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.

basecamp

Coin aquisition of the week.......

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure that's Reverse M - I've compared it with my own which does not have a heraldically marked  shield, and Britannia's right shoulder is noticeably less massive. I would say therefore that mine is Reverse N.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2018 at 3:09 PM, Peckris said:

I'm pretty sure that's Reverse M - I've compared it with my own which does not have a heraldically marked  shield, and Britannia's right shoulder is noticeably less massive. I would say therefore that mine is Reverse N.

I agree, but I'm still slightly at a loss as to the shield on reverse M apparently being convex. 

@secret santa says they have a convex shield (see posts towards bottom of previous page), whereas Freeman says they have a flat shield. Maybe there are certain ones that do have a convex shield - perhaps instances of the F114, but the F108 reverse M which I hold definitely has a flat shield. 

Unfortunately, I don't have a 114.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

I agree, but I'm still slightly at a loss as to the shield on reverse M apparently being convex. 

@secret santa says they have a convex shield (see posts towards bottom of previous page), whereas Freeman says they have a flat shield. Maybe there are certain ones that do have a convex shield - perhaps instances of the F114, but the F108 reverse M which I hold definitely has a flat shield. 

Freeman doesn't mention a flat shield in relation to Reverse M - the implication being that it hasn't changed in that respect, but mentions that N now has a flat shield. I'm puzzled by your 1881 Reverse M having a flat shield.

Share this post


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

Freeman doesn't mention a flat shield in relation to Reverse M - the implication being that it hasn't changed in that respect, but mentions that N now has a flat shield. I'm puzzled by your 1881 Reverse M having a flat shield.

I quote from Freeman's 1985 book at page 44 and the updated 2016 book, also at page 44, which clearly states under the heading "Reverse M (1881 to 1882):-

"Similar to reverse J, but with the shield flat and heradically coloured".

I'm not hallucinating or telling porkies, honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an error in the Freeman catalogue, the coin pictured in this forum is of a 12+M. All reverse M coins have Heraldically coloured convex shields.

The other identifier with reverse M is the wider lighthouse than reverse N.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bernie said:

It was an error in the Freeman catalogue, the coin pictured in this forum is of a 12+M. All reverse M coins have Heraldically coloured convex shields.

The other identifier with reverse M is the wider lighthouse than reverse N.

Right, thanks Bernie. That resolves the discrepancy.

Share this post


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

I quote from Freeman's 1985 book at page 44 and the updated 2016 book, also at page 44, which clearly states under the heading "Reverse M (1881 to 1882):-

"Similar to reverse J, but with the shield flat and heradically coloured".

I'm not hallucinating or telling porkies, honest.

My Freeman (first edition) says:

Reverse M - Similar to reverse J (but then doesn't mention the convexity of the shield)

Reverse N - ...the shield is no longer convex.

I'm not hallucinating or telling porkies, honest!

Share this post


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

My Freeman (first edition) says:

Reverse M - Similar to reverse J (but then doesn't mention the convexity of the shield)

Reverse N - ...the shield is no longer convex.

I'm not hallucinating or telling porkies, honest!

What an odd mistake to make, given the first version was correct. Even odder that it wasn't corrected for the 2016 version, and odder still that it's not been previously mentioned. Although given the passage of time, it must surely have been noticed on numerous occasions, probably throwing people like me completely, in the process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 8:21 PM, Peckris said:

I agree, but I'm still slightly at a loss as to the shield on reverse M apparently being convex. 

@secret santa says they have a convex shield (see posts towards bottom of previous page), whereas Freeman says they have a flat shield. Maybe there are certain ones that do have a convex shield - perhaps instances of the F114, but the F108 reverse M which I hold definitely has a flat shield. 

I based my description on Michael Gouby's, but I have to say that different examples of reverse M appear either flat or convex although I think it's an optical illusion. My F111 looks convex but my F108 looks flat, like Mike's, although the details of both seem identical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I based my description on Michael Gouby's, but I have to say that different examples of reverse M appear either flat or convex although I think it's an optical illusion. My F111 looks convex but my F108 looks flat, like Mike's, although the details of both seem identical.

Indeed, thanks Richard. It did look like my 108 had a flat shield, which I never previously questioned given what I now know to be an erroneous description in Freeman's second edition book. On closer inspection through a loupe, it's definitely convex.

As you say, an optical illusion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we all have to be careful with optical illusion ......it's a dangerous thing at times ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone can tell the difference between the bun head illustrations of Obv 11 and Obv 12 in the Spink Catalogue, they're doing better than me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

If anyone can tell the difference between the bun head illustrations of Obv 11 and Obv 12 in the Spink Catalogue, they're doing better than me!

The only difference I can see is that the ties are a bit closer to the back of the neck on 11, and the legend is infinitesimally smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

If anyone can tell the difference between the bun head illustrations of Obv 11 and Obv 12 in the Spink Catalogue, they're doing better than me!

A good way of telling them apart is the nose. Obverse 11 has a hooked nose, whereas the nose on obverse 12 is straighter and slightly longer..

Obverse 11 and Obverse 12 (being 1883, Freeman 116 and 118 respectively) 

AF1QipMoBi4aPI1nIJWDx5dmsW_BpB_p7kdgzPoX AF1QipMrfetje80dIH5ZGnaUcjNGagjt0B7f8hAr

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R & I of BRITT touch at base & TT touch at top on obverse 12 - they don't touch on obverse 11. Not obvious from the pictures in Freeman's book.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

R & I of BRITT touch at base & TT touch at top on obverse 12 - they don't touch on obverse 11. Not obvious from the pictures in Freeman's book.

The images are much clearer in the 2016 edition, and you can clearly see the legend differences you highlight above. Chris Perkins, in the publisher's note at the start, makes reference to the many enhanced, larger, clearer images. Albeit, they are still in black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

The images are much clearer in the 2016 edition, and you can clearly see the legend differences you highlight above. Chris Perkins, in the publisher's note at the start, makes reference to the many enhanced, larger, clearer images. Albeit, they are still in black and white.

Still better to use the Secret Santa site - nice clear colour pictures and the differences very clear.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest oldcopper

Old Copper here, but I've forgotten my password. The differences pointed out above confirm what I am thinking ie Spink have illustrated a second Obv 12 instead of an Obv 11, so have 2 Obv 12 photos in their standard catalogue. Also there is no curl at the back of the neck in their "Obv 11" picture and the hair in both Obv 11/12 pictures is identically wavy, as far as I can see and Secret Santa's joined-up letters are there in both. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Old Copper here, but I've forgotten my password. The differences pointed out above confirm what I am thinking ie Spink have illustrated a second Obv 12 instead of an Obv 11, so have 2 Obv 12 photos in their standard catalogue. Also there is no curl at the back of the neck in their "Obv 11" picture and the hair in both Obv 11/12 pictures is identically wavy, as far as I can see and Secret Santa's joined-up letters are there in both. 

This must have changed since 2012 then - there are very tiny and subtle differences between the two in that edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you help me out I recently purchased this crown it has some nice details but has obviously been cleaned and is a dull grey all over, should I do anything ?  really I only want it for educational purposes and can just as easily use it as is to teach the kids about the Great Fire of London (in that summer they had similar weather to the one we have right now) How would you all grade it the edge is pretty sharp but there seem to be weak spots like the garter on the reverse ....your advice Ladies and Gentlemen please 

  yes I know it is 62 not 66

 CM180721-134217002 (271x300).jpgCM180721-134321003 (268x300).jpgCM180721-134506005 (236x300).jpgCM180721-134554007 (162x300).jpg

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


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

Could you help me out I recently purchased this crown it has some nice details but has obviously been cleaned and is a dull grey all over, should I do anything ?  really I only want it for educational purposes and can just as easily use it as is to teach the kids about the Great Fire of London (in that summer they had similar weather to the one we have right now) How would you all grade it the edge is pretty sharp but there seem to be weak spots like the garter on the reverse ....your advice Ladies and Gentlemen please 

  yes I know it is 62 not 66

 CM180721-134217002 (271x300).jpgCM180721-134321003 (268x300).jpgCM180721-134506005 (236x300).jpgCM180721-134554007 (162x300).jpg

If it looks like the third photograph I wouldn't touch it to save my life - that's a gorgeous colour. Unfortunately, the first 3 pictures have such wildly different colour it's difficult to advise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the second is in reverse light to show the  reverse detail .......your life must mean very little to you for the purpose of education it was or is a perfectly good coin .....apart from your own life values (around £90)  is there anything constructive you could add ? You people make such a fuss  .....it is a bluish grey colour 

CM180721-134455004 (249x300).jpg

CM180721-134217002 (271x300).jpg

Share this post


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

the second is in reverse light to show the  reverse detail .......your life must mean very little to you for the purpose of education it was or is a perfectly good coin .....apart from your own life values (around £90)  is there anything constructive you could add ? You people make such a fuss  .....it is a bluish grey colour 

CM180721-134455004 (249x300).jpg

CM180721-134217002 (271x300).jpg

You misunderstand, Larry, Peckris likes it, as shown in pic 3, he’s saying that if that is a true reflection of the coin, he wouldn’t clean it!

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You misunderstand, Larry, Peckris likes it, as shown in pic 3, he’s saying that if that is a true reflection of the coin, he wouldn’t clean it!

Jerry

Correct. Unfortunately, Larry's pictures show

  • 1. a red/brown coin
  • 2. a blue/green/grey coin
  • 3. a rather lovely purple coin.

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

×