Bronze & Copper Collector

Chris is probably correct.... These turn up periodically on ebay..... I think I even have one somewhere.......

I've seen them sell for 4 times that amount..... with higher shippng too.... That WAS a bargain.....

Well Done!!!!!!

He was lucky. I've had cheques and coins not arrive at their intended destination both as buyer and seller, and internationally too. Two lots I won in the Heritage sale of June last year, resurfaced in the US in January. That's 7 months after posting. The 1881H penny mentioned in the footnote to lot 111 of the Bamford sale I am led to believe turned up after 11 months. Moving away from coins, a letter I sent to Southampton University was returned to me after 3 months - addressee unknown! Presumably the 15 - 20,000 staff and students of this institution will not be too happy that they have ceased to be. Another instance involved a letter posted in Bolton (10 miles away) with a Philipines Post redirection stamp. The postal service does a reasonable job in getting most of the letters to where they are intended to go, but sometimes the wayward ones leave me a little bemused. Close.... The 1881-H took 8 months, and arrived in a post office body bag.... for damaged or ripped envelopes....... I've had 7 or 8 (that I recall) incoming (UK to USA) packets get lost as well as a few domestic packages..... Most were of relatively minor value, but one packet did contain an 1860 farthing mule..... I don't recall any outgoing packets getting lost, although I once received notification from UPS that my envelope arrived empty.....fortunately I had the address on the packet inside which was later found and delivered to the addressee.....

Looks like a VERY EARLY strike.....About 10 years early...... LOL.....1864 not 1874...... Seriously though, from the image,, it looks like an F-48, crosslet 4

Low grade also......

I have one in my collection and know of 2 or 3 more.....

Heritage Ultra High Relief Wire Rim Coin Facts Coin Gallery

Always at a premium when it has a date...... great acquisition

Hi Bob, There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity. The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety. In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far. In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia. To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion. Best wishes, Ron Guth Actually, according to Michael Freeman's designations in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", the attribution is F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A)...... Obverse 1 is described as having Round Beads, Obverse 2 and later Obverses as having a Toothed Border.... Reverse A is described as having Round Beads, Reverse B and later Reverses as having a Toothed Border...... "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (1986 and 2006 editions)" is considered the authority for Bronze Collectors. Peck for tin, copper and bronze.... Although neither is absolutely complete, their respective descriptions are the accepted standards for attribution and are considered authoritative. In virtually every instance of a new discovery or variety, that discovery only complemented the text and/or added information, and did not change the information already in existence..... Krause merely designates TB/RB and gives no accompanying text to ensure that the proper attributions are made and might be the text that is referred to in the quoted text. Possibly the proper question should be; "Is this coin an F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A) as listed in Freeman?", the variety that is universally accepted as a mule.

Hi Bob, There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity. The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety. In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far. In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia. To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion. Best wishes, Ron Guth This is in response to the suggestion that the round beads are actually toothed beads that were LAPPED, or struck from worn/polished dies.... (Highlighted and BOLD within the quoted remarks).... It is my understanding that there is NO doubt that the ROYAL MINT used ROUND BORDER BEADS in the initial striking of the bronze coinage on all three denominations (Farthings, Half-Pennies, and Pennies)... This has been documented as such, as well as the fact that there were difficulties with the design and they were therefore redesigned with a TOOTHED BORDER.... There are HIGH GRADE examples of all denomintaions which show this clearly. There are records that document the fact that a ROUND BEADED BORDER was the original design... It has NEVER been suggested (to the best of my knowledge) that a ROUND BEAD BORDER was the result of a defective strike, polished/lapped dies, etc..... It has ALWAYS been acknowledged to be the original design, and then later that year (1860) changed to the TOOTHED BORDER.... The mere suggestion that this is the case sends up red flags and begs the question that "If the ROUND BEADED BORDER is the result of DIE WEAR/POLISHING/DAMAGE, then how did it happen that the ROUND BEADED BORDER was released into circulation first...." ALSO, why has there been NO question of attribution or question of LAPPED dies in relation to the OBVERSE DIES....... Calling a WORN TOOTH a BEAD does NOT make it so........ In the example of the 1922 "PLAIN" cent, it is known that there were NO Philadelphia mint cents struck.... We KNOW that it is an error from a worn/filled die... As such, we can document the various stages as the die deteriorated..... There were also different reverse dies used..... That with the D missing completely and the strong reverse being the most desireable..... I have a PCGS specimen of the missing D with the WEAK reverse, still rare although not as valuable as the STRONG reverse... I also have an ANACS example of the WEAK D, an intermediate stage, and FAR LESS valuable than either of its siblings.... In any case, had there been a 1922 PHILDELPHIA MINT coin struck, the 1922 "PLAIN" would STILL NOT be a PHILADELPHIA MINT COIN.... IT would be MOST ACCURATELY a "1922-D NO D" or "MISSING D".... Calling a WORN TOOTH a ROUND BEAD as a means of making an expedient explanation of a question at hand is counterproductive to discovering the TRUTH , and in this instance also does not instill confidence in PCGS's GUARANTEE.... Using another US coin as an example, the 1866-S dime notoriously has a WEAK mintmark and is quite often not visible on worn specimens..... HOWEVER, calling it an 1866 as another 3rd party grader, NOT PCGS, did in certifying a specimen, does not make it so.... The 1866-S is relatively common, the 1866 Philadelphia mint coin is significantly RARER.... The proper attributions can be made by using die diagnostics, as should be used in this case... In the case of the 1866 Dime, the other 3rd party grader tossed it off as a "CLERICAL ERROR" and refused to offer or provide any guarantees... PCGS has ALWAYS stood behind its certifications; will they continue to do so???? Or will they continue to obfuscate the issue by presenting speculations that do not fit the facts????? Admittedly there are new discoveries being made, but until this coin is examined by experts knowledgeable in THIS series (farthings), we can not have a satisfactory resolution to this attribution..... This raises an issue too... Which experts (and what were their qualifications insofar as GB coinage?) originally examined and certified the coin???? Also, which experts (and what were THEIR qualifications insofar as GB coinage is concerned, especially as this was a re-examination) studied the coin in its second review (the one that prompted PCGS letter standing behind its original attribution????? Calling a duck a swan does not make it one..... A rose is a rose is a rose...... It's up to PCGS now state in open forum exactly what their guarantee will be... For the protection of the OWNER, if he is unable to sell the coin due to this controversy.. And to any potential buyer of this coin, should someone take a chance on the coin and trusting in PCGS stature....... This coin has a significant value, and I;m sure was originally purchased with PCGS's attribution factoring heavily into the transaction....

Yes..... It is the same coin... Relisted AFTER the owner followed through and did what was suggested..... He can only rely upon PCGS at this point...... Insofar as I am concerned, he has done ALL that he can do..... PCGS needs to 100% GUARANTEE the coin beyond ANY question or doubt......

I really did not want to weigh in anymore on this subject inasmuch as my purchasing and returning the coin speaks for itself..... However, I think some of the focus is being lost, although Bob C. (RLC35) has made an attempt to place this subject back on track.... The question is, as I see it, "Is the coin an Mule (TB/BB) or not... As the Royal Mint used ONLY Round Beaded Border reverse or Toothed Beaded Border reverse, and at NO time ever used a PARTIALLY BEADED BORDER reverse, the question to be answered is which variety this is.... Creating a NEW name of a reverse to address a specific situation does NOT resolve this question. Calling a duck a swan, does not make it so. In the interest of full disclosure, I believe there has been a recent discovery of a Mule (TB/BB) struck with an Obverse 3 die (instead of the documented Obverse 2), but with the same Reverse A... As the question regarding THIS coin involves the REVERSE, the subject is moot. This coin needs to be examined without the slab, by someone who specializes in this subject, and whose expertise is uninmpeachable. (Michael Freeman has been suggested, and as a impartial observer whose book is considered the BIBLE of Bronze coinage, is an excellent choice), If indeed, after the coin is examined, the determination is that the coin IS a mule, as PCGS has certified on two occasions, then the coin MUST be accepted as such by all, with apologies in order to the OWNER/SELLER and to PCGS..... More importantly, to both the current owner and/or any potential buyer; should, after EXPERT examination, the determination be that the coin is NOT the certified variety; WILL PCGS GUARANTEE THE COIN AND PURCHASE IT BACK????? If PCGS stands by its current assessment of the coin (certified as a MULE TB/BB) and an interested party purchases the coin and has it examined by ACKNOWLEDGED & RESPECTED EXPERTS (such as Michael Freeman, the staff of Colin Cooke, the British Museum, the Royal Mint, etc), and their determination is that the coin is NOT the certified variety; WILL PCGS GUARANTEE THE COIN AND PURCHASE IT BACK????? It all boils down to whether PCGS will guarantee 100% that this coin IS a TB/BB mule, or will PCGS attempt to create a NEW variety, "Toothed / PARTIAL Beaded Border", a variety that does not exist and was never struck, to explain something that is most likely merely the result of as worn die...... A decision that would be viewed as a "cop-out" or evading the issue by most collectors, and would not instill confidence in the numismatic community. Another question arises as a result of the dispute regarding this coin. Inasmuch as a severe doubt has been placed upon the accuracy of this certification and has therefore hindered the sale of an EXTREMELY RARE COIN IN EXCEPTIONALLY CHOICE CONDITION: Will PCGS arrange for an EXPERT ( or EXPERTS), knowledgeable in this series, impartial to the controversy, whose determination would be unimpeachable, to examine this coin, outside of the slab, AND to accept his/her/their decision as absolute??? And, should that determination be that the coin is NOT as certified, will PCGS stand by its GUARANTEE and purchase the coin back from the owner at its fair market value??? Or will PCGS stand behind its Grade Designation (not in question or disputed) and claim that the INCORRECT VARIETY designation was a "Clerical Error"??? Another decision that would be viewed as a "cop-out" and would not instill confidence in the numismatic community. At this juncture, I believe the time is right and the neccessity exists for PCGS to state, in public, in UNEQUIVOCAL and UNAMBIGUOUS terms, exactly what its guarantee is regarding this coin, so as to provide, ANY and ALL, past, present, and future owners of this coin the peace of mind that their investment in a RARE coin is secure as to designation......

An IMPRESSIVE error.....

Normal 1862.....

It looks like an F-282 7 & G ... the most common of the 1861's, and damaged.... not too much value in it.....

These are consider minor varieties compared with something that I just posted in confirmed unrecorded varieties... An 1861 Half Penny, Obverse 6, Reverse F, unrecorded in Freeman, although acknowledged by Iain Dracott.... Link to Thread

Here is a specimen of an 1861 Half-Penny, Obverse 6, Reverse F... Unrecorded in Freeman, ackowledged by Iain Dracott as having only known of one specimen.... Here is confirmation..... Double incuse lines and more of the O of HONI SO visible...... The coin is Red-Brown... Digital images reflected off the slab. so I had to scan it for the best detail, although it dulls the color a bit...

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.....