Bronze & Copper Collector

HI Alan, Thanks for quoting me.... but did you also want to leave a message??? If so, it never got posted along with the quote....

I have one in a complete whitman classic album (1860-1901).... I'd like to sell it as a set.... The F-14 has had someones initials scratched into the surface, but would otherwise have vf/ef details.... I'm looking for $900 for the set.... I can email you more details and images if you're interested... but I would need you email address.... Why not JOIN this forum, and we can PM each other the information.... This is an EXCELLENT forum, with many helpful users ready to assist each other.....

In 1908 there were 3 Obverse dies & 2 Reverse dies, used in 4 combinations... Obv. 1 I of IND to tooth; I of IMP to gap Obv. 1* I of IND to gap; (BRITT) : to tooth Obv. 2 I of IND to tooth; I of IMP to tooth Rev. c E of PENNY to tooth Rev. d E of PENNY to gap F-164 Obverse 1, Reverse C F-164A Obverse 1*, Reverse C (the RARE one) F-165 Obverse 2, Reverse C F-166 Obverse 2, Reverse D See attached scans.....

Being Ridiculously Optimistic (otherwise known as "Fantasyland") and it has to have cost a lot to list them too....

The only 3 that I have ANY CONFIDENCE in are: PCGS, NGC, and ANACS...... They at least attempt to be consistent... Also, all to often, I have seen counterfeit or altered coins being certified with the other companies.... Mis-attributed coins, especially WORLD coins, happens to all, although moreso to the non big 3 firms....

If this piece were counterfeit, it is likely contemporary, and collectible thus. I have Scottish counterfeits from the time and they are more interesting than the authentic coins. Contemporary counterfeits are highly collectible, but I don't think that this is one of them. And, even if Contemporary Counterfeits ARE collectable, they are CERTAINLY NOT as valuable as a genuine one........

An excellent example of a GB coin that is widely conterfeited, and could certainly benefit from certification....

Again, I'll say that I'm not a fan of the micrograding frenzy here in the USA... However, here in the USA, there are many fakes that can be made with the addition or removal of a mint mark... Some have fooled even the experts.... modern technology has improved the capabilities of both the coiner and the counterfeiter.... It is there that I feel that the MAJOR (not the fly-by-night) services provide an important commodity..... Admittedly, this is NOT so vital a point with GB coinage, where a firm knowledge of die combinations can easily prove an altered coin as false, but it is important with many US coins and series....

I basically agree insofar as the GRADING apsect of certification is involved, HOWEVER, I DO feel that the certification companies (albeit only the better ones {PCGS, NGC, ANACS}) DO provide an essential service to the COLLECTOR (not investor), by certifying that the coin in question is GENUINE.... Of vital importance here in the USA, where there are MANY coins that are worth in the $1000's even in LOW GRADE...... I care very little for the condition ascribed to a coin, so long as I am happy with it, but reat much easier knownign that the rare coin in question is genuine... A knowledgeable collector will generally SUSPECT that a coin has been altered or counterfeited, but with modern technological advances, the average collector does NOT have the equipment to confirm those suspicions, whereas the MAJOR RELIABLE sevices do. I emphasize MAJOR, because I have seen NON-GENUINE coins certified as genuine by the lesser sevices. I emphasize that a knowledge of grading and conterfeiting/altering is important to any collector; ALWAYS buy the coin and not the holder (be happy with the coin itself), BUT I still feel that the MAJOR services DO provide a vital service nontheless..... (the non-grading portion)

What is a worsening situation, is that buyers (I'm not saying collectors deliberately), usually investors, who have little knowledge or interest in numismatics itself, buy these high grade and high priced otherwise common coins, simply for what is printed on the label. Every true collector knows that grading is a subjective matter, and that at different times, with different graders, the coin can and often is graded differently. It has been shown as well, that the same coin, shown to the same grader, at a different time, can come back with a different grade. I have never been a great fan of this ultimate grading scheme, however I do feel that there is still a need for certification services. They provide a means of preserving your coins in inert holders (if done correctly), and moreso, to provide a means to certify that coin is genuine. With modern technological abilities being applied towards a proliferation of counterfeit and/or altered date rarities (much more common here in the USA, than in GB), this, to me anyway, is a more vital service that they provide...

I believe that the model crown IS a Joseph Moore.... It could be any Rogers # between 205 and 212... Can't tell from the image, but there are generally a few on Ebay at any given time..... Assuming that it is genuine, which it probably is.... not a rare item......

I would say yes.... If you lay a transparency of the 2, upside-down over the existing 2, the marks will line up...... Nice find....

You have me looking at my specimen now, and wondering if this is really an 8/3, or a new variation maybe.... I might have to go and get a better clearer specimen...... Mine has what I think is the lower end of the bottom curl of the 3 visible on the left of the lower loop of the 8... see scans....

This is a close-up of my 1858/6 half penny

I just received an email from the Royal Mint (Kevin Clancy as predicted).... It reads as follows: From the specifications you give, it is possible that your coin was struck on a blank intended for a Malawi penny. To be absolutely sure, however, we would need to see the coin itself and if you would care to send it to me at the address below I will be glad to arrange for it to be examined and returned to you together with a report of our findings. My next question is: How much time does something like this usually take, and do they really return the coin??? Thanks

I have a return receipt for my email.... It was read on August 30..... No Acknowledgement however.. Let's see how long it takes to receive a reply... If I receive any at all....

Not as of yet..... several knowledgeable collectors and dealers have rsuggested that I contact the Royal Mint. I have emailed them last week, I have return receipt that it was read, but have hod no response of any sort as yet.....

Here is a comparison of both 3's... I was not aware of another variety..... There were only 2 varieties listed in the 2005 edition, I don't have the 2006 to compare it to... Re: the Freeman numbers.... I had noticed in the earlier edition a confusion due to the order of the listings as well as an apparent mislettering of the reverses.... possibly due to using the 1970 edition... there were some changes made in the 1985 edition.....

Here's hoping that someone can help me out.... I have a 1967 penny struck on a 6.3 gram planchet... smaller than a penny planchet and larger than a half penny planchet It appears to be 28-29 mm in diameter.... also slightly thinner (maybe 3/4 normal ??) See attached scans.... one each of obverse & reverse... the 3rd is of a normal penny on the bottom, this coin in the middle, and a normal half penny on top.... I would assume that this coin was struck on a planchet intended for a foreign coin that was being struck at the Royal Mint.... Does anyone have any ideas as to what this planchet was originally intended for???? Thanks

Additionally and simplest, on the reverse of 1922, the center trident tine touches a border tooth.... On the reverse of 1927, the central trident tine is below the border tooth... see attached images.... Type of 1922 ------Type of 1927

I was re-examining my F-279's and found an overdate.... which I had not seen on a reverse F as yet.... see scan below of 1861 F-279 Last 1 over Lower 1 .... a very distinct lower 1 is visible.....

A few hours behind indeed...... but you still caught me with enough time to spare.... MANY THANKS for the kind sentiment..... Regards, Gary

I'm not sure if I have attrributed these correctly, but one sure looks blunter than the other.... I think I have types 1, 2 and 4 see attached scans...... opinions???? I'll list them in separate posts as the names and attributions are not apparent.... I've edited the images with the type so that you can see which I think is which.....

I have seen and/or owned a few (2 or 3) examples of Obverse 5 WITHOUT the flaw.... ALL were 1860 however...... Freeman even mentions that MOST obverse 5's exhibit this flaw.... (most NOT all) Possibly the flaw developed early in 1860 and carried on into 1861???? a weak premise that an unflawed obverse 5 from 1861 would easily disprove.....