All Activity

similar as Paddy I have coins that have holes in them and counter stamped. I have others that have been engraved as love tokens, nice enough in there own right. 👍

I guess most "serious" collectors would avoid plugged coins, or any other damage. But if that is the only way you can fill a gap within budget, then go for it! I have a number of damaged coins in my collection - some with engravings in the field, some ex-mount, some hammered even missing fragments, but they will fill the gaps until and unless I can afford to replace them with something better. Here, for example, is my William I penny. I would love to have one without the missing chunk, but until one comes along at a price I am happy with, it will stay with me. Your Henry VII, by the way, is a lovely example apart from the plug.

Hi all! I’ve been collecting on and off for a few years but only recently decided to try and take it up seriously. Came across this Henry VII plugged groat at a fair which after some deliberation I decided to buy as apart from the plug I thought was a really nice example but just wondering what people’s views are on plugged coins generally - do other collectors avoid them altogether and do they hold any value? I thought the price was reasonable given the plug but wonder what others views are. Would others buy a plugged coin to fill a gap or go for a lower grade, non-damaged, coin instead? Thanks!

Really interesting - I've added it to my rare penny site with a question mark.

I agreed Martin, and here it is. Digital microscope (x140) picture of 'H' to follow. Any views please, I've struggled to classify it as a fake myself......but then what do I know about metallurgy!?

I see London Coins sold this piece below a decade or so ago, concluding it was a doctored piece (is it???) with the H presumably added post-mint. Maybe this is the one Freeman saw and then had second thoughts? Did any forum member buy it, perhaps? Seemed a fair price for such a curio!

Regarding pennies, an addition not incorporated into the 1985 edition: Page 31, number 80A (1875 8+H with H below date) - can we assume that this coin does not exist ? I have never seen it referenced anywhere, including Gouby.

It was the basis of the updates, subject to his future decisions. He later removed the milled penny (that I recently sold) from the catalog after receiving an assessment from the Royal Mint that it was a post mint alteration. Just as his 1970 edition was an extension of his several updated versions of his penny studies expanded to include half pennies, farthings, patterns, trials, etc. There are ALWAYS corrections, updates, modifications, etc to a work of this magnitude. There have been many new discoveries to add to Peck, Braman, Freeman, etc. No guide/catalog is a final authority, it merely contains information known at the time. They grow, mature, learn, make adjustments and corrections, expand as a living being.

I didnt know there was now a few of the mule and thought there was only the one, sold by Hiram Brown. I would buy one today for much more than it sold for at Noonans and will have to start looking now 👍

Some were although some not and the two page ammendment sheet put inside the 1970 book at a later date. The 1909 F169 is another and says should be R15 although was in the later books as R9. Nothing amazing and was just posted for anyone who may be interested.

Not quite all, though... Eg. the mule 1860 halfpenny listed above as 260A does not appear in the 1986 or subsequent editions, instead there the one given 260A is the missing knot 1*+A, but non-mule, and 260B its proof. Wonder why he never mentioned again such a mule piece? I believe a few are now known?

These, if I am correct, are you amongst the updates included in the second (1986) edition.

It was inside a copy of the 1970 First edition i bought a few months ago and hadnt seen one before.

Where does this come from, Pete ?

Dont know if this is any interest to anyone. Although i have posted in pennies, it also covers other bronze. These were amendments freeman made after his first bronze book, showing some that he had estimated to be less rare than he originally thought or at the time of print didnt know existed, such as the 1860 Halfpenny mule, 1870 Dot penny etc.

I suspect so, and while close I don’t think it’s an actual die match with H’s. Potentially a very rare coin, especially as the one illustrated is the best Dave Greenhalgh could find! Jerry

Thanks, Jerry…agreed, and this is probably what he has to be honest. I’m guessing these would be local dies?

Hi Stu, here is the pic. Very similar crown. Jerry

I don’t suppose you have an image of that coin to hand, do you? I don’t have a copy of that book, just the Galata pennies of Edward I & II

That very distinctive ‘stalked’ central fleur looks pretty much identical to the illustration of the ‘Edward III Pre Treaty Series E York Episcopal’ Penny on page 70 of ‘The Galata Guide to Mediaeval Pennies Part 1’ though I cannot see a quatrefoil after ‘ANGLIE’ on H’s specimen. It is an interesting coin, and I think Dave Greenhalgh is the man to give an opinion here, if anyone is a contact. Jerry

OK, so the best I can do with this is say there were Edward III pennies from the Treaty/Post Treaty period bearing the obverse legend you have on your coin. However, given that the lettering, bust, etc. is so crude in its execution, I feel it can only leave you with something continental or perhaps a contemporary counterfeit…UNLESS, of course, it’s something that’s been struck from local York dies? Looking for Edward III pennies that were struck from local dies, is one I’ll leave to you. I did however, in a brief search, find a Richard II penny struck from Local York dies*, and I feel there are some similarities, so not all is lost. It might also be worth taking a really close look, under magnification, at the first 3 letters of the kings name, too. *taken from a dealer’s website, who just happens to be a member on here Historic Coinage

Yes - 1920 was the last year they only used the deep cut obverse portrait, which 'sucked' metal away from Britannia, and caused a 'ghost' of the portrait outline which you can see clearly in the top example; it's more common to see between 1911 and 1920 than fully struck up reverses. In 1921 about half the pennies use a shallower portrait which partly alleviated the problem, but it wasn't until the Modified Effigy from 1926 that they reduced the effect to small enough not to worry about.

Unfortunately, no. Nothing of interest there.