Bronze & Copper Collector

Thank You.....

1861 1/1 F-276 6 & E First 1 over higher 1 1861 1/1 F-279 7 & F Last 1 over Lower 1 1861 1/1 F-277 6 & G First 1 over higher 1 1861 1/1 F-282 7 & G Last 1 over HIGHER 1 1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 1) Each of these are different 1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 2) Each of these are different 1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 3) Each of these are different

These are the different 1/1's that I have.... I also have some 6/6's etc..... I can probably find images of these when I get the chance.... 1861 1/1 F-276 6 & E First 1 over higher 1 1861 1/1 F-277 6 & G First 1 over higher 1 1861 1/1 F-279 7 & F Last 1 over Lower 1 1861 1/1 F-282 7 & G Last 1 over HIGHER 1 1861 1/1 F-282 7 & G Last 1 over LOWER 1 1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 1) Each of these are different 1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 2) Each of these are different 1861 1-1 F-282 7 & G 1 beside 2nd 1 (Specimen 3) Each of these are different

I know of an F-282 1 over lower 1........ several other 1/1's also, first 1, last 1, depends on the variety..... I can post a list of what I have when I get in front of my desktop.....

Update on the coin in question: I received a phone call from the owner of the coin today.... They received the coin back from PCGS after having resubmitting it for reevaluation of the attribution. PCGS CONFIRMED their original attribution of this coin and maintains that this coin IS a TB/BB MULE. Although many users of this forum disagree with this attribution, including myself, I am the only one who has actually viewed the coin and is most qualified to speak against it. It is the owners position that he took the necessary steps to correct a possible error on PCGS's part, and was very gracious in accepting the criticism heaped upon the coin. I can not and do not disagree with this. I therefore understand and accept the owners request that, when the coin is relisted at auction, since he did take the necessary corrective action, that NO more disparaging comments be made in OPEN forum regarding this coin. Also that any such acts of posting in an OPEN forum and belittling the coin will be treated as slanderous statements and will be reported to the proper authorities.... At this point he feels that any comments made against the coin should be directed toward PCGS, who at this juncture, have now examined the coin twice and arrived at the same conclusion.. As for myself, I am just posting this to keep the forum members abreast of the latest news in this saga. I did purchase the coin and return it as I was not convinced of the attribution, am content that the seller more than extended himself in sending it back to PCGS, and believe that the onus is now upon PCGS to make things right if it should ultimately prove that we were correct.

Excellent idea.... He can refer to his original notes.....

Footnote 11 in Freeman, lists the thickness as 2.25 mm..... No weight given.....

Freeman lists the thick planchet as 2.25 mm thick.... (Maybe I passed on a good buy???.. It happens).....

HI Hussulo, I had watched the coin on ebay but had my doubts..... I had meant to email you about the coin to see whether it WAS a thick planchet...... Please keep me posted......

With the following information, you can easily prove that a specimen is NOT a true NO H, or, with a bit more research, prove that one is an F-112....... Quoted from Tony Clayton's very informative website...... http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/penny.html (My comment: it would help to have both obverses to compare as you relate to the information below........ Both reverses too, if you're not familiar with those either) "The 1882 penny without mintmark is particularly rare (and not in Peck), but watch for worn coins where the mintmark has been worn away. A variety with the bar missing from the H is known. The following is a description of how to tell a genuine 1882 no H from an 1882H penny, as kindly related by the Penny specialist Bernie: The identifiable features of the genuine non "H" 1882 penny are a flat shield on the reverse, NOT convex. Victoria has an apparent hooked nose, caused by a weak die strike in the area of the eyeball. The "R" and the "I" in "BRITT" should not be joined; a very small space should be visible with a magnifier. There is a tuft of hair protruding from the back of the neck, left of the ribbon knot. This tuft of hair is always visible on very worn specimens. The "H" variety can be clarified by examining the space encapsulated by the inner ribbon, as if the uppermost section forms a point in this triangulated section, then it is the common variety. The rare non "H" does not terminate in a point because of the tuft of hair mentioned above. I should add that there are two types of obverse and reverse for 1882H pennies, and that the 1882 No H penny has the less common types - having these characteristics does not ensure that it is a No H, but having the characteristics of the other types confirms that there was an H even if worn away. "

Possibly also because any purported 1882 NO H (F-112) pennies are NOT.... I believe 2 were sold recently.... I have EXTREME doubts about the one, and am not convinced on the other........ Mine is well worn (and acquired from an unimpeachable source), yet identifiable using the diagnostics listed on Tony Clayton's website.... (an explanation of what to look for from Freeman & Gouby, which can easily eliminate the "pretenders" and help confirm genuine specimens.....) a few years back, a major auction firm sold a purported 1882 no H that even the consignor did not believe to be that variety and when I requested and examined images, it was obvious it was NOT an F-112..... Potential buyers may be VERY hesitant to purchase a coin in low grade for a large amount of money, regardless of how rare it is, because they are not sure that it is that variety....... Despite the results of the Bamford sale, I'm sure that if a SUPERB QUALITY specimen became available, it would command the premium that it deserves (relative to the series, not in comparison to the same rarity in US coins.... an issue that enables to to own many of the classic rarities in the Bronze series, and is slowly resolving itself)

Just the pictures of the 6/6 that I posted on CU....... As I said, to the best of my knowlege, the 6/8 is actually a 6 over higher 6....... which looks similar to the 6/8 F-30 penny, but is not the same.......

For the Farthing specialists...... Link to Auction

According to Iain Dracott's definitive article on Victorian Bunhead HalfPennies.... He mentions for 1870, 1871, and 1873, that "some have wider dates"........

It just occurred to me that there may be a reason for this coin being fairly common in low grade but pretty rare in say EF and above. Quite simply, a new coinage was launched in 1860 and many people who were not naturally coin collectors put examples aside. Given that this variety would in all probability not have hit the streets until 1861, most 'keepsake' coins would already have been happily sitting in drawers. It is also extremely unlikely that collectors of the time were that interested in such esoteric varieties, and hence F17 became quite scarce in the higher grades.

Off the top of my head, I think I have somewhere between 5-8 of them... not counting another 8 or so that I have disposed of already...... MOSTLY LOW GRADE THOUGH... The F-17 in higher grades are very difficult to find and command a large premium......

Yes... The son definitely follows in his father's footsteps.... He was a highly respected coin dealer when he was in business

The coin in question has been returned.... and a full refund issued.... We will be informed of future developments in the investigation of what this actually is.... I'd like to thank everyone for their input and commend the seller for his integrity and forthrightness in this transaction.......

Latest Update.... I have been in conversation with both the seller and the owner of the coin, and it has been shipped back to him today..... Amongst the reasons given for my doubt were the following..... 1: The rock formation to the left of the lighthouse is as on the toothed border, not as on the beaded border.... 2: The Beads (?) are closer to the rim than on beaded border, very much like a toothed border.... touching in some areas, indicative od a toothed border........ 3: The Beads (?) seem a trifle thicker that beads, more like teeth...... 4: The 0 in 1860 is touching the linear circle, which it does not do in any known specimen of the mule..... 5: It appears to be an obverse 3, not am obverse 2.... The owner will do further investigation and follow-up studies on the coin, and will keep us informed of the progress and any ultimate determination.....

I know that there is also an unrecorded mule variety with obverse 3, but this is on obverse 2, so speculation on the matter of that die combination is moot....

Here is an email that I just sent to the seller regarding the coin.... HI Mark,, As per our conversation,, I am attaching the 2400 DPI scans of the coin, as well as images of my current specimen of the mule, along with the images of a toothed and beaded border reverses that I had sent to you last week..... As I told you, although there are areas of the border that look like beads, there are also areas that look like teeth, and the slab itself is preventing closer examination.... Anyway, these are the prinicipal points of doubt (and there may be more)... 1: The rock formation to the left of the lighthouse is as on the toothed border, not as on the beaded border.... 2: The Beads (?) are closer to the rim than on beaded border, very much like a toothed border.... touching in some areas, indicative od a toothed border........ 3: The Beads (?) seem a trifle thicker that beads, more like teeth...... 4: The 0 in 1860 is touching the linear circle, which it does not do in any known specimen of the mule..... Just from examining these points, I am very hesitant to absolutely conclude that this is a mule, although I find it somewhat difficult to believe that PCGS would get something as simple as this attribution incorrect.... but that may be exactly what happened.... And the only way to be absolutely sure is to crack it out of the slab, which I don't want to do at this point, especially if it has been mis-attributed and we need to get PCGS involved.... Regards, Gary

I should also add that the color is MUCH nicer in reality.. the scanner does NOT do it justice... Lots of red... not dull as scanned.....

Hello Everyone.... The coin in question arrived today... VERY FAST SHIPPING..... I believe it to be the MULE FARTHING... It is virtually impossible to get a decent angle to take a photograph, but I did scan it at 2400 DPI.... I posted the image on a websote and have links to it here... REVERSE OBVERSE The images are LARGE in size, but if you study the reverse, you CAN see the beads of the border very clearly at certain points...... I'd like to hear comments from the forum regarding the coin though....

The coin has been shipped to me today.... I should receive it towards the end of the week.... I'll let you know the result once I receive the coin......