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

86682B63-E7E2-4B7E-90E7-FA344FA17C50.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So great seeing the different opinions on the 1882 no H penny .

Surely what these forums were created for .

***** Five stars everyone

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, copper123 said:

So great seeing the different opinions on the 1882 no H penny .

Surely what these forums were created for .

***** Five stars everyone

Great  discussion, I agree. Some really important considerations raised and debated.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm only ever going to trust a mint, or near mint state 1882 no H.....

......and as I'm probably never going to see another one for sale, let alone be able to afford it, that's me permanently out of the running. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was slowing up around here. Richard's site is so wonderful BTW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a chance to see and handle(in its slab) the 40K 1882 F112 at the Midland Coin Fair today, a very pretty coin……but what a price! Anyway the new owner seems happy, I would have shown it off too!

Bought some nice halfpennies, thanks Rob!

Jerry

Share this post


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

Are you able to name its owner ?

I don’t see why not, Guy (the Coinery) who now does the auctions of that name. 
Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes, that is a lot to bury in that one. I did not see this one up close, but not sure that it is up to the Gerald Jackson specimen (which I believe had been obtained from Spink at some point). I toyed with the idea of getting that specimen but in the end heard  via the grapevine that there would be blood in the fight so to speak so contented myself with his excellent 1869....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Yikes, that is a lot to bury in that one. I did not see this one up close, but not sure that it is up to the Gerald Jackson specimen (which I believe had been obtained from Spink at some point). I toyed with the idea of getting that specimen but in the end heard  via the grapevine that there would be blood in the fight so to speak so contented myself with his excellent 1869....

It actually does look very nice, good if slightly subdued lustre, merits it’s MS64 slab. The Jackson coin is just a bit brighter I believe.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2021 at 3:58 PM, VickySilver said:

Peck, I think you missed the point about evidence - a small population makes it difficult to make judgements other than there is a small population. That would not of necessity prove anything. We have no idea if there were different dies trialed and especially if in scant numbers,  if more were struck and then destroyed, lost (or ? whatever). Obviously many alternative hypotheses may be advanced.

What would be the point of a die trial in any case? We can only infer. Why, if the hypothesis of trials is advanced, can it be excluded that more than one die combination was trialed? Numbers extant alone would not be proof of either motive or event.

Because *IF* (and it's just an if...) the pennies were struck just to test out the new electronic presses, then it makes sense they weren't testing dies but merely the equipment. If that wasn't the reason, then yes, it's all up for grabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly circumstance motive difficult to ascertain at this point; not always clear what the RM is up to even 140 years later!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking about the slope of the '2', and it looks the same on the 'H' ones and the purported 'no H' one discussed above.

If you did alter a '3', it would have to already have the same tilt????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, alfnail said:

.....anyone bid on this one, F32?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/304157856034

 

 

 

 

No, but would have done if I'd realised it was on offer. Nice condition and better than mine. 

Well worth the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that really an F32? Lighthouse looks pointy, and where’s the rock? Obverse is 6, with colon flaw, so not F21. it’s not F28 looking at the exergue. Not sure what’s going on there, must be missing something.

And the bidding over £15 was driven entirely by two individuals.

Jerry

Edited by jelida
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jerry. That's why I put the ? after F32.....as I wasn't too sure either. I saw it whilst on holiday and wasn't able to blow up the picture properly to check type, picture is a little blurry anyway. Thought someone must have thought F32 because of final price, and I can now see that date numeral positions look right, here's date from my own example.

Was wondering if a member could now confirm as it would be one of the best F32 examples. 

F32 Date Sized.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, alfnail said:

Hi Jerry. That's why I put the ? after F32.....as I wasn't too sure either. I saw it whilst on holiday and wasn't able to blow up the picture properly to check type, picture is a little blurry anyway. Thought someone must have thought F32 because of final price, and I can now see that date numeral positions look right, here's date from my own example.

Was wondering if a member could now confirm as it would be one of the best F32 examples. 

F32 Date Sized.jpg

I really wouldn’t bet on it being F32, despite comparable date alignment when the other major identifiers are not there. Even the tail of the plume is too fine imo. But if any member has bought it, I am happy to be proved wrong!

(not as nice as mine anyway 😉).

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever you really need it, the zoom feature isn't on. Not brilliant photography anyway.

Another feature of reverse F is that the rocks to the left of the lighthouse tail off before they reach the linear circle. Not sure whether that's the case with this one or not.......probably not actually. 

Given the amount bid, however, some are obviously convinced. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad it's not just me who has serious doubts over this. I considered posting a similar query when it finished; over £300 for what I believe is just a bog standard, if nice, F33, 6+G.

Like you, happy to be proved wrong if the buyer can post better pics (the eBay photo is properly poor), but I think two potential buyers have convinced themselves this is something it isn't... Where's the narrower helmet to plume gap? Where's the little vertical extra bit of dress near Britannia's shin? Where's the rounded lighthouse top? Etc etc.

Or are we all missing something else??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I'm looking at this on my cell phone.

All I see is an F-29 obverse 6, reverse D.

What could be confusing is that I do not see the LCW on the reverse. It could be the imaging, a worn die, or something else. But so far as I can tell it's a reverse D.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that it is possibly a reverse F. The deep cut fabric hanging down to the left of Britannia's foot, looks very much like reverse F. The picture is crap unfortunately. I don't think that I would have risked £300 on it though !

I and ten other bidders bid for what appeared to be an 1862 8/6 a few years ago. I won it for £288. It turned out to be a stain on the coin !

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Glad it's not just me who has serious doubts over this. I considered posting a similar query when it finished; over £300 for what I believe is just a bog standard, if nice, F33, 6+G.

 

Whoops! I meant to say a bog standard F29 6+D of course! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

Whoops! I meant to say a bog standard F29 6+D of course! 

I have done another one of my image plays as best I can, making the image a negative and tweaking a bit, and I think one perhaps can just make out vestiges of the LCW (ringed in red in the top image), plus the lighthouse top also does look way too sharp. Non-inked negative image also attached so you can form your own opinions...

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Edited by Martinminerva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the other factor we don't know is whether either of the two main bidders for this coin actually requested (and received) better pics from the vendor which removed any doubt they had. Who knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverse D designs can and do vary quite a lot, albeit in very small ways but the reverse of my F22 seems to match the reverse of the coin question pretty convincingly, especially in the folds of Britannia's gown and left sleeve.

1586855576_1861F22revedited.thumb.jpg.2215c1517630fa8150342a963ba6fc29.jpg

  • Like 3

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

×