Leaderboard

unfortunately, that is the American system for you - everything is "AU" right down to GVF

Yes Blakey I have a picture of you with your understudy

That's how I run my workshop. My accountant has managed to arrange for me to get tax relief on the slippers!

There is an massive gulf between gvf and AU I wonder if these gradeing companies employ children and threaten them with a slipper if they dont do as they say

I agree.

I'd grade as EF/gVF. Despite the dirt patches, the obverse detail is EF. Reverse about gVF.

I'm almost certain there's an underlying H there.

One type are set medal and the other coin . I am not 100 % I am sure about what I am about to say but it may be that these were struck with a die method rather than mould pressed in sheets. On the these two the outline of the obverse can be seen on the reverse like a die clash . I assume if these are mold pressed there is no way a clash can have occurred. Would I be correct?

of course some examples showing the variation in the finish and metal

My point was that the ONF 1860 penny is , like the 1882 'clogged H' penny , due to die deterioration, I am aware that the former is considered a variety, and the latter not. I am also aware that the genuine 'no H' 1882 penny was struck at the Royal Mint with no 'H' on the die. The issue is the extent that a coin struck from a damaged die, with perhaps interesting consequences, should be considered a true variety. There are various factors that seem to determine whether this becomes the case, the main one being attractiveness to collectors. But these coins , to my mind, are not equivalent to coins struck from a particular die variety. However, if anyone has a spare ONF penny at a sensible price........ Jerry