Leaderboard

I think my 1859 small date is (by pure default) one of the taller 9 with oval loop. When purchased, it wasn't even touted as a small date, just date only. I haven't got close up photographic equipment (must get), but here is the best I could do with an ordinary pic. Not sure it will be good enough to discern the difference.

Having read the above re 1859 penny ‘9’ font varieties, I purchased this example from KB coins at the MCF yesterday, £210 ….not too unreasonable. https://www.kbcoins.com/store/pennies-1859-victoria-small-date-very-scarce-ef/nef.html This coin, and Richard’s and Mike’s all seem to have the zig-zagging flaw from the lower left of Victoria’s bust to the rim, this might be a consistent feature of the variety. Jerry

And it's fair to say that Bull's revision of ESC was not much of an upgrade. Missing items, items added that you would normally not include as a separate listing such as giving a prooflike specimen a different number, a provenance section at the back which doesn't match the ref. no. in the main body of the book. It basically wasn't proof read, or at least not after everything had been added. I list ESC references with the Bull number followed by ESC 5th edition numbers in brackets, as at least the only fiction in that edition was the rarity attribution. Davies is far better than Bull for varieties, with the caveat that it only covers 1816 onwards, and as you would expect is missing some later discoveries. Every reference volume has inclusions and exclusions relative to another book. You really need to buy the lot and sort out a proper list for yourself. It isn't that difficult because the vast majority of items are present in all and correctly catalogued. My personal view is that a concordance book would be a wonderful addition, but the chances of getting collectors to buy it are probably south of zero. It would also be gargantuan, as essentially you are trending towards an entry for every die ever produced, cross referenced to every book that has been printed on the subject.

Are you talking about ESC? If so, the answer is 'unlikely' - Davies is the expert for post-1816 silver, while ESC is the go-to for early milled.

https://www.netweather.tv/weather-forecasts/uk/convective This is always worth a read- often very complicated!! British weather, eh? I was a member of TORRO yeas ago. No-one would believe me when I said that only the US has more tornados than us....

I also bought a coin in this auction - an 1859 small date with what Ian Fall calls a "narrow" 9. It's taller with a larger and oval loop. I've been looking for one of these for a while so I think they must be scarce. Ian's comparison:

it might be easier to set it free from its plastic tomb and take a picture , the poor thing just might be suffering from plastic entombment syndrome . Most of us set our canaries free , but I suppose when there is a question of its "label" you could always sell it to an American who will accept with reverence anything written on a label.

I'd say quite possibly E over B ? The top picture quite clearly shows the lower loop curving left back towards the downstroke, which the R wouldn't do. There's also something else going on above the E - something protruding above the top right hand side of the downstroke, and something to the right of the top serif which could in no way form part of an R