All Activity

@coinkat's OP mentioned "blue book" so I assumed the blue folders were what we were talking about. I have encountered the posher Bookshelf albums that @Bronze & Copper Collector refers to, but I don't recall the colour of those? They were an improvement in storing coins, but seem to have been much less popular - possibly much more expensive? The blue folders were a great way for a young collector to get started, particularly when many of the coins could still be picked up in circulation.

An interesting read. Where did that come from, please.

I'm not sure, but I believe Coinkat is referring to the Bookshelf Albums that had precut openings that were covered by plastic slides so both obverse and reverse could be viewed. Some responses are referring to the ubiquitous BLUE Whitman FOLDERS, 3 cardboard pages with cutout openings for the coins. It was not uncommon to see coins taped in to hold them, or in the case of worn coins, to use an additional piece of paper to tighten the opening.

I had them in the 60's and filled them with pennies and halfpennies collected from bank bags, but everything older than about George VI fell out every time I opened the things. They were basically useless. I never considered using sticking tape though! As King Kenny said, I would have bought them from WH Smith in Basildon town centre when it used to sell useful stuff. The rebranded TG Jones, which no longer sells anything anyone wants or can't buy cheaper elsewhere, is about to close, taking the town centre's Post Office with it. End of an era...

How accurate is the following likely to be ? The exact reason so few 1861 5+G halfpennies were struck comes down to a strict "mismatch timeline" in the Royal Mint's production logs. To understand why this specific pairing is an anomaly, you have to look at the overlap—or lack thereof—between the active lifespans of Obverse 5 and Reverse G in 1861. The Royal Mint did not deliberately manufacture a single "5+G" layout. Instead, they were rapidly testing minor design variations to see which steel dies could withstand the brutal physical pressure required to stamp hard bronze. Obverse 5 was an extremely brief experimental design featuring 15 leaves in Queen Victoria's wreath. It was phased out almost immediately in early 1861 in favor of the much more durable, standardized Obverse 6 (which features 16 leaves). Reverse G was an intermediate, short-lived design choice where the mint engraver, Leonard Charles Wyon, experimented with completely omitting his "LCW" initials from the base of the rock. Because the Mint was facing a massive backlog to replace millions of old copper coins, press operators on the factory floor did not stop production to wait for matching dies when a fracture occurred. They paired whatever functional dies were sitting in the spare inventory racks. [1] The 5+G pairing was a complete accident. It happened during a tiny micro-window of time when an obsolete, left-over Obverse 5 die was pulled from a bin and matched with a newly prepared, short-lived Reverse G die. The definitive reason the numbers are so low is catastrophic die failure. When these two specific pieces of steel met on the factory line, one or both of them cracked or shattered almost immediately under the pressure of the coining press. [] Rather than a sustained minting run, the 5+G is essentially a record of a production run that lasted mere minutes before the machinery was halted to replace the broken components. The technical crisis regarding "die shattering" is well-documented in Royal Mint archives from the Great Bronze Recoinage of 1860. [] Mint Master records from the time note that switching from soft, pure copper to the harder, durable French bronze alloy (95% copper, 4% tin, 1% zinc) caused an unprecedented spike in broken equipment. [] The steel dies of the era frequently developed catastrophic stress fractures. This confirms why the Mint was constantly tweaking the thickness, borders, and leaf counts (like the move from Obverse 5 to Obverse 6) to find a design that wouldn't shatter the steel. [1] During the Victorian era, coining presses were entirely mechanical. Operating logs indicate that when a die fractured, the priority was minimizing down-time to meet massive production quotas. [] Because the obverse and reverse dies are entirely separate pieces of steel fitted into a mechanical press, operators regularly substituted any working spare die that would physically fit the machine to keep it running. The absolute lack of a uniform "5+G production log" coupled with the tiny handful of surviving physical examples proves that this pairing was an unintended transition—an emergency factory-floor substitution rather than an intentional batch design

Interesting information thank you. Other than tonnes of coins being lost at sea what other possible explantion could explain very little remaining examples left today?

They were certainly popular in the UK and still turn up at auctions here occasionally. I have seen all the way from farthings to Half Crowns, with the earliest catering for coins back to 1860 I believe. I can't say they were a great way to store coins, frequently losing their grip, and I have seen many coins sticky taped into place! I don't believe they ever went decimal, so I guess they ceased in the early 1970s.

I certainly had a set of Whitman albums for my pennies back in the 1970's. They were very handy and I only stopped using them when I bought a proper coin cabinet. I think you could buy them in W H Smiths ( a famous stationers in the UK).

I wasn’t so much asking for a grade, just that it was a million miles off being an MS64, even if the reverse was FDC. I did include the link to the upcoming sale, where the reverse is available for viewing. Unfortunately, most people who will be bidding on the coin will only have the integrity of the grading company’s number and the images to back it up. Speaking only for myself, I think both are questionable.

I would not feel comfortable offering a grade opinion without seeing the coin in its entirety-including the reverse. Also, we are opining on a photograph which may or may not capture a realistic view of the coin. Grading standards across the pond are different and standards really should not be intermingled as that can be misleading.

I am curious as to whether the Whitman blue book shelf coin albums were ever popular in the UK. These were produced by Whitman probably starting in the early 1960s and offhand I have no idea when they may have been discontinued. I know there was a Victorian type set album; a two volume 20th Century type set album; various albums for farthings, 1/2 d and 1 d coins. I believe there were type set albums for Australia, South Africa and possibly Ireland. I have only one… the second volume of the 20th century album that started with Shillings. The Whitman small blue folders were more available back in the day than the book shelf albums. I should also add that the book shelf albums were not inexpensive… I recall seeing the Whitman Victorian type set album as a young lad and could not commit to buying it because it cut into my minimal coin budget… and that was over 50 years ago. So were these popular back in the day or was there ever a resurgence at a later time?

If you check my ebay listings, I have an F-275 Last 1 over 1 listed. I also have an F-275 HIGHER F OVER F in F:D: listed. I have never seen another and had questioned Iain Dracott about it, but as he had not seen the purported F/P, he could not be sure whether my coin was actually what was identified as the F/P. See attached image

Interesting page on Heritage Auctions UK comparing NGC grading to PCGS. This has been up for several months at least, it's dated 2015, and the unsigned writer clearly states his views. The link (heritageauctions.co.uk) doesn't seem to post so I've c&p'ed and compressed the paragraph spacing: HERITAGE AUCTIONS The grading of quality and rare coins is a highly specialised skill which can impact tremendously on coin values.signed There are 2 main international grading companies - NGC and PCGS both primarily based in the USA. As they both claim to work according to the Sheldon Scale of grading , one imagines that there should be a high degree of uniformity and consistency in the grading of coins, notwithstanding that sometimes human objectivity may sometimes be compromised if a grader is having an " off " day, for instance. However, levels of consistency can be compared when coins are submitted for " cross-over " grading which is where one of the 2 main companies undertakes to grade the coins at the same existing or other specified grade and will only encapsulate that coin in it's own plastic slab if the coin meets the minimum grade specified by the person submitting the coin. Otherwise the coin is returned intact in the original plastic slab and the submitter is told that the coin did not " grade ". My own experience of crossover is one where the great majority of my PCGS graded coins have failed to cross-over into a NGC slab at the same or a higher grade. I will be providing statistics as time permits. This surely is disturbing? This is why I buy as many NGC graded coins as possible from Heritage Auctions in Dallas, USA. It will be seen by looking at any of their coin auctions that a large proportion of the slabbed coins that they sell are in NGC holders, and given that they are the largest Auction house in the world that must surely say something! OldCopper now: So for older slabs at least, an interesting take. Perhaps things may have changed since.

Given the scarcity of it, I would think a few dies are involved. Most of the metal composition/flan preparation/striking force issues were solved in the multitude of patterns struck in the previous few years, with some types only known with laminating flans for example. Never underestimate the Mint's ability to produce a number of rogue batches from time to time. In the mid-1840s, they were only getting a couple thousand from a die pair. A quick perusal of Linton's article in the BNJ regarding the 1848 halfcrowns is quite enlightening regarding flan quality for much of the decade. ‘The half-crowns of 1848’, 29 (1958-59), p.191-93. According to records, 91872 halfcrowns were struck in 1848. The mint had 13 obverse dies available at the end of 1847, all dated 1846. A further 16 (presumably unfinished) 184(-) were made in 1847, but not required, leaving them available for use in 1848. A potential 29 dies for the 91K struck, but only a handful of the unfinished dies (2 or 3) were completed and dated 1848, most being 1848/6. (One can assumed to be dated 1847, just to test the die batch). The previous year, a total of 22 obv. dies were used to destruction for an output of 367,488 coins. Hardly a long life by normal expectations. Again, there was an 1848/7 in the Adams collection which was possibly 8/7/6, but not conclusively so in hand. Similarly for the 1849/7/(6?). All very interesting, but requiring much speculation until clearer examples come to light. The 1849 in particular, was a real dog of a coin, but even so, unambiguous for the 9/7. Just because it has been given R16, it is only a reflection of the percentage of coins examined during research relative to other 1861s. What if a ton or two of output was lost at sea following despatch? We don't know.

Dracott lists as 1 known. I know of no images If you're going down the Halfpenny Road, have a read of the halfpenny ID thread. You'll learn plenty.

Thanks for this info. Is there images online of the F over P in F.D do you know? The F over P in HALF looks like a die flaw to me just a blob/apostrophe of metal making the F look like a P. I was wondering if 1861 5+G F2755+G F over P in F:D: ?R20 Is a clearly defined P? Thanks

Without knowing for sure if the coin has the flaw on the obverse but the lighthouse doesn't match that of G I'm thinking its probably E?

Do you think this to do with the change over from copper to bronze? And the difference hardness in the metal? Thanks

That a nice really nice example, its interesting mine doesnt show any of the die cracks and the flaw on the forehead less pronounced on yours? If its R16 does that mean all the obverse 5 coins come from the same single die? Surely if multiple dies were in use more coins would of been struck? Its also surprising a die would deteriorate after only strikng a 100-200 coins.

The dent in the forehead is unique to obverse 5 but not all obverse 5's have it. However, all obverse 5's have the scalloped, middle top leaf. For 1861 there is a range of recut, first and last 1's. Some rakish angles too. For 5 + G, Dracott lists an F over P in F.D.

Ok thanks, according the Richards site there is also 1861 6+E F2766+E 1st 1 over 1 I dont think you are seeing things, the date alignment is what caught my attention initially. There appears to be some doubling on E and Y of penny aswell.

yes, now I think it's 5+G which makes me doubt what mine is (my picture is a blow up of a lifesize scan, so it's not clear). However I think mine is more likely to be 5+G also, as the features for Reverse E simply don't ring true.

FWIW, this is my 5+G. The obverse die is close to destruction and the coin somewhat spotty, but all features are clear.

I am not aware of any other obverses which show a similar flaw, but that is only what I have seen. The lighthouse is reverse G because the shape is more of a gaussian distribution with a pointy hat. E has straighter sides. I know 6+G exists with the first 1/1 as I used to have one, but the recut is lower, not higher. I do wonder if your coin has been slightly double struck on part of the flan, as the obverse rim shows a slight discontinuity(?) at 11 o'clock with another between 1 and 2. That could account for the crazy date alignment which is what sticks out most to me,, unless I am seeing things.

I'm not sure I think it is G the coin I have by the difference in the shape of the lighthouse, also reverse E has L.C.W above the 8 & 6 in the date. From what I can see the ace of clubs to the left of lighthouse is on G and not E. The rock to the right of the lighthouse on my coin is different and appears to match better with G.