Bronze & Copper Collector

Reverse

Mislabeled as a High Tide, it is actually a 1897 Dot.

I believe sir, that you are being de-briefed.

A simple but moderately effective means of getting a uniform perspective is to use a scanner. It doesn't truly get a great image for depth, however for side by side comparisons it's effective. Of course it only works if the coins in question are in your possession.

If my memory serves me correctly the following would probably provide the most plausible explanation. I seem to recall reading about copies of coins made for jewelry purposes that were of the proper gold content. They were adequate for the purpose of the wearer but would not fool a collector or dealer. If you placed them side by side and examined them you could and would see the difference. However, if you simply did a gold content test they would match. Oftentimes they would be bought alongside genuine coins for melt. I have seen bracelets and necklaces with these type copies. They included British sovereigns, US $20 & $10 (necklaces), and $5 & $2 1/2 (bracelets, cufflinks & rings. Also Austrian 20 (not sure of the denomination) Ducats,, French 20 Francs, and Mexican 50 Pesos.

Don't necessarily blame yourself Richard. I was using what I believe to be the 3rd and final edition from 2003. I don't know what edition that you have. I don't think that particular information was in the earlier editions from 1999 and 2001. At least I looked fast in the 2001 edition but couldn't find it. Of course it was late and I was tired, so I could have missed it.

I forgot I had a scan of Satin on my phone.

I don't have the book with me right now, but I'm referring to the S-38 (F-38) obverse 2, reverse g. Throughout the book, he lists (current information at the time it was published), known specimens, known die pairings, finest known, estimated values, etc. When I get home I'll try to post an image.

Just for the record, Satin (John Jerrams), in his reference guide, acknowledges 2 die pairings for the S-38 (F-38).

Thanks for pointing out where to find it...

The article in question...

I'll defer to those better acquainted with the series and its intricacies. However, although it defies conventional wisdom and logic, to me at least, it looks most like a 8/9. Much as Bramah states (in extrapolation), the most likely source of the line to the right between the upper and lower loops of the 8 would be an underlying 9. The knob within the lower loop on the left side, although potentially from either a 3 or a 5, could also be from a 9. The slight curved line within the upper loop lower right side, could be from a 3, but also and to me, more likely a 9. A strange conundrum to have an earlier year recut over a later year, yet not impossible. “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

So long as no one is barking up the wrong tree.....

Agreed. The only reason I mentioned the A was because, if I did not, someone else would almost be sure to mention the weak/missing crossbar, perhaps thinking that I had missed it. My primary enquiry was regarding whether or not the repunched R & I were previously known.

Hi Richard, Is yours also on an F-10? Asking because I don't see the repunched R or I.

Close-up inverted image

Close-up 02

Close-up 01

I have 2 pennies that are extremely poor condition that I think might be reverse f's. Both obverse 5's. It might just be wishful thinking. Or simply going blurry eyed looking at minutiae on myriad coins. Any and all opinions appreciated. Thank you. Coin 1 reverse

Obverse

Good point with the date Richard. Mine has the lower 1 also

Coin 2, base of Victoria's bust

Coin 2, behind Victoria's head 

Coin 1, base of Victoria's bust

I am posting close-ups of the back of Victoria's head and of the base of her bust. On both specimens there is s distinct gap between the back of Victoria's head and the B of Britt, thereby precluding it being an obverse 6. Upon examining the base of Victoria's bust, I see no trace of LC WYON appearing in any position which would indicate either obverse 2, 3, or 4. Ergo, by eliminating the other obverses and by having the space where it would be without exhibiting the signature, I would determine both coins to be an obverse 5. Coin 1, behind Victoria's head