual site or group, which depends on how the site is set up. For example, a group might be set up as “open” in which case anybody can gain access, or “closed”, which means you can apply to join  for access, which may be granted or refused by a group moderator,  or indeed managed by a “bot” if so set up. An individuals site likewise may not be fully accessible unless you ask to become a “friend”, and this status is granted. Or a site may be secret, and not show up on Facebook searches,  then you would have to be known to and approached by a site moderator and invited to join. Who knows, there may be other options too, to cater for paedophiles, terrorists, the Mafia, the Secret Services , the KGB - indeed whoever Facebook thinks it can make money out of.  Or am I just being too cynical?

Agreed - but that's not "Facebook blocking those who aren't allowed access", that's whoever created a page or group setting their own rules as to openness or otherwise, the precise criteria for applying to join, whether moderators are involved or not. Sure, Facebook provides the toolbox that individuals can use, but FB don't decide who can or cannot join a group. In the case of coins, the group's owners / moderators would have to tread a fine line between wanting new blood (especially the young) and protecting existing members from would-be thieves and ne'er-do-wells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Agreed - but that's not "Facebook blocking those who aren't allowed access", that's whoever created a page or group setting their own rules as to openness or otherwise, the precise criteria for applying to join, whether moderators are involved or not. Sure, Facebook provides the toolbox that individuals can use, but FB don't decide who can or cannot join a group. In the case of coins, the group's owners / moderators would have to tread a fine line between wanting new blood (especially the young) and protecting existing members from would-be thieves and ne'er-do-wells.

Yes, indeed.

What is obvious is that the younger members are very enthusiastic, but also very naive. With the amount of unofficial trade that takes place on these sites (most of it tat to be honest) some could be ripped off by paying unrealistic prices for junk and/or overgraded items. This is where the older more experienced members, myself included, come in, with useful advice.

Martin Platt is a member of one of the groups, and gave some very sound advice to other members - as might be expected from someone with his breadth of knowledge. Although I haven't seen much of him recently.       

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/18/2019 at 7:01 PM, oldcopper said:

After nearly 7 years (1978, it's discovery - 1984/5) Freeman gave this variety a rarity rating of R5, i.e. 50k - 100k examples in existence. Which makes it pretty common if those were accurate estimates. Perhaps he thought it was generally overlooked (not surprising!) or he knew of quite a few examples? Or perhaps he was just making it up off the top of his head (sacrilege!)? 

There's an example in the latest DNW Sept catalogue, the discovery piece apparently. 

The earliest reference to this variety that I can find, was reported by David Sealy in his Coins Varieties colume in Coins and Medals in  February 1969.

 

Coin Varieties 1969_02_00_p131.jpg

With regard to the estimated totals,  V,R,Court in his series, Major Varieties of U.K. Pennies 1902-1967, in the August 1972 issue of Coin Monthly, estimates c.55,500 examples were produced. He looked at 3,403 example of 1908 penny and found 6 examples.  He does caution that the "small levels of incidence provide very unreliable bases for calculating accurate mintages. However, they probably indicate that only one die of each of these particular varieties was in use." 

Edited by AardHawk
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jelida said:

Second point-  yes, almost anyone can become a member of Facebook- that’s their business model, and what has made them so wealthy-  but that is not the same as having full access to an individual site or group, which depends on how the site is set up. For example, a group might be set up as “open” in which case anybody can gain access, or “closed”, which means you can apply to join  for access, which may be granted or refused by a group moderator,  or indeed managed by a “bot” if so set up. An individuals site likewise may not be fully accessible unless you ask to become a “friend”, and this status is granted. Or a site may be secret, and not show up on Facebook searches,  then you would have to be known to and approached by a site moderator and invited to join. Who knows, there may be other options too, to cater for paedophiles, terrorists, the Mafia, the Secret Services , the KGB - indeed whoever Facebook thinks it can make money out of.  Or am I just being too cynical?

Thanks Jerry, Mike & Chris.

I can see that it is a completely different beast to a forum, but based on what I see, I have to be somewhat cynical about the level of control a person has over their membership. If I search RP Coins and Facebook, I get a link to my own account despite never having had an account, so this must have been made by Facebook and without login details have no control over it, but presumably you can all join my group if you so desire. I also get referrals from Facebook, as my website tells me that people viewed an average of 7.2 pages and stayed for less than a minute using this route. So much for being in control.

Still, each to their own I guess. Better let the conversation revert to the original topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AardHawk said:

The earliest reference to this variety that I can find, was reported by David Sealy in his Coins Varieties colume in Coins and Medals in  February 1969.

With regard to the estimated totals,  V,R,Court in his series, Major Varieties of U.K. Pennies 1902-1967, in the August 1972 issue of Coin Monthly, estimates c.55,500 examples were produced. He looked at 3,403 example of 1908 penny and found 6 examples.  He does caution that the "small levels of incidence provide very unreliable bases for calculating accurate mintages. However, they probably indicate that only one die of each of these particular varieties was in use." 

Thanks, that's really interesting.

Court's estimate of circa 55,500 examples minted, may not be too far off the mark. Clearly the overwhelming majority of these will have gone in the melt as I imagine not too many specimens would have been collected between February 1969 and demonitisation.

Does anybody know of any evidence of them being sold by dealers, as a separate entity, at any point between 1969 and the 1971 demonetisation?    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks, that's really interesting.

Court's estimate of circa 55,500 examples minted, may not be too far off the mark. Clearly the overwhelming majority of these will have gone in the melt as I imagine not too many specimens would have been collected between February 1969 and demonitisation.

Does anybody know of any evidence of them being sold by dealers, as a separate entity, at any point between 1969 and the 1971 demonetisation?    

In Sealy's 1970 Review of British Coin Varieties 1816 - 1968 (presumably published at the end of 1969) he gives this a rating of "very rare". To give an indication, this is also what he rates the 1926ME penny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that Freeman didn't know about its existence between 1969 and 1978 - make the DNW provenance of "discovery coin" a little less important ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

In Sealy's 1970 Review of British Coin Varieties 1816 - 1968 (presumably published at the end of 1969) he gives this a rating of "very rare". To give an indication, this is also what he rates the 1926ME penny.

You can pick up worn examples of 1926ME without too much difficulty for a few quid, so presumably the 1908 F164A is much rarer, although it is probably still often overlooked - it's a sort of "micro-variety" if you know what I mean. And as for higher grade.....But of course no-one was putting specifically 164A's aside when they were issued as no-one knew (or would have thought it important even if they had known I suspect).

I always find it interesting that the H's and KN's were valuable back in the 60's and probably earlier, only 40 odd years after issue. Some contemporary employees from these mints must still have been alive then. Perhaps they packed up 1919KN BUs in mint rolls for instance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes i dont have Courts varieties / numbers thought in circulation anymore ,i did have and mailed it a couple of people but lost it when i changed my mail address.It did make me think that the 1978 date seemed a little late and what was actually written in the DNW letter.

Freeman does not mention it on some papers i have dated 1980 ,which he was preparing updates and amendments from the first , such as F144 ,151 & 152 not being genuine.

Although the letter in the DNW sale is dated 1978 and maybe he was busy trying to find others which without the internet and pictures would not of been easy 🙂

I will phone DNW up to see if they can help me 🙂

...................................................................................................................

Rather than keep posting they are going to scan the letter and mail it me.

 

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LETTER........Whithout typing everything or posting the letter that has some detail better not on a public forum :D

Mr Freeman does mention the Coin monthly articles and having previously read them.

The coin he had been posted was the first one he had SEEN IN HAND.

After mentioning all the differences attribute as 1* an intermediate between OBV 1 & 2.

Statistics reported by Alexander 1 in 567 would be R5 on his scale.

The scale worked out before decimalisation and now (1978)difficult to estimate how many coins still exsist and if the proportions in which particular types or dates were hoarded is similar or different from the average.

Pete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

it's a sort of "micro-variety" if you know what I mean

I don't want to pick a fight or even start a lengthy debate but, if we define a classic "variety" as being a particular die-pairing of a unique obverse design with a unique reverse design, thereby becoming a unique combination of obverse and reverse, then F164A fits slap bang into that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I don't want to pick a fight or even start a lengthy debate but, if we define a classic "variety" as being a particular die-pairing of a unique obverse design with a unique reverse design, thereby becoming a unique combination of obverse and reverse, then F164A fits slap bang into that definition.

You're talking in terms of modern numismatics which meticulously analyses minute differences within a modern coin type.  I wouldn't think it was a variety your average Joe or even coin collector circa 1908 would have noticed or paid much attention to if pointed out.

Edited by oldcopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, secret santa said:

Strange that Freeman didn't know about its existence between 1969 and 1978 - make the DNW provenance of "discovery coin" a little less important ?

Maybe he did, Richard, but wasn't too enthusiastic about including it as a distinct variety.

I've just found this post made by Chris Perkins in August 2015, and quoting Michael Freeman's letter to him. In it, Mr Freeman states (extract):-
 

Quote

 

In the Introduction to 'The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain', I wrote how difficult it was for me to decide what to catalogue as a type and what not to.

An example was the 1874 obverse 7 with a distinctly hooked nose found only paired with one of the reverses, which one I forget now. I rejected it as too confusing. Reverse I (1874 only) was a toss-up which I opted to include even though it does resemble reverse J.

I decided that the Victorian series was complicated enough without sub-dividing it into all the minor touched-up dies.

 

So we nearly didn't get Reverse I by the sounds, which might have meant F69's and 76's being discovered by someone else - Gouby assigning a different number, perhaps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these minor differences; are they new varieties or not - perhaps we need a VAR for coins ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldcopper said:

You're talking in terms of modern numismatics which meticulously analyses minute differences within a modern coin type.  I wouldn't think it was a variety your average Joe or even coin collector circa 1908 would have noticed or paid much attention to if pointed out.

Maybe not, but perhaps the mindset was different then. Besides which, I'd say that if it's an obviously intentional difference, or differences, such the the progression through four types, of the F164, 164A, 165 and 166, then they are distinct types, albeit the differences are slight, but nonetheless recognisable. This surely lends importance. If Peck had discovered and published details of the 164A in 1958, I'd lay odds there's be a lot more around than there currently are.  

Same with mules where there are obviously incompatible reverse/obverse pairings. There have been enough minted for us to know that the minting was intentional, whether due to a broken obverse/reverse die necessitating the temporary substitution of an out of date die, or other reason.

Same again with overstrikes whether intentional as a result of "good housekeeping", or arising from operator error. They are all distinct types which have gained popularity over the decades.

Where it starts to get flaky is with tiny unintended differences such as sloping final ones on the 1861 or the far 4 on an 1864 crosslet. Quite a lot of these minor variations around - of interest, but not so much as to warrant separately trying to categorise them. 

     

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Where it starts to get flaky is with tiny unintended differences such as sloping final ones on the 1861 or the far 4 on an 1864 crosslet. Quite a lot of these minor variations around - of interest, but not so much as to warrant separately trying to categorise them. 

     

Exactly Mike.

It's all dependant on how many are first discovered, and what appeals at that time, or is fashionable.

You can say there are 4 types of the 1908, or not bother at all and say there is just one type.

If the latter, then there is no 1926ME, 1911 hollow neck, 1903 open 3 etc. The 1874 series would be half as big.....

What about the 1890 dropped 90? Try finding one.....

I have an 1880 with sea by the ship missing. So what.

But, if it's a 1934, everyone is interested.

You have to have that 'magic ammount'  found- not quite enough to go round, but _just_ enough discovered 

for people to feel they are missing out by not having one......!

( The exception to this is when clearly there was a _set_ of dies made, but one obviously missing.

An 1862 halfpenny with a 'D', or more spectacularly, an 1863 with a clear '1' below the date turns up.....see what happens....)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, secret santa said:

I don't want to pick a fight or even start a lengthy debate but, if we define a classic "variety" as being a particular die-pairing of a unique obverse design with a unique reverse design, thereby becoming a unique combination of obverse and reverse, then F164A fits slap bang into that definition.

I think it boils down to two things:

  • how recognisable the variety is (so ME, LT, H, KN fit that perfectly)
  • how rare it is (Gouby X, Open 3 fit that)

So the 1* obverse for 1908 is rare but not very recognisable, so a lot probably got missed. In that sense it's a "micro variety", i.e. tiny differences. However, the 1905 varieties don't fit either category being neither instantly recognisable nor rare, so don't float my boat at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I think it boils down to two things:

  • how recognisable the variety is (so ME, LT, H, KN fit that perfectly)
  • how rare it is (Gouby X, Open 3 fit that)

So the 1* obverse for 1908 is rare but not very recognisable, so a lot probably got missed. In that sense it's a "micro variety", i.e. tiny differences. However, the 1905 varieties don't fit either category being neither instantly recognisable nor rare, so don't float my boat at all.

Again, found the 160 surprisingly difficult to get in high grade.

161 very easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Exactly Mike.

It's all dependant on how many are first discovered, and what appeals at that time, or is fashionable.

You can say there are 4 types of the 1908, or not bother at all and say there is just one type.

If the latter, then there is no 1926ME, 1911 hollow neck, 1903 open 3 etc. The 1874 series would be half as big.....

What about the 1890 dropped 90? Try finding one.....

I have an 1880 with sea by the ship missing. So what.

But, if it's a 1934, everyone is interested.

You have to have that 'magic ammount'  found- not quite enough to go round, but _just_ enough discovered 

for people to feel they are missing out by not having one......!

( The exception to this is when clearly there was a _set_ of dies made, but one obviously missing.

An 1862 halfpenny with a 'D', or more spectacularly, an 1863 with a clear '1' below the date turns up.....see what happens....)

At the end of the day, Blake, it's up to each collector to decide and set their own personal parameters, which may, in each individual case, increase or decrease over time. When I first started collecting pennies seriously, nearly 10 years ago now, I never imagined I would develop such a completist mindset during the intervening period. At that point, I would have said that one decent 1908 (for example) would have been enough. But as my interest deepened, so did the completist side. I suppose if something is worth doing, then it's worth doing well - and you only succeed by relentless pursuit of your ultimate objective.

With regard to the different types and their popularity/notoriety, the clincher is what has charisma, and what doesn't. As you say, the 1890 dropped 90, is arguably a type in and of itself. Certainly recognised by Gouby, as we know. But not one which attracts a lot of attention. Conversely the 1934 missing waves, creates a bit more fuss. Moreover, you only have to look at what brings in the big money. Compare and contrast the F90, 1877 narrow date penny with an 1881H Freeman 103. The 103 is probably rarer than the F90, but head to head at auction, we both know the F90 is going to draw in the greater number of punters and get the most money. Probably because it's instantly recognisable.

If a die No 1 under date ever does appear, it'll no doubt fetch in excess of £20k. Although maybe there isn't a Die No 1. Perhaps they considered the normal dies to be "No 1" and started at No 2.

All very interesting and worthy of discussion.

    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Again, found the 160 surprisingly difficult to get in high grade.

161 very easy. 

I didn't know that! But it does beg the question - is the scarcity of a particular variety only in high grade, anything to do with the comparative scarcity of the varieties in a ratio to each other?

(Just out of interest, which is which - P E or E N ?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I didn't know that! But it does beg the question - is the scarcity of a particular variety only in high grade, anything to do with the comparative scarcity of the varieties in a ratio to each other?

(Just out of interest, which is which - P E or E N ?)

With the 160 it's PE - the upright P of penny points to a gap. The 161 is the EN. It has the E turned slightly clockwise, is now over a border tooth, and looks out of alignment with the P. The difference is clearly visible to the naked eye even when the two are not side by side. 

The scarcity of the 164A in high grade is relatively easily explainable. But with the rest, it's more complex. It may be something to do with the comparative scarcity of two or more year varieties in relation to each other. It might be connected to how many of the year itself have been collected in high grade, in the absence of collector knowledge at the time. If many, then inevitably, by random chance, there will be a few of the scarcer varieties amongst them. But I can't explain the 160 being difficult to find in high grade - it's got a C rating, so it hsouldn't have been as difficult as it was. Maybe it was just my personal experience which was out of kilter.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Again, found the 160 surprisingly difficult to get in high grade.

161 very easy.

Totally agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

With the 160 it's PE - the upright P of penny points to a gap. The 161 is the EN. It has the E turned slightly clockwise, is now over a border tooth, and looks out of alignment with the P. The difference is clearly visible to the naked eye even when the two are not side by side. 

The scarcity of the 164A in high grade is relatively easily explainable. But with the rest, it's more complex. It may be something to do with the comparative scarcity of two or more year varieties in relation to each other. It might be connected to how many of the year itself have been collected in high grade, in the absence of collector knowledge at the time. If many, then inevitably, by random chance, there will be a few of the scarcer varieties amongst them. But I can't explain the 160 being difficult to find in high grade - it's got a C rating, so it hsouldn't have been as difficult as it was. Maybe it was just my personal experience which was out of kilter.    

Sorry, that should of course be upright E of PENNY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×