Rare Edward VII penny varieties

[Peckris 579]

Here's mine.

link

Well that didn't work how I expected. You will have to scroll down to my post where I attacked the picture.

I wouldn't attack that picture Gary - it's very good, and so is the coin

[Accumulator 52]

Here is my F-169 - I've been told about the 3rd or 4th finest known...

1903 open 3 in the next post

That's a nice F169 Gary! It's certainly better than the London Coins auction example, and the best I've seen.

Nice open 3s too, but Gary1000 has pipped you! Especially that obverse, which must be GVF to NEF.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Accumulator

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

Here is my F-169 - I've been told about the 3rd or 4th finest known...

1903 open 3 in the next post

That's a nice F169 Gary! It's certainly better than the London Coins auction example, and the best I've seen.

Nice open 3s too, but Gary1000 has pipped you! Especially that obverse, which must be GVF to NEF.

Thanks, I think I was the 1st or 2nd underbidder on the example sold on ebay....

[davidrj 194]

Oddly the 1897 F148 is still undervalued by comparison

this one is one of the very few I've seen on Ebay

far rarer than the books suggest

[Accumulator 52]

Oddly the 1897 F148 is still undervalued by comparison

this one is one of the very few I've seen on Ebay

far rarer than the books suggest

I agree with you David. Baldwins have a full lustre example in their Winter Fixed Price list for a hefty £1,750. Mine has a the remnants of lustre:

[Peckris 579]

Oddly the 1897 F148 is still undervalued by comparison

this one is one of the very few I've seen on Ebay

far rarer than the books suggest

I agree with you David. Baldwins have a full lustre example in their Winter Fixed Price list for a hefty £1,750. Mine has a the remnants of lustre:

Beautiful - that's the best I've seen. I dare not ask how much you paid!

[Accumulator 52]

Oddly the 1897 F148 is still undervalued by comparison

this one is one of the very few I've seen on Ebay

far rarer than the books suggest

I agree with you David. Baldwins have a full lustre example in their Winter Fixed Price list for a hefty £1,750. Mine has a the remnants of lustre:

Beautiful - that's the best I've seen. I dare not ask how much you paid!

I paid £420 about 3 years ago. I know that a significantly better one would be over £1k now. I just checked Baldwin's website and note that their 1897 High Tide is no longer listed, which suggests it sold for around the £1,750 asking!

[scott 129]

the high tides dont come up that often, they do often sneak under the radar as well

bought ages ago for a single bid off ebay

[Peckris 579]

Oddly the 1897 F148 is still undervalued by comparison

this one is one of the very few I've seen on Ebay

far rarer than the books suggest

I agree with you David. Baldwins have a full lustre example in their Winter Fixed Price list for a hefty £1,750. Mine has a the remnants of lustre:

Beautiful - that's the best I've seen. I dare not ask how much you paid!

I paid £420 about 3 years ago. I know that a significantly better one would be over £1k now. I just checked Baldwin's website and note that their 1897 High Tide is no longer listed, which suggests it sold for around the £1,750 asking!

That would have to have lots of lustre IMO. Anyway, I really like the toning on yours.

[Accumulator 52]

Oddly the 1897 F148 is still undervalued by comparison

this one is one of the very few I've seen on Ebay

far rarer than the books suggest

I agree with you David. Baldwins have a full lustre example in their Winter Fixed Price list for a hefty £1,750. Mine has a the remnants of lustre:

Beautiful - that's the best I've seen. I dare not ask how much you paid!

I paid £420 about 3 years ago. I know that a significantly better one would be over £1k now. I just checked Baldwin's website and note that their 1897 High Tide is no longer listed, which suggests it sold for around the £1,750 asking!

That would have to have lots of lustre IMO. Anyway, I really like the toning on yours.

Thank you. The Baldwins example was genuinely full lustre, so you wouldn't find a better one. I guess that justified the price.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Accumulator

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

I'm going to have to review my collection....

Just looked at my F-148 (I think I have another one or two in other albums - not as nice as this one though) and forgot how nice it was...

This is a scan and really does not do it justice....

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

While we are discussing 1897 pennies, I have three different specimens with the DOT between the O and N of ONE....

HEAVY THICK DOT

Edited February 14, 2013 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

LIGHTER THINNER DOT

LIGHTER THINNER DOT with DIE CRACK

[Rob 3,002]

All of which encapsulates the absurdity of paying such high sums for what is basically a particular die which would otherwise be indistinguishable from the rest, in a defined state of wear. You can make a case for die identification, but I'm struggling making one for a certain period in the die's life.

[Peter 615]

Each to their own .When we all get exited over small discs of metal I do wonder.Oh my wife is about to slap me around the chops with a 20lb cod.

[VickySilver 775]

You know the height of this type of absurdity is the assembler of certain large sovereign collection who did just that: collected by die number AND die state! Yikes!!

[Peckris 579]

LIGHTER THINNER DOT

LIGHTER THINNER DOT with DIE CRACK

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there?

[Accumulator 52]

I'm going to have to review my collection....

Just looked at my F-148 (I think I have another one or two in other albums - not as nice as this one though) and forgot how nice it was...

This is a scan and really does not do it justice....

That's a lovely specimen Gary!

[Accumulator 52]

LIGHTER THINNER DOT

LIGHTER THINNER DOT with DIE CRACK

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there?

I'd not heard it described as a deliberate mark? Freeman says it "occurs as a result of damage to the the die". If it was deliberate then, to me, it's collectible but, as Rob says, if its an unintended die flaw, it's not.

[Peckris 579]

LIGHTER THINNER DOT

LIGHTER THINNER DOT with DIE CRACK

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there?

I'd not heard it described as a deliberate mark? Freeman says it "occurs as a result of damage to the the die". If it was deliberate then, to me, it's collectible but, as Rob says, if its an unintended die flaw, it's not.

The other school of thought (sorry, can't quote chapter and verse here) says that the dot is too perfect and round to be accidental. Considering all the activity surrounding the bronze coinage in that year (treating farthings to a dark finish, and all the 'high tide' varieties), it may well be that the Mint decided on a die identification mark. It's only a theory, but you must admit that the dot looks far too even to be a die flaw?

[Accumulator 52]

LIGHTER THINNER DOT

LIGHTER THINNER DOT with DIE CRACK

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there?

I'd not heard it described as a deliberate mark? Freeman says it "occurs as a result of damage to the the die". If it was deliberate then, to me, it's collectible but, as Rob says, if its an unintended die flaw, it's not.

The other school of thought (sorry, can't quote chapter and verse here) says that the dot is too perfect and round to be accidental. Considering all the activity surrounding the bronze coinage in that year (treating farthings to a dark finish, and all the 'high tide' varieties), it may well be that the Mint decided on a die identification mark. It's only a theory, but you must admit that the dot looks far too even to be a die flaw?

Surely, if it was intentional, the mark would have been placed in a more subtle location, perhaps around Britannia? The dot does seem regular though, which suggests the use (accidental or otherwise) of a punch. Alternatively, I was trying to imagine whether the it could be part of a die repair, perhaps a recessed pin, but this seems unlikely.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Accumulator

[Peckris 579]

LIGHTER THINNER DOT

LIGHTER THINNER DOT with DIE CRACK

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there?

I'd not heard it described as a deliberate mark? Freeman says it "occurs as a result of damage to the the die". If it was deliberate then, to me, it's collectible but, as Rob says, if its an unintended die flaw, it's not.

The other school of thought (sorry, can't quote chapter and verse here) says that the dot is too perfect and round to be accidental. Considering all the activity surrounding the bronze coinage in that year (treating farthings to a dark finish, and all the 'high tide' varieties), it may well be that the Mint decided on a die identification mark. It's only a theory, but you must admit that the dot looks far too even to be a die flaw?

Surely, if it was intentional, the mark would have been placed in a more subtle location, perhaps around Britannia? The dot does seem regular though, which suggests the use (accidental or otherwise) of a punch. Alternatively, I was trying to imagine whether the it could be part of a die repair, perhaps a recessed pin, but this seems unlikely.

That would still be human agency, even if accidental. Somehow we seem to generally prefer marks which have been caused by people, rather than misstrikes.

[scott 129]

if it was an intentional mark, why not just do what they did before and after, and slap the mark near the date?

it is a die chip probably.

[Coinery 926]

Bit of an optical illusion for me, is it a raised or sunken dot?

[Accumulator 52]

Bit of an optical illusion for me, is it a raised or sunken dot?

It's a raised dot, so a sunken 'dot' on the die that produced it.