All Activity

You're seeing things. Another classic case of pareidolia, methinks. On a genuine die 5, the die number is much larger than your "blob" and also slightly to the right of a border tooth. Your anomaly is to the left... See below:

It is much clearer on the original photograph, however I had to reduce it to very low res to get it passed the 500kb max image size!

Ah, sorry. I don't think it's a 5 either TBH.

Die number 5

errrrmmmmmm? found this'un and in the spirit of thing with the penny interest (although I'm not 🤷‍♂️) I thought id show you all... its not my interest but may float someone's boat... not sure if its a wonky 6 or misshaped 2 ???? or whatever I'm supposed to be looking out for?!?!??! Victorian Penny 1862 👍

I'm not entirely sure what you are seeing, but it's not an H if that's what think it is. Or the face of Jesus either.

1863 Penny. Tell me I'm not seeing things....

Interesting. I don't know why about the half crowns. I did just order a proof 1927 florin (only available in proof that year) and an UNC 1927 Wreath Crown from The Coin King so I'm eagerly awaiting them.

Had a look on Ebay uk listing for 1927 half crowns as suspected most of the better grade of the first shield examples were fairly expensive. What was surprising was the amount of proofs of the new design were listed with only 15k minted for the sets as against 6.8 Million minted for general issue. Again with the 1927 proof florin the Coin King had three proofs for sale while GB Classic Coins had two. Is there something about 1927 proof coins that makes them unpopular?

Ive been looking for a long time but even some very expensive MS 64 examples still showed signs of poor strike / wear.

Not much fun in Stalingrad, no. You need the A361, Barnstaple section....

Very interesting, it was a coin I was offered off a dealer and with this interesting obverse I may purchase it now !

I agree with Peckris that the loss of details is virtually all due to weak striking. Otherwise, wear would be very obvious in other areas like the garter letterings. And with these 0.50 silver points, areas of wear would show discolouration. If there is still lustre on the top of the shield area, then it's another indication that it is weak striking. You can still try to upgrade to specimens that are fully struck!

Isn't it a brockage? No. Just a die clash - see original post at top of thread. This picture immediately above is an overlay / superimposed, not what the coin actually looks like.

Isn't it a brockage?

Seems fine this morning. Thanks for your efforts @Chris Perkins

It seems to be a relatively common occurrence in the 1870's - I have 1875 and 1877 pennies with the same flaw.

Its a rotated die clash which this overlayed picture shows quite well.

Hello. I was looking on this forum and found some conversations and photos of 1922 One Penny and it's 27 reversed. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in this to know what i've got here...I keep going back and forth. I would appreciate it if anyone could give me an opinion. TIA

Hi I was wondering if anyone could identify what has happened to the bust of Victoria on this 1870 penny. It’s a strange flaw and seems to have been done at the time of striking

Thanks for the comments I wasn't sure as wear and poor strike are hard to distinguish sometimes as i was thinking of upgrading.

It's only the F103 that are really valuable - something the article failed to mention. People with F108 are going to think that they really have something special.

Seriously? Or joking? If you really have, are you up for selling one of them?

I would say poor strike, as the lettering on the garter is perfect, and that's among the first areas to wear. Difficult to grade without seeing in hand, but I would say the second one is AUNC.

As in Sou for femail pig?