Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/06/2022 in Posts
-
This is the coin in Baldwin you mention Peter and has been CLEANED however the SMALL date and much scacer.
.jpg.967adb959d885100b38cad829fa0e990.jpg)
2 points -
The Baldwins large-rose example coming up next week, cleaned but eye-catching in the photo, is at £1200 when I looked yesterday.2 points
-
A couple of DOT pennies ,seems lots of interest in these now ,probably penny collectors who have everything else. 1861 F26 which i havent seen another one and 1875 BP1875Cd.
2 points -
Yes, I think there has to be a lot of truth in that. i'd also agree that the period 1858 to 1863 is worth a book in itself. Incidentally, high time we had a new book on pre 1860 copper, including the top quality pics that are easily available today. Can't quite understand why we've had several on post 1860 bronze, but none the other way. Maybe it's a period which never quite captured the numismatic imagination.2 points
-
Oh right- now I've got to look at all my 1929's and 1861's again...more varieties very day!!1 point
-
A couple i bought at the weekend. 1929 Missing waves and rocks ,clear nice example and hadnt seen one for the year before. 1858 Large rose ,not the best although have seen worse and only £10 not attributed.
1 point -
1 point
-
One possible reason for this is that the Mint held base metal coins as a low priority compared to silver, and therefore took many more attempts to get things right, resulting in more varieties. The other reason is that the changeover from copper to bronze was so fraught with difficulties, that the period from 1858 to 1863 alone could be worth a serious research study and produce a whole book with its findings.1 point
