All Activity

I now have my own New model crown and a total beauty it is to I got it for less than three figures so am really happy its in about EF grade

It may or may not attract enough interest to eventually be classed as a variety. Do some research, write an article, and who knows? Gouby listed the 1946 ONE' and claimed it was scarcer than the 1926ME. I used his note in my ultimately successful effort to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, which would have increased collector interest several times over.

Damn, that's lovely. I'm really much more into silver than bronze coins but that one is so lovely that all I can say is "thank you" for sharing it.

I can quite see how a snappy descriptor, coupled with just the right level of scarcity, adds a touch of glamour to a particular coin and helps to make it more sought after - whether the V word is carelessly applied or not. Against the dot pennies, the poor old "1915 extra bar penny" doesn't stand much a chance, despite its origins and scarcity being broadly similar (IMO).

Having lost interest in my penny collection and getting on in years, I decided to sell some. Someone else may as well enjoy them. It's a long time since I used this forum so having forgot about it, I put some on eBay. Is that a good place to sell or better on here? I listed this 1965 heavy flan but had no interest so it's re-listed. I also put a collection of errors on there. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/127966667173 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/127965963419

I wonder why Freeman included the 1897 dot in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain" but not the ONE ' - maybe because the latter looks like an extraneous piece of metal whereas he postulates that the perfectly round dot on the 1897 might be some kind of identification mark. Either way those two example are much easier to describe concisely, just as you have done, than the other spurious dot types which can appear anywhere on the coin.

One of the fundamental rules of collecting is that it is entirely down to individual taste, with no right or wrong. A person unable to see alternative views is too blinkered or has an unhealthy personal interest in the outcome. It is also a given that if someone writes down their research on paper, some people will collect said identified differences. One or more of the latter group will then see anomalies and try to rationalise them, and so the research continues. The logical conclusion therefore is that eventually, we will able to identify nearly all of the coin dies that were ever made. Not 100%, but pretty damn close. As a reference point - great. As a collecting aim - get a life if you want everything, and ask to carry any brownie points into the afterlife, because you will need all the time you have 10x over I can't explain why, but whenever I hear the passionate debates about what is right and wrong and the refusal to back down on a view, I am always reminded of the late Eric Heffer's speech in the Commons concerning the Labour left's hounding of Princess Michael of Kent regarding her father being in the SS during WW2. The basics were along the lines of: I think it important that someone from this side says this. I've never met the woman, have no desire to meet her and I am unlikely to ever do so, but in a democracy, nobody can be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. So if those trying to make political capital from this would kindly sit down and shut up, we can get on with the business for which we were duly elected. He may have been left wing, but living in a democracy topped his political views By extrapolation, a tolerance of conflicting views ensures that life can continue peacefully, with the only likely damage in numismatics being data overload. I can live with that. The views will always be diverse, only the tolerance varies.

I agree with all that. However I'd lay the blame not with Freeman but with Coin Monthly! I started collecting as a schoolboy in the late 60s and the very first issue I bought had a Beginners Page featuring (did they call them "varieties"? Can't remember..) three pennies, two of which have been mentioned here: the 1897 O.NE and the 1946 ONE' - plus a Vic copper penny though I don't recall which date or where the extra dot was. I think that as a result of that notoriety, those particular anomalies became accepted as varieties.

I have a motorola Razr and my coin photos with it are garbage. I need to buy a macro lens for my Pentax K3 DSLR instead. The SMC Pentax-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro looks promising (75mm angle of view on the crop sensor). But I always end up buying more coins instead... funny that! 🤣

Ooh, flagship phone 😀 I have only upgraded mine from budget to mid tier and the causal photos are already much better

In my humble opinion, varieties are created by the design process, i.e. the decision to strike a coin from a selected pair of obverse and reverse designs. Any anomalies created by the minting (or striking) process are exactly that - anomalies, collectibility of which is in the eye of the beholder. The confusion was probably started by Freeman's decision to grant a variety number to the 1897 Dot penny. As I say, just my opinion. And the debate will probably go on forever. On my websites, I refer to variations to a particular "variety", such as variation in the date spacing, as a "sub-variety" whereas Gouby assigns specific identifiers. You pays your money......................

After another couple of months, it now looks like this. This photo taken with the new camera I have just picked up - I have not quite got the hang of the focus and exposure yet - sorry! The "copper disease" is much less evident in the hand and the coin will never be perfect again, but I think better than it was.

I then set about an attempt to retone the coin. A thin coating in vegetable oil and then left on the window ledge in the sun. After a couple of months, it looked like this:

Here is the coin after cleaning. I started with the Sodium sequicarbonate, both hot and quick and slow and cold, which removed most of the patina but not the verdigris. I resorted to a short dip in diluted Ammonia, which got rid of the verdigris and most of the residual patina. The remaining red staining would not shift - is this "Copper disease"?

I have been experimenting with trying to recover a 1739 Half penny since December. I am going to post 4 pictures to show how things went. Firstly, this is the start point after I had picked the coin up and given it a quick Acetone wash, only to discover the verdigris hidden under old polish/varnish or whatever.

OK - I have taken both routes! The phone holder is on it's way with Amazon, so I will report on that later. In the meantime I have picked up a refurbished Pentax K20, which is similar to my old Kr. I am still learning to drive it - I need to work on the focus and I haven't figured out how to control the exposure time yet. I am about to post some pics in the Free for All section, so you can see there...

Coincidentally I checked my very small pile of 1961 half crowns the other week, prompted by seeing the missing EF abnormality listed on Michael Gouby's site. And I find that I have one, now properly installed in my collection as a coin of interest. Generally my wife's attitude to my hobbies is one of resigned acceptance at best, but she "gets" my coin collecting. I find people are genuinely interested when I show them examples of variations and abnormalities and talk about the stories behind them. The unanswered questions help to add to the intrigue.

What is, and is not, a variety is something of a 'grey area'. Decades ago, 1961 halfcrowns without the engraver initials EF on the reverse were considered to be a variety. However as soon as it became clear that it was the result of a filled die, it disappeared from the list of varieties overnight. Only very rarely are such things classed as varieties, the exceptions being things like the 1946 ONE' penny. They are accidents of the minting process rather than design changes and therefore only collected by a small group of people.

I have an iPhone 15 Pro Max and it's now my main camera.

Were they the band that had a big hit with Carabao D'Amour?

Thank you, I re-measured, 2.2cm.

Im not sure I am replying properly- using quote? But yes, good call. I assumed it was a spot of corrosion or from an acid test. It feels smooth. Ill have a better look tomorrw with more light. I have tried wwd40. But the camera is intriguing. My son also has an old victorian house with some suspicious blocked up bits and holes. I watched the people who installed the stove use one on the chimney breast, which was pretty scary! I may get one. We all fantasise about hidden treasure in these houses.

no luck yet.

I've just formed an end-of-season football harmony group, called Manhattan Transfer Window. You're welcome.