Leaderboard

If there is a new penny collector who has NOT bought of me before a few bits left FOC. After buying all Matts unsold ones i have just a few of the common ones left 1961,62,63,65,66,67.....The 1964 had sold but will put one in anyway. All i need is your address and will post them FOC. Pete.

Thats the 1898 I was talkinng about, Keep the first one, sling the second one, Love the 3rd one (which I'd be hapy to own )

OMG I almost melted through screen to grab hold of that beauty lol

Morning guys and gals. thought I would just ask if I got this right. Poor penny I know which makes ID very difficult. But I believe this is Freeman F14 Obverse 3 reverse E. Am I correct? Thanking you kindly

Trouble is Thazz, even if you set up a website or a page or stickies explaining this, none of these people would believe it and would still come and post silly questions. I mean, if a pretty 50p with a mintage of 8million+ can be rare, and OFFERED for sale at £5k+ why shouldn't every other coin in history.

I wouldn't normally advertise on this site, but I'm getting rid of various 'penny collector' related items and I'd rather they went to a good home. I've listed them on eBay today, as two separate lots; books (including Peck, Freeman, Gouby, Bramah etc.) and also catalogues (Freeman, Norweb, Bamford, Adams etc.). I would consider all of these essential for any serious penny collector. Links are here: books & catalogues I also have various penny-related Quadrum capsule items and storage boxes if anyone is interested in these? Steve

Penny Acquisition of the year for me , just in time for Christmas. f164a Terry

Received the Freeman 1 & Freeman 96 won at the recent LCA today:-

Well we know there are normal struck 1951 Festival proof coins which are all the ones in Green/burgundy/Blue cases except for the blue box issue which were specifically issued at the festival itself. As for the other two colours perhaps one was for UK and one for overseas?. We have plain edge proof which was struck in error on unedged blanks . I guess they could of been in any of the colour cases? Then there is the VIP proofs with frosted designs (not totally true) VIP proofs also appear with a regular proof finish with a cameo subject against a mirrored field. Also there is a Matt proof version. It just seems strange to me whenever you see these come up at auction there is no mention of "in box of issue with C.O.A" So how do they distinguish Between an early struck standard proof and a VIP proof. Especially against the VIP proof that doesn't have a frosted finish? I left off the two obvious coins as the frosted one we know what that looks like and the matt proof would be just as easily identifiable here are 3 versions of the standard issue versus a non frosted VIP proof. If we were to send in the VIP proof raw would they even recognise it as one?

Although I contributed to this thread back in 2012, I have literally only just read the fantastic response from Michael Freeman above. As Pete would say "hat off". I refer to Mr Freeman's book literally on a daily basis. Obviously over time - a very protracted period of time - some of his estimates will be questioned and revised. But for the overwhelming most part, they are considered pretty much as accurate today as they were when first compiled back in the 1960's. That is some feat, and testament to his skill and dedication. Thank you MIchael.

I think this may have been caused by a small piece of metal getting itself pressed with part of the obverse image, then being flipped over to face the other way up on top of the next blank about to be pressed, the two pieces of metal,[ the blank and the smaller piece of metal ] were then pressed together ,this would give the brockage, but only over the area where the smaller piece of metal had been. The two pieces of metal must then have parted company , leaving the blank, now a coin looking like yours. Terry

IMO, that was a planchet flake off another coin that was off the obverse surface and then flipped and struck into this coin with subsequent "freeing" of the fragment. The planchet of this coin ought to weigh close to the 9.4 gm standard.

I think its possibly a lamination error showing the coin struck through from the obverse due to the weaker flan........Not my theory just asked someone Although looking again that doesnt make sense as the head is lower

and 1931

I am aware of five, including yours. I dare say there are a few more out there, but it remains an excessively rare coin. You might get a better return from a specialist auction than Ebay despite the difference in sellers premium. The LCA coin you reference gives you a rough idea of the value, though the provenance of that coin, being I think the Laurie Bamford example, might have helped. As always, the final price is governed by demand. Jerry

Hi , below is my 2+e 1909, as you said the 1 in date should be directly over the tooth, but also the right side down stroke of the N in ONE should point to the gap between the teeth. Terry

Horible but clear

I have a 1937 proof set with a 2+B penny. I bought the set because it had the 1+B variety of florin, but am now doubly pleased.

I believe that Michael Gouby helps with the cataloguing of bronze coins for Baldwins, for example.

Paul Holland sent me the following comment on the origins of the 1862 over 1 penny: I don't think it occurred from ablundered repair attempt. If I had to guess, I would say that itarose near the end of 1861 or the beginning of 1862 when final datenumerals were being punched into working dies. A Mint worker mayhave placed a numeral 1 punch into position and started to 'set it'with his hammer, then realized that with the date changeover, anumeral 2 punch was called for instead, then completed dating thedie as 1862. To me this makes more sense that the other way round...although we may never know for sure. This would also help to explain the origins of the 1862 2 over 2 that have been spotted, with a mint worker trying to correct a slightly misplaced 2 when entering a 2 on a working die. But, as Paul says, we may never know.........

You probably saw this on Ebay recently. The route to getting it was tortuous but I just had to have it - it's stunning. It's far and away the best of only 4 known examples (1862 over 1).

I added this beautiful 1904 penny to my collection recently.

By sound. Put them on a piece of glass and raise one side a couple of mm and let it go. They will make different sounds. Then compare with a pre-1920 threepence to see which is which.

This 1922 trident dot variety is both interesting and unusual. However, it should be pointed out that the likely origin of the raised dot on this coin is rust on the die. Such rust can lead to a circular pit in the hardened steel die, resulting in a round dot when the coin is struck. This has recently been studied in some detail, and below is a link to this article in the Journal of the Numismatic Association of Australia. http://www.numismatics.org.au/pdfjournal/Vol27/vol-27-article-1.pdf Best Regards, InforaPenny

When does a secret stop being a secret? The moment you say "Don't tell anyone"

I don't know what has happened to it since I saw it and can only go on what I'm told. Maybe it has been looked at and condemned and maybe not. The person concerned wasn't short of a bob or two, nor do they collect anything in depth, so it would fit into a random selection quite easily. Maybe they kept it and wanted to stay below the radar. Maybe they sold it. Who knows? We all know there are many things that specialist collectors would like to know exist, but the knowledge is kept close to the owner's chest for whatever reason.

This is the one held privately. Clearly has some residual lustre on it:-

But this is a currency piece....

Here she is. I know where it is but I can't tell (it's not me !)

Well worth it. I have used mine over and over again.

there are some subtle differences between the standard 3 d's and the maundy ones that look alike in Edward VII's reign and before, angle's of the rim etc, a good book to buy is silver pennies and linen towels by Brian Robinson, goes into great detail about issues and dies telling proofs from standard etc, gone up a bit in price now, i got it when it was first issued, great book though isbn 9780907605355

It was quoted that his were made of nickel or German silver . from the article . The mention of machinery (rather than moulds) points to the likelihood that the method of manufacture was that used in another enterprise of the same James Steele, with Robert Ramsay, from 1927 to 1930—when they were detected through the superabundance of coins bearing the same date. Halfcrowns dated 1920 and 1921 were then made from nickel 'or German silver'; the charge was of having a puncheon, four dies, an electrotyping machine, a rolling machine, an edging machine, a charcoal stove, an annealing box, electro-plating tanks, frames, an hydraulic press, and an ejecting machine . . . 'These misdirected geniuses had perfected what was virtually a miniature Scottish Mint'.7 In the early nineteen-sixties this remained the only successful case in which counterfeiters had struck pressed sheet metal in the same manner as the Royal Mint.

Two undoubtedly currency 1853 groats coming up in next DNW sale on 14th June ! Both have the "curly" 5 and the larger 3.

I do not post in here often but here are a couple of newbies from @PWA 1967 I am not happy with my pictures, they look far better in hand.

Hi, just wanted a few comments on this. I've been studying and collecting silver George V coinage extensively for a few years now and from my observations, it appears that the introduction of the modified effigy was staggered starting with the threepence and finishing with the halfcrown. The 2nd head currency 3p is quite rare (extremely in high grades) with the modified 3rd head much more common. Conversely, the 2nd head halfcrown seems to be more common than the modified head halfcrown of the same year. I've had it on good authority from someone who collects sixpences that he sees several modified heads to every one old head 1926 which seems to fit. Any thoughts? I'm curious why ESC specifically comments and states the old head halfcrown is rarer as I would be surprised if that is the case.

There isn't anything that screams fake. The obverse looks ok to the extent that the distance from the legend to the linear circle looks ok (i.e. variable) on the obverse compared to the illustration in Marsh. The image of the reverse isn't good enough to pass comment. What does the edge look like as I can't see any trace of the milling?

That's a really weird one. The obverse is not a sixpence. Sleepy has it I think - it's the half sovereign obverse, gold proof error. Davies 1141 indeed.

Yes, I should have remembered that. Here is the extract:-

I can imagine a scenario during the times that the VIGTORIA's were circulating where the overwhelming majority of people would barely glance at them, much as with today's circulating coins. Maybe the odd person, idly musing, noticed it, thought it was an error, and then thought no more about it. It's only since demonetisation (sp), mass melting down of the worn out residue, and increased collector awareness, that we've started to look out for these things. I agree with you, Matt, that quite a few more will emerge in the near future - just as happened with 1863 die No under date.

Peck did say that he was in danger of never getting the publication completed if he started to record such varieties, but did not discount them, and I suppose when you think they would have been across several denominations it would have been a further addition to what was already a mammoth task.

I do love the Davies book, I have to say!

Don't know if this one is high enough to qualify?

have emailed the guy as he has excellent feedback and may have just mixed his photos up..

Richard , I spoke to you some time ago about my possible 1953 121 tooth matt finish penny, its below. Terry

Anybody going for the Freeman 23 at the next LCA? - can be seen here 11.32g toned UNC. The Freeman 23 is an 1861, 4 + D, on a heavy flan, average weight 11.35g, compared to a general average of 9.45g. Thickness 2mm, compared to a general average of 1.5mm. Just looking in Gouby, it appears that (as of 2009, at any rate) 7 were known. Three of those are in the British Museum, and the remaining four in private hands. Of course, the price has gone up over the years. This time, LCA are looking for bids in the £5k to £6k parameter. The last one they sold in December 2012, went for £5,500 - which see. It'll be very interesting to see what this one fetches. Actually it appears to be the same specimen. Other sales listed by Gouby are as follows:- Christies - 23rd October 1984 (Freeman) EF 11.1g - £237.00 Spink -17th June 1987 (Norweb) pAS 11.3g - £648.00 Spink - 23rd July 2003 (Adams) pAS toned - £1117.00 (weight not given) DNW - 20th June 2006 (Bamford) AU 11.32g - £1941.00 MR - December 2007 list pAS 11.02G - £1850.00 So an increase of 172% between 1987 and 2003, and an increase of approximately 290% between 2006/07 and 2012. Clearly LCA are expecting the same ballpark bids this time as in 2012. We will see. Given their condition, it's pretty obvious that none of these specimens have seen any circulation.

It wasn't a Coin Monthly. It was Coins, January 1971, previously Coins and Medals.

Jan 1971. 15p

Just me You MUST write this information up. I believe Rob is working on a new ESC and this kind of info would be the icing on the cake.

Hi, I have collected die numbers for a number of years now, 6d 1/- and 2/-. I currently have 878 of the possible 1107 die numbers for Shillings (excluding varieties and errors). I know a collector that had just over 1000 of the 1107, so there are less than 100 unknown numbers. I have found very little info on the die number series apart from the books already listed in the above posts, Davies, ESC, Coincraft etc. Tony Claytons site with known die numbers is not very up to date. I e-mailed him a while back with the numbers I had, but he never updated it. There are a couple of errors/updates on Davies, 1868 I believe 51 is the highest number, not 54. 1874 I believe 70 is the highest number not 76. 1877 I have with die 70, Davies lists 69 as highest. As far as varieties go, if you collect all the numbers, you will generally have all the varieties, since this is all the dies that were used. There are only a hand full of exceptions, the main ones worth noting are The 1866 die 63 has the standard obverse and also found with the B/R in BRIT obverse. 1879 die 9 has the standard obverse and also found with the R/B in GRATIA (there was one for sale on eBay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1879-Victoria-Shilling-Unlisted-GBATIA-Error-Variety-die-9-EXTREMELY-RARE-/200974960748?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item2ecb0a886c ) London coins also sold one a while back. There will be plenty errors in the series too, broken dies, filled dies etc, but not really varieties. Hope this helps