All Activity

That is a particularly good example! Jerry

Very difficult to say from the photos but to me the non annotated image suggests 11 teeth rather than 11.5. The outlines are rather bunched towards the end, and the tip of tooth 10 in the first photo protrudes above your gap between 10 and 11 in the second photo. However happy to be corrected, let’s see what others think. It just doesn’t stand out like the wider dates should. Jerry

ditto

Worn collars? Reduced striking force to preserve the dies? Different degrees of circulation? Wartime conditions will often lead to slightly flexible interpretation of the rules. Even within nominally identical parts, engineering tolerances can lead to something that looks wrong, even if functionally and usefully ok. Think along the lines of WW1 pennies that were often weakly struck to save replacing the dies so often.

id'ing and recognising a cleaned coin shouldn't be that difficult. Polished to hell and back again isn't difficult to recognise, but anything not dipped to a brilliant white finish seems to get lumped in with cleaned coins. I have seen a couple of early milled crowns this month to die for at cleaned prices. Sadly I wasn't the first to spot them. Mint state both. They don't use all the tools at their disposal for id'ing copper either, so again, bargains to be had alongside some odd designations. eg. My 1860 Weyl uniface penny F881 ranked 308th in the pecking order of NGC's 1860 halfpennies P- unlisted. See the thread in the TPG discussions and go figure. You are not alone in your distrust.

For what it is worth, I think it is a P1242 also. 3 incuse dots limits your obverse options as per Peck's KH17 (P1236) & KH21 (P1242). The reverse isn't that of KH16 due to lack of flaw under Britannia's armpit and the 1 is well clear of the sea, which eliminates P1236. Thus leaving KH21, (which uses the reverse of KH20) as the correct designation. However, it might be worth qualifying that attribution if the pictures were better. I say this because the images are too low resolution to compare directly with my own cleanly struck example. 1. Do the 3 incuse dots on the truncation align correctly? 2. Is the area underneath the armpit devoid of any flaws? 3. Is there any trace of gunports, however weak they may be? 4. Is the flag on the poop the same size? Mine has gunports that are barely detectable, but are clearly present. The image gives an impression of a plain hull - which it isn't. If all those points align on the two coins, then we can safely say it is a P1242 from the same die pair. Given this is a late SOHO strike, it is possible that there might be additional rust spots appearing, but likely only minor ones, as Taylor didn't acquire the dies. Alternatively and with wishful thinking, a coin with massive die breaks would help settle this once and for all.

Same condition, same years, different edge as pictured.

When I count what appear to be teeth from the image I count an eleven tooth spacing if I draw in what I think to be teeth it looks it could be 11.5. My gut feeling the coin is a 11-tooth (Gouby BP1896Ac) what do you think? Thanks

Thank you !

Sorry I hadn't see this reply, thanks. GREAT !

I finally got around to taking better images which represent my coin. Still cant get my head around finding this as cheap as I did unattributed. As I have not been posting here about my finds I now have a backlog of finds to add to my collection taking photos and sharing here found some amazing coins unattributed.

Ah, I thought these were YOUR coins. Perhaps you could post pictures of your coins? In other words, the reverse (to see the condition), and the edge. For now, I stand by my opinion that the 3 coins in that picture have general wear, but the other one doesn't.

Good points, but on the other hand there are still stamp, postcard, audio cassette, model car, etc, collectors. I think there are many areas of collecting where the object itself is long out of fashion, yet the 'collecting gene' needs to be fulfilled.

I would grade as GEF with lustre. Some might say AUnc, and I wouldn't quarrel too much with that, there's virtually no trace of wear.

I appreciate one or two opinions on a grading for this penny before I list it on eBay.

No, I meant in terms of rarity, that the issue numbers will become small enough that modern coins may actually be hard to acquire, driving price and interest?

I think probably the opposite. People not using actual cash means they are exposed to less of it, or even none of it. So casual collectors who keep the odd shiny coin and perhaps get into coins that way will be far fewer. There will probably always be people who deliberately spend cash in order to get change to check and collect from but I wonder if the younger generation growing up now who have only ever paid electronically are a lot less likely to become coin collectors of any kind.

I’m wondering whether collecting from change could once again become a big thing, especially as we become more and more digital? I appreciate that the population today is much larger but, given the numbers of us actually using cash, I wonder how the annual issues compare to, say, the Victorian era?

I got my first Charles III 5p in change today - 2023.

This picture is from the Numista website. I have plenty of Whitman folders, these Silver coins inside them are of the WW2 time, 1937 to 1946. Same years appearing in both edges and about of the same condition.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, it wasn’t me who sent it in for grading, but in this case I believe there are two errors: one regarding the proof/unc status and the other concerning cleaning. If that were the case (regarding my coin), some of the proof coins I’ve seen graded PF 62/63/64/65 would have to be considered as having been cleaned, but this isn’t always ‘noticed’ by the graders. For this reason, I believe that everyone should rely on their own experience and not blindly place their trust in these companies.

Slabbing companies often make many errors from what i have been told, the person paying for the slabbing should make sure the slabbing company knows what they have in their hands the peck number as well , personally I think any slabbing company worth its salt would have a copy of peck and also would refuse to slab a cleaned proof coin as it affects its value a lot , or maybe the slabbing company is just gready😢.

Good evening. I have this 1799 halfpenny graded as "UNC details – cleaned." Leaving aside the debate over whether or not it has actually been cleaned, I noticed that—given the three incuse dots on the truncation of the shoulder—it should have been graded at least as "Proof details." Is it possible that the grader missed the detail of the three incuse dots, or did he deliberately downgrade the coin from Proof to Uncirculated? If I am not mistaken, the coin should be classified as P-1242. If this is indeed an error, what should I do in your opinion? Send it in for regrading or simply crack it out of the holder? Thanks for your opinions.