Leaderboard

This one, on an F16, has always intrigued me. Ghosting of Victoria's face can be seen (as it often does) above Britannia's left knee, but there is also something strange going on with the border teeth. The series of pictures at the bottom show an overlay picture of border teeth, from the same coin, which I have made gradually transparent from 0% to 100% as go from left to right hand side. This shows that the marks through Britannia's knees are clearly from border teeth. I bought this coin at Heritage in 2013 (MS63 Slabbed), and it took me a long time to find another F16 like this, to prove that it must have occurred during the minting process.......rather than the coin being hit with something post-minting. I will show the pictures of that other coin immediately below, as this picture uses up my 500Kb allowance!!

This is just about the most extreme example I have come across !!! An 1862 penny Note the half circle on Victoria's back , its the shield from the reverse side . The extra ribbons are created from the folds in Britannia's. dress

It looks to me as if there was nearly a brockage, as the raised detail of the teeth is the incuse detail on the die. If a coin is not properly expelled between strikes, it will act as the die and leave an incuse detailed impression, because a die has the inverted relief, ie incuse is raised an vice versa, so to have raised 'incuse detail', it had to be a wrong-un, because the die would not have changed its relief and would strike normally, albeit off-centre. With several examples known, the detail must have been from a trapped coin.

Those prove my point about it being easier to see on more worn examples - the ear on those is far better preserved than you'd expect looking at the obverse as a whole.

It's not the thinness - it's the recessed area as you say. On the left coin you can clearly see a hollow surrounding the ear which is absent on the Unc example.

1873: 1 to 6, 10 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 to 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39 to 48, 50, 53 to 65, 67, 69 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 83 to 89, 92 to 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 105 to 107, 109 to 111, 113 to 115, 117 to 123, 125, 127 to 129, 131, 132, 135 to 137, 141

I thought the ganga dynasty started with bob marley in Jamaca

If you think of the ear as an ellipse, the feature I find most readily identifiable is a crease running along the line of the shortest axis. Well-worn examples of a 1915 and a 1916 to illustrate: Both of these pass the broken tooth test. Note that the tip of the ear remains distinct despite the considerable wear.

It's a weird one - I remember when I was searching through bank bags as a schoolkid in the late 60s; now and again I'd see 1915 or 1916 pennies where the head just 'looked weird', especially around the ear. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I did notice each one when it appeared. It may be that the difference is more obvious on a more worn penny than on one that's EF or better? In other words, the ear is less worn than it should be and seems a bit more sunk than on normal examples.

I agree - I find these very difficult to sport generally. I was fortunate this time that the next image was a 1916 in similar condition and the difference in the ears stood out, even to me! Here is the 1916:

It's good. I have recessed ear 1915 pennies both with and without broken tooth. Without seems rarer. Haven't yet seen a 1916 without broken tooth though.

This 1915 Penny looks very much to be a recessed ear variety, but seems to lack the broken tooth. Any thoughts? (Screenshot from online so no sharper image possible.)

Better than EF for me, contact marks aren’t so much of an issue as scratches and other damage from circulation. You can always be caught out by photos, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was graded MS 62ish. Price at auction is so unpredictable, you could offer it at a fixed price of somewhere midway between EF and BU in the catalogue but be prepared to wait, or nearer EF price for a quicker sale. Jerry

I completely agree about the common coin in uncommonly good condition being something to relish. The 1873 shilling I sold to Geoff Cope when he was desperate to find something to buy close to the end is one in question. I bought it from Andrew Wayne's sale at London Coins 110, lot 1046, 1873 shilling where I paid just over 200 for it. However, all good things come to an end, and with a date run of 3rd young head shillings still in the collection all in similar grade and toning due to being a bit too nice to sell, a decision had to be made when I needed funds for something else, so it went in the trays for about 3 years. Couldn't sell it for love nor money because everyone thought it wasn't worth book price, which I was asking. Sold it to Geoff for book price (about 500 at the time) who said 'Ooh, that's nice. I'll have that one' and lo and behold, a few years later sold for CHF 5500, or about 10 or 11 times what he paid as a top pop 66. So at least two other people appreciated the quality and it was worth at least most of that at today's prices. The colours on it were genuinely superb and the best of the bunch, but I made the decision to get rid of all bar and keep the higher graded and near perfect 1874. Reminds me of Non's 1843.

My most extreme die clash .Apologies, not a penny (1696 Halfpenny) .

Oh yeah. I missed that.