All Activity

Yes, it’s the hair that caught my eye. I’ve looked at a lot since and not seen one like it. But as Rob says, the Berwick coins are a variable non-conforming bunch so why shouldn’t there be the odd errant die? Jerry

'Normal for Berwick'?

Just returning to this…I agree with your Berwick classification. Re the portrait, it could be all that extra hair on his forehead, that’s unusual? Otherwise it all looks normal to me, the classic wonky chin, all rather Gollumesque 🙂

Buy some! I will only be interested in any that correlate to troop movements which ties in specific issues of coins.

Spink are offering an Historical Documents auction to their clients which features, among selected rarities, two important collections: The John Webb Collection of Important English Civil War Documents – A collection some 50 years in a ever-so-careful and judicious making… How absolutely fabulous is that? I’d love to have some of those documents!

don't try eating it afterwards lol

Washing works with silver but not with bronze unfortunately. You could try bathing it in light olive oil for a few days but not for too long.

I have a soapy warm water soft tooth brush regime with all my worn silver coins, there was a really...and I mean Really, totally manky Victorian Rupee,.... once all the grud had soaked off it was a really nice coin.... I will have gentle prod with a cocktail stick once I have some free time.... and lets see how things turn out..👍

Pretty sure that's the exact same coin from 2015, but for some reason I couldn't seem to find the obverse picture on my computer records!!

I have an 1863 penny with exactly the same tuft of hair.

a cocktail stick could poss improve it but be careful

They would certainly be very poor attempts at plume repair if intentional, and I agree that die clashes may well be involved though as in so many cases of minor ‘varieties’ there will probably never be an actual proof . And I do of course have a vested interest in ensuring that top end prices remain high! (See your ‘Rarest Pennies’, of course , Richard!) Jerry

This is the obverse and there is also an additional tuft of hair at the back of Victoria's neck which suggests die clashes are involved..

The descriptor "extra plumes" is really only a handy identifier to describe the feature of additional spikes of metal appearing from Britannia's helmet.

Hi Richard, Don't know why I had it as an F73, it is an F66. I don't have a picture of the obverse but the guy who offered me it advised it was an F66 at the time.....back in 2015. I believe he sold it around the same time, but cannot remember where. I probably should have taken it for £400!! Maybe ghosting of the bun, on a slightly rotated dies piece??

Amazing, wonderful coin ! The coin I have is 7+H, when you say yes do you think the coin I have shows additional plumes, Im asking because the coins I have seen with additional plumes they always have three extra plumes and they are placed higher than the anomaly shown on the coin I have? Thank you.

I've just checked and it is the F66 that I've previously seen and recorded.

Ian Your pictures saves as an F73 variant - are you sure that it's not an F66 variant ? It's reverse G and I've seen another F66 with identical extra plumes. The extra plumes crop up occasionally and Gouby describes the 1862 3 plumes as "an improvised repair to the plumes" but I'm not convinced that is the cause although I have no alternative suggestion. Richard

I do like a Edward VII , although Coppers dont sing to me I feel this ones a keep, having a Scarcer date tag also adds to its appeal. many thanks "H"

seen a lot worse , scarcer date as well.

Yes, but on a different reverse

Deflection ?cannot argue with the info put forward? Minimize the discovery by blaming my posting style? The flood of images was necessary because the initial feedback claimed the digital work probably wouldnt match the physical coin and probably a die flaw. Now that clear macro photos prove it is raised metal and a 1:1 geometric match, the case is made. It takes less than a second to look at a macro photo of raised metal, so I suspect the silence is less about fatigue and more about the fact that the evidence speaks for itself. I appreciate it was a lot to read through. However, I wanted to ensure the images/info left no ambiguity regarding the raised metal and the exact punch geometry. Afterall its on me to argue/prove my claims. A shorter thread might have been easier to read, but it wouldn't have provided the definitive proof needed to move past the initial 'die flaw' theories. My previous thread V/A of Victoria was stripped back to a single cropped image and short and and simple question and the presentation was viewed as misleading. Given the lack of counter arguments or alternative technical explanations, I am closing this chapter here.

I rather think the silence may be more down to the sheer flood of posts and pictures you've made just recently? I got halfway through yesterday and then gave up.

It's an acceptable example, but shame about the green.