Bronze & Copper Collector

From a posting in another thread, but pertinent here.... Of note, is that aside from the NARROW date... (we are NOT just speaking of differences in date width)... The ENTIRE REVERSE DIE is different.... The NARROW DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE, whereas the WIDE DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE.... PLEASE SEE APPROPRIATE PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's EXCELLENT WEBSITE for IMAGES of BOTH TYPES..... LINK TO PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's WEBSITE PERTAINING to the 1877 PENNY We are talking about 2 distinct reverses with these two varieties, NOT just a minor variation in date spacing....

Also of note, is that aside from the NARROW date... (we are NOT just speaking of differences in date width)... The ENTIRE REVERSE DIE is different.... The NARROW DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE, whereas the WIDE DATE has a THIN LIGHTHOUSE.... PLEASE SEE APPROPRIATE PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's EXCELLENT WEBSITE for IMAGES of BOTH TYPES..... LINK TO PAGE on MICHAEL GOUBY's WEBSITE PERTAINING to the 1877 PENNY We are talking about 2 distinct reverses with these two varieties, NOT just a minor variation in date spacing.... Regarding popularity of one rarity over another... That is what makes collecting so interesting and yet still personal... As I stated before.... "AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT...."

FULL Obverse

Is that a verified 1882 London Mint? (I.e. the obverse and reverse types are correct, as far as you can determine?) I have to disagree with your assessment of popularity. The London 1882 is a long-established and greatly sought-after rarity. As far as I know it is VERY rare (yours is the only one I've seen in the wild). Although it can be faked, it's a more distinct variety - i.e. a complete absence of the H mint mark - than simply the spacing of the date numerals. I'm prepared to bet it appears in more catalogues, going back a lot further. Yes, it meets the criteria necessary to be the NO H variety... See the image of the tuft of hair behind Victoria's head.... See information regarding determining the correct attribution of this variety on Tony Clayton's website...Link to Pertinent page on Tony Clayton's Website 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. As a additional note, Spink has a specimen of this variety in it's next auction... Lot # 402

Unreal......why would anyone want to shell out £6k on a date only flat disc ? If he wants to sell it, he might have a pro9blem shifting it for the same price. Now that would be a nice purchase for £6k ~ an 1882 London Mint penny. Neat & re-saleable As far as collecting die coi8ns goes, I have sometimes thought idly about collecting all the die numbers possible from a given year in the 1867-79 shilling series. Maybe one of the commoner years, such as 1872. Here is my 1882 NO "H" (F-112)... I still believe the 1877 Narrow Date (F-90) to be rarer and more popular.... If I had to choose between them, I would pick the 1877.....

No......

I believe that there is one important fact with the 1877 that needs to be clarified.... It is NOT a "SLENDER 7" as in the 1863 slender 3; it is rather an 1877 "NARROW DATE" as attributed on the slab as well as classified as such by Freeman and Gouby. It is the ENTIRE date that is being attributed, NOT a single digit within it. EASILY identified as such with the naked eye and a recognized variety. It is NOT an error nor is it known to be a pattern. Admittedly no mintage figures for any date provides a breakdown by die variety, and common sense would lead one to assume that more than the 6 or 7 known were actually struck, but inasmuch as there IS a demand amongst collectors for major varieties, this coin will always command a premium so long as the supply is limited. Similar logic would apply for the 1908 F-164A, the 1909 F-169, and the 1922 reverse of 1927. Go back a century or two and you will find widespread instances of spelling errors and other evidence of die-cutting varieties which as a general rule command little or no premium of one type over another. The difference in the later coins from the 1840's or so onward, is the improvement in die cutting techniques which reduced the differences to a much smaller scale or were indicated by DISTINCT differences in the die itself which provide the fodder for the demand amongst the collector base for the known available varieties, and fuel the search for the discovery of previously UNKNOWN die varieties or pairings. So long as there is a collector base for an item, there will be a demand for it. The BOTTOM line is that it is the individual collectors choice to tailor his collecting interest and his collection to his own personal interest. It may be guided by catalogues and guides, the collector community, etc. but should NOT DICTATED or MANDATED to the collector by these or any other source that this is what he MUST collect. This is a HOBBY and a personal one, and should be mandated by ones personal interests. AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT....

I believe that there is one important fact with the 1877 that needs to be clarified.... It is NOT a "SLENDER 7" as in the 1863 slender 3; it is rather an 1877 "NARROW DATE" as attributed on the slab as well as classified as such by Freeman and Gouby. It is the ENTIRE date that is being attributed, NOT a single digit within it. EASILY identified as such with the naked eye and a recognized variety. It is NOT an error nor is it known to be a pattern. Admittedly no mintage figures for any date provides a breakdown by die variety, and common sense would lead one to assume that more than the 6 or 7 known were actually struck, but inasmuch as there IS a demand amongst collectors for major varieties, this coin will always command a premium so long as the supply is limited. Similar logic would apply for the 1908 F-164A, the 1909 F-169, and the 1922 reverse of 1927. Go back a century or two and you will find widespread instances of spelling errors and other evidence of die-cutting varieties which as a general rule command little or no premium of one type over another. The difference in the later coins from the 1840's or so onward, is the improvement in die cutting techniques which reduced the differences to a much smaller scale or were indicated by DISTINCT differences in the die itself which provide the fodder for the demand amongst the collector base for the known available varieties, and fuel the search for the discovery of previously UNKNOWN die varieties or pairings. So long as there is a collector base for an item, there will be a demand for it. The BOTTOM line is that it is the individual collectors choice to tailor his collecting interest and his collection to his own personal interest. It may be guided by catalogues and guides, the collector community, etc. but should NOT DICTATED or MANDATED to the collector by these or any other source that this is what he MUST collect. This is a HOBBY and a personal one, and should be mandated by ones personal interests. AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT....

I believe that there is one important fact with the 1877 that needs to be clarified.... It is NOT a "SLENDER 7" as in the 1863 slender 3; it is rather an 1877 "NARROW DATE" as attributed on the slab as well as classified as such by Freeman and Gouby. It is the ENTIRE date that is being attributed, NOT a single digit within it. EASILY identified as such with the naked eye and a recognized variety. It is NOT an error nor is it known to be a pattern. Admittedly no mintage figures for any date provides a breakdown by die variety, and common sense would lead one to assume that more than the 6 or 7 known were actually struck, but inasmuch as there IS a demand amongst collectors for major varieties, this coin will always command a premium so long as the supply is limited. Similar logic would apply for the 1908 F-164A, the 1909 F-169, and the 1922 reverse of 1927. Go back a century or two and you will find widespread instances of spelling errors and other evidence of die-cutting varieties which as a general rule command little or no premium of one type over another. The difference in the later coins from the 1840's or so onward, is the improvement in die cutting techniques which reduced the differences to a much smaller scale or were indicated by DISTINCT differences in the die itself which provide the fodder for the demand amongst the collector base for the known available varieties, and fuel the search for the discovery of previously UNKNOWN die varieties or pairings. So long as there is a collector base for an item, there will be a demand for it. The BOTTOM line is that it is the individual collectors choice to tailor his collecting interest and his collection to his own personal interest. It may be guided by catalogues and guides, the collector community, etc. but should NOT DICTATED or MANDATED to the collector by these or any other source that this is what he MUST collect. This is a HOBBY and a personal one, and should be mandated by ones personal interests. AND ALTHOUGH NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG; EVERYBODY IS RIGHT....

Here's mine....

Actually you can just make out the faint trace of the dot. It's partly a combination of uneven wear (the higher dot is more protected by the rim) and a partly worn or filled die. That's my opinion anyway. Sadly the coin doesn't have any extra value. I can see the faint dot too....

on EBAY AUSTRALIA 1849 on Ebay Australia

Here is my specimen.... Peck mentions that all stops are sometimes weak or missing.... Bramah 17a notes "describable as having no stops but traces of the first colon are discoverable"

Any GB Bronze or Copper Collectors planning on attending the NYINC??? I'm not sure which day I will attend but would like to try to co-ordinate with others to possibly meet there, if possible....

I usually try to attend either on Thursday or Friday.... But I'm sure that we an work something out to meet.... Maybe all forum members attending can meet there at some point..... As the time gets nearer for the show, I'll check with you, for when you are going to attend, and maybe more of the Forum can also make a connection, at the same time. I've still got to decide if I am going to attend, but at this point there is a good chance. Sounds like a plan to me......

I usually try to attend either on Thursday or Friday.... But I'm sure that we an work something out to meet.... Maybe all forum members attending can meet there at some point.....

Here is a comparison of both 1915 farthing obverses....... Note to Colin: If you need an image of the F-593A for your website, feel free to use this one if you like.....

Welcome from NYC

I too find Rendel's prices (and grades) a little beyond my expectation. However, don't let your fantasies about Megan go too far. (S)he's actually David Mason, who used to be World Coins in Canterbury, but who took himself off to Spain a few years ago. I think he called himself Megan after his daughter. I agree - Too often there are no images and I have had to return mis-attributed coins.... I've learned to generally ask for images before ordering now...... This applies to several sellers... PS: The first time that I was placed in contact with Laurie Bamford, I too expected a female on the other end, not realizing that is was short for Laurence.. We BOTH got a few chuckles over that....

SAFE-T-MAILERS is correct... Not sure if there is a GB distributor for them though....

Another F-169 to savor

Neat -- where did you 'find' it? In my collection.... I don't have the others, although I might have pics of them.... I'll check

LOL.... First time one of MY auctions was noted here.... But I suppose it's better than being recognized in "EBAY LAUGHS" It IS a TERRIBLY LOW GRADE specimen, with just barely enough detail at the CRUCIAL points to be identified as an obverse signature type, but NOT good enough to determine whether it is an Obverse 2 or an Obverse 3..... I've sold WORSE condition RARE coins often enough to know that there is a market for everything.... You just don't know when or where or who.... RE: the 1863 slender 3, the specimen that recently sold is the 2nd known specimen, I believe purchased by the same buyer that won the 1863 die number 5, a unique (so far) coin. The Crocker collection seemed to bring more of a true market value for MOST coins..... SOMETIMES, bidders get carried away with their bidding in what sometimes appears to be an exhibition of MACHO..... Sometimes it's merely to have a coin from a famous collection or with a significant provenance

Here's something to whet your appetite... at least you'll have a picture....

Here's mine for comparison.....