Bronze & Copper Collector

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.....

I found an old close-up of the F-278 that I had sold 2 years ago..... see attached scan.....

Neither of my 2 F-268A's appear to have a recut 6..... However 1 of my 4 F-278's have a recut 6 as well as a specimen that I sold awhile back..... and 2 of them appear to have a stub of a previous 1 protruding beneath the last 1 ... see scans... None appear to have a recut R though..... nor a first 1/1

Possible, although the only clear incuse lines are on the bottom 4th. The flaw in the forehead also raises questions as this is obv. 5. Do you have a well struck mint state obv.6 to compare with? I only have an EF and on that piece, although it fits obv. 6 in all other respects there is no sign of incuse lines for the leaf vein at all on the upper leaf of the 4th group. There is however a trace of raised leaf vein - sort of obv.5 3/4 if you see what I mean. There is only a trace of wear to the highest points and none on that leaf, so rubbing isn't the problem. True enough, but I am reasonably sure that this is NOT an Obverse 5 because it does not have the scalloped top middle leaf that EVERY Obverse 5 (flawed or not- I have seen examples of both) that I have seen exhibits, and that I have NEVER seen on any obverse other than an Obverse 5..... (see scan)... Unless of course, this is some interim Obverse 6 variant, that eventually became the obverse 6 in 1861.... I don't have the obverse 6 coin mentioned in Iain Dracotts article for comparison..... It's possible that it is some sort of hybrid obverse spanning the 2 years (1860-1861) I would certainly suspect that this coin is closer to the Obverse 6 than to any other obverse, so given the information available, and the condition of the coin, I think that I would have to classify it as an Obverse 6 (maybe with an asterisk denoting it as a possible minor variant or precurser to the accepted obverse 6) And again, photographs can not substitute for direct examination....

I believe I might have found a lower grade, yet identifiable Obverse 6, Reverse B Half Penny...... Freeman does not list an Obverse 6 for 1860, although Iain Dracott does mention a specimen (listed as Unique).... I have attached images for your perusal...... Obviously still not as good as direct examination, yet I believe it is clear enough......

PM left for you..... Thanks

F-542 = 1880 5 & D Bronze Proof----- R-19 1970 Edition...... Both my F-525 and F-527 appear to exhibit this feature.......

I think it is an F-532 It also appeaers to have a recut "T" in farthing....

Another valid reason Rob, and one which I would not dispute either...........

It's possible that they do it on some level to "hook people in"..... However, I think a more important reason that auction houses might underestimate the estimates is that, when the final hammer price far exceeds the estimates, they can claim either "how hot the market is, it's a great time to sell", and also to claim how successful they are at sales/auctions/etc, and that THEY (the auctioneers) are the company that you should use...... There are probably other aspects as well, but this, to me, is one of the most obvious.... Incidentally, I feel that in the DNW sale today, some items went rather cheaply, and others brought a significant premium....... I do note however, that the TRUE CLASSIC RARITIES brought excellent prices.... which is how it should be..... Those are ALWAYS in demand......

I finally got the confirmation.... I was the winner on the one coin that I wanted...... Now to wait for it to arrive.......

There is always the case of the 1963 proof 70 deep cameo slabbed by pcgs that sold for $40,250 in 2004 Heritage http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/v...336&Lot_No=4944 It subseqently developed spotting in the slab and was bought back by PCGS....... It's a HIGH premium for a common coin, just to say you have the finest known specimen... The grading fever can and does get out of hand all too often, but, as I have said before in other threads, certification does have its benefits, especially regarding detection of counterfeits and altered coins, something that occurs too often with rare date US coins, but not as predominent with GB coinage yet... a few dates not withstanding.....

I had emailed the 3 sellers that I knew.... and also contacted ebay directly.... They too contacted ebay...... as of now, fast by ebay standards, the fraudulent seller is not-registered any more... and has no items for sale..... score one for the good guys........

I've emailed ebay with several of the ripped-off links.. AND informed some of the sellers that their pictures had been ripped off and are being used fraudulently...... I doubt that Ebay will do much on my information, but hopefully, after the genuine sellers complain, they will be removed.... Let's see how promptly ebay reacts.... Good rule of thumb: "If it seems to good to be true, it is"...... Caveat Emptor..... Use common sense.....

Not familiar with half crowns (primarily Bronze & Copper), but insofar as regarding overdates/repunches, etc.... But for my 2 cents worth, it certainly has all the appearances of being that variety....

Q. David Bowers once wrote an article regarding exactly that...... Two coins, maybe a grade or so apart... the lower grade having more eye appeal.... He would go for the eye appeal every time... and I would tend to agree......

I would concur with the above assessments....