More Pennies

[Nordle11 564]

8 hours ago, Mr T said:

Thank you. What was the year and month for that Coin Monthly?

Jan 1971. 

15p  

[Rob 3,002]

8 hours ago, Mr T said:

Thank you. What was the year and month for that Coin Monthly?

It wasn't a Coin Monthly. It was Coins, January 1971, previously Coins and Medals.

[1949threepence 3,366]

15 hours ago, scott said:

I thought the years were 1932 and 1934, rather then 1935?

No it was definitely 1934 and 1935. If you read the 1934 RM annual report extract, that will be obvious.  

[1949threepence 3,366]

Anybody going for the Freeman 23 at the next LCA? - can be seen here 11.32g toned UNC.  

The Freeman 23 is an 1861, 4 + D, on a heavy flan, average weight 11.35g, compared to a general average of 9.45g. Thickness 2mm, compared to a general average of 1.5mm.  

Just looking in Gouby, it appears that (as of 2009, at any rate) 7 were known. Three of those are in the British Museum, and the remaining four in private hands. 

Of course, the price has gone up over the years. This time, LCA are looking for bids in the £5k to £6k parameter. The last one they sold in December 2012, went for £5,500 - which see. It'll be very interesting to see what this one fetches. Actually it appears to be the same specimen.   

Other sales listed by Gouby are as follows:-

Christies - 23rd October 1984 (Freeman) EF 11.1g - £237.00 

Spink -17th June 1987 (Norweb) pAS 11.3g - £648.00 

Spink - 23rd July 2003 (Adams) pAS toned - £1117.00 (weight not given)

DNW - 20th June 2006 (Bamford) AU 11.32g - £1941.00 

MR - December 2007 list pAS 11.02G - £1850.00

So an increase of 172% between 1987 and 2003, and an increase of approximately 290% between 2006/07 and 2012.

Clearly LCA are expecting the same ballpark bids this time as in 2012. We will see.  

Given their condition, it's pretty obvious that none of these specimens have seen any circulation.   

[secret santa 2,013]

Spink sold a nice one in June 2014 for £3120.

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

Spink sold a nice one in June 2014 for £3120.

Indeed, that missed my radar - here it is, very, very nice, and better than the one currently on offer.  

[Bernie 188]

The Ex Clarke Thornill, Freeman coin 11.11 grams sold in James Workman collection at Colin Cooke coins auctions in 2010 for £2400 + premium.

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, Bernie said:

The Ex Clarke Thornill, Freeman coin 11.11 grams sold in James Workman collection at Colin Cooke coins auctions in 2010 for £2400 + premium.

So perhaps LCA are in fact being a tad optimistic with their bid parameters, going purely on what that same specimen fetched last time. Mind, if the vendor is the same individual who bought it (most likely), then what else could they do.   

[Rob 3,002]

You could stick a 1967 penny in with a reserve of 10K as a vendor. They wouldn't have to accept it, but you could try. If someone resubmits a coin from a couple years ago at double the previous estimate, then it might sell. Certainly worth trying from the vendor's perspective. There are no rules to say you can't sell at a certain price, just the stigma of ridicule.

[alfnail 756]

A few years ago I saw something of interest on an 1841 Victorian Penny. Recently I was able to purchase a high grade example with these features of interest, and this now enables me to properly share my find with other collectors of this series.

Collectors will know that there are two currency varieties documented for this year, the common type without a colon after REG, and the much rarer type with a colon after REG.

When I document coins for my collection I always take note of any unusual features. In particular I note the presence of any die flaws and, with additional specimens, how these flaws may develop as a given die ages.

It was by studying such flaws that I discovered that the single obverse die which was paired with the rare 1841 REG: penny was subsequently paired with a reverse die which does not have a colon after REG

The combined pictures below show the exact same obverse flaws present with both types of reverse die, the flaw through VICTORIA being more developed, as expected, on the coin without the REG colon.   

I have examined 17 examples of the REG: variety and only seen these flaws on 3 pieces, suggesting that these are ‘late strikes’ and the obverse die deteriorated quite late in life when paired with the REG: reverse. Also, I do not think this same obverse die was used for very long paired with the REG no colon reverse. I have only seen two examples, although I do not spend time specifically searching for more specimens.

For reference, I will follow with an additional post showing full pictures of my 1841 penny without the REG colon.

Full pictures of a flawed REG: specimen can be seen on the following link, or by examining the example on Richard’s English Pennies website, should you have access.

1841 (A + a) and 1841 (B + a)?…..lots more work to be done   

 

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=142&searchlot=2621&searchtype=2

[alfnail 756]

......and the promised full pictures of my 1841 penny with obverse flaws further developed...

[terrysoldpennies 691]

20 hours ago, alfnail said:

......and the promised full pictures of my 1841 penny with obverse flaws further developed...

hi Ian, This is my 1841 with colon, and with the same die crack.  I note though that the crack only runs between the I and the T in Victoria , and it has no cracks at all across the date ,so it must be from an earlier strike . I also have a no colon 1841 which has absolutely no cracks on it at all, and must have been made from a different die.  Hope it helps your research.      Terry

[Colin88 54]

On ‎18‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 0:30 PM, azda said:

Makes you wonder how he got so much feedback with so many crazy prices. He has been mentioned on here before for his over inflated pricing structure and i also messaged him over ebay about a 1689 halfcrown in a PCGS slab graded as XF which is British VF and he insisted that it was a British EF selling it for £1k, true value, about £130

As you say a £130 coin tops....can often be found in this grade too...

The company are supposedly called London Coin Investments...they sound like another Westminster Mint  / London Mint type outfit...

[alfnail 756]

8 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

hi Ian, This is my 1841 with colon, and with the same die crack.  I note though that the crack only runs between the I and the T in Victoria , and it has no cracks at all across the date ,so it must be from an earlier strike . I also have a no colon 1841 which has absolutely no cracks on it at all, and must have been made from a different die.  Hope it helps your research.      Terry

Hi Terry, thanks for your input. Yes, agree your 1841 REG: must be an earlier strike with flaws just commencing. To date I have found 9 different 1841 obverse dies, best illustrated by their date style differences, which I do not believe anyone has yet tried to document. I have attached a further picture showing these 9 different date types although I have had to reduce from over 3MB to less than 500Kb to get onto the Predecimal system, so the differences are not as easy to see as would be the case with higher definition. I have ordered these, top to bottom, as narrowest (Date 1) to widest (Date 9) and you can see I have shown Date 5 twice as this is the REG: obverse type with or without the flaw through the date. Date 7 by the way is Bramahs rare 2a variety. Also, the dates / obverses which I have named as Date 6 and Date 9 are two different obverses which are both seen paired with the Bramah 2c variety (repair to the F of DEF). I do find it interesting to use flaws and other 'tell-tale' features to plot a timeline of how dies have been paired, but guess that's serious anorak stuff for most!  If anyone wishes to have sight of the 3MB image with these 9 dates then please contact me and I will also be happy to describe the differences if anyone is struggling to see them.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Anorak stuff 

You have the patience of a saint Ian and nice to see a post on the coppers......HAT OFF 

 

[secret santa 2,013]

Great work Ian........................but you really must get out more

[Rob 3,002]

32 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Great work Ian........................but you really must get out more

Nonsense. He must stay in a lot more and extend the study. In true parasitic convention, everybody applauds the work and then just uses the info for their own ends. what would be more useful would be for a few people to carry out the same studies working in parallel. Chances are that whilst the bulk of material will agree, there will also be a handful of unrecorded types which would not come to light on the basis of a single study. The confirmation of research results is a pre-requisite for acceptance, the unexpected discoveries are the icing on the cake.

[Colin G. 147]

It is surprising how much unexpected information you can gather from such exercises, it is just the shear volume of study that makes this difficult..even when choosing a date with limited numbers it can be exhaustively demanding. 

[terrysoldpennies 691]

13 hours ago, alfnail said:

Hi Terry, thanks for your input. Yes, agree your 1841 REG: must be an earlier strike with flaws just commencing. To date I have found 9 different 1841 obverse dies, best illustrated by their date style differences, which I do not believe anyone has yet tried to document. I have attached a further picture showing these 9 different date types although I have had to reduce from over 3MB to less than 500Kb to get onto the Predecimal system, so the differences are not as easy to see as would be the case with higher definition. I have ordered these, top to bottom, as narrowest (Date 1) to widest (Date 9) and you can see I have shown Date 5 twice as this is the REG: obverse type with or without the flaw through the date. Date 7 by the way is Bramahs rare 2a variety. Also, the dates / obverses which I have named as Date 6 and Date 9 are two different obverses which are both seen paired with the Bramah 2c variety (repair to the F of DEF). I do find it interesting to use flaws and other 'tell-tale' features to plot a timeline of how dies have been paired, but guess that's serious anorak stuff for most!  If anyone wishes to have sight of the 3MB image with these 9 dates then please contact me and I will also be happy to describe the differences if anyone is struggling to see them.

Ian , My 1841 no colon coin has your the wide date, no 10 in your list, if its of any use to you for a population count.     Terry

[alfnail 756]

Hi Terry, as my picture with all the 1841 date variations was low definition I attach a single picture of the widest date I have seen, the one at the bottom. If your coin is an exact match then I am expecting that it will also have a VICTORIA C with the small protrusions at the top as seen in my second attachment. Do you have the facilities to check and advise please? Many thanks, Ian

[terrysoldpennies 691]

1 hour ago, alfnail said:

Hi Terry, as my picture with all the 1841 date variations was low definition I attach a single picture of the widest date I have seen, the one at the bottom. If your coin is an exact match then I am expecting that it will also have a VICTORIA C with the small protrusions at the top as seen in my second attachment. Do you have the facilities to check and advise please? Many thanks, Ian

Yes Alf , its there, glad I was of some help, if there's any thing more , just shout.     Terry

[secret santa 2,013]

13 hours ago, Rob said:

In true parasitic convention, everybody applauds the work and then just uses the info for their own ends.

Ouch - first time I've been called a parasite.

[Rob 3,002]

3 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Ouch - first time I've been called a parasite.

Not a personal thing, but people are too willing to let others do the work. We are all guilty, because even if the will is there, often the time available is not.

The early Standard catalogues started listing increasingly minor varieties because the mentality of collectors is to collect something if it appears on a list, so the expansion of a list is a heaven sent opportunity to expand the collection without having to do any homework, and the benefit to say Seaby's was the potential sale of half a dozen coins to the collector whereas before one would have sufficed, having already ticked 'The Box'. Look at the number of varieties that are documented and then suddenly everyone and their dog has one. Those collectors could have looked at their coins before, noted the differences and investigated - but relatively few people take this course.

 

[alfnail 756]

Thanks for the confirmation that your coin has the same obverse features as my own Terry. That being the case I would then expect the reverse of your coin may be the difficult Bramah 2c with the serious repair to the F of DEF (see attachment). That pairing is the one I have in my own collection. It is not 100% certain though, as you may clearly have a coin with the same obverse as mine, but paired with yet another reverse die. Please can I ask for your further confirmation one way or the other? Cheers, Ian

[1949threepence 3,366]

18 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Anorak stuff 

You have the patience of a saint Ian and nice to see a post on the coppers......HAT OFF 

 

Absolutely, this type of research is very painstaking, not to mention time consuming. Useful for others. Thanks a lot, Ian. Your efforts are appreciated.

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

Ouch - first time I've been called a parasite.

You're anything but that, Richard, and may I say thanks again for the  - was it 7? - e mails you sent containing those penny variant articles. Incredibly valuable stuff. I sent them on to Dec LAN . Hope that's OK. Apologies for the odd spelling. Predictive text prevented the proper construction of the name .