1949threepence

Without a doubt.

Here it is Chris I'd extravagantly placed an advance bid of £4k for the 1863 die No 4 under date penny. But last night decided it was a bridge too far financially and withdrew my bid. Especially given the juice you have to pay on top, with Noonans. Too many other competing priorities.

Very true ! It wouldn't solely be down to him anyway. As with every other major venture it was a collaborative effort involving many different personnel.

Also, of course, the old copper blanks were much softer and hence easier on the dies. Bronze being a harder metal meant many smashed dies/dies with a short life expectancy, before they finally got it right.

I did try with the app - direct from the link on the faulty website - but was told that both my android devices were both incompatible. Even though my tablet and phone are less than a year old. Virtually new. Not good.

NGC are obviously taking the customer's word for it, without checking (or due diligence as they call it nowadays).

....and has been for over 48 hours. We are told that tracking can still be done on the Royal Mail app, but when you look it's totally unclear which one.

The obvious answer is that when the bronze coinage was introduced the Mint faced many challenges involving short lived dies. Very many die pairings were tried out, without long term success. By 1863 much of this had been overcome when the best working die pairings had been put into effect, 6 + G for pennies, 7 + G for halfpennies and 3 + B for farthings. That combination of die pairings then remained in effect until the next major changes in 1874.

They look as though enveloped by fog ! Probably the main constant with all of them is the complete absence of hair detail on the King's head.

That's a good point. Hadn't noticed until you pointed out.

Sent you a PM Chris.

Indeed, some of the BU or NBU specimens look dreadful. Although that Noonans lot No 308 on your link, actually isn't too bad. I get what you're saying and as a theory it's as plausible as any. But logically you would think that a few UNC examples with good detail would also have survived. You're right though, we don't seem to see too many. Personally I've made it part of my primary motivation with George V pennies, to obtain those with as good detail as possible. The 1918KN's are generally a lot better than the H's.

Even though fully lustred, there's personally no way I'd ever buy such a coin as so much detail is missing. Although I guess we're all different and some collectors prefer the full lustre to the detail. These are my 1918Hs, with much better detail:-

When I noticed that an - in truth - very ordinary 1869 penny fetched over £2k hammer at the recent Baldwin's auction, I decided to buy this EF specimen, with slight residual lustre, from Middlesex Coins, for half the price. At any rate it beats my current rather scruffy VF example. ETA: I should add that there is a ding in the upper reverse field. Not sure whether this is a metal flaw or post mint damage, but either way, it doesn't detract significantly.

Indeed so. As soon as I see "experts say......" in the MSM, I know it's going to be either a statement of the blindingly obvious, or something which is open to debate.

Very true.

Yes it is a bit surprising, notwithstanding the edge damage at 12 o'clock. I think the estimate was £700, and it is a vastly superior specimen to the one Coopers are offering for very little less.

Yes, agreed - the swapping process they have put in place is an unecessary and impositional faff for customers who've bought stamps in good faith. As you say, the Post Office staff should be able to swap the stamps round on request at any counter. Using their way you've still got to vist the Post Office anyway and then presumably waste more of your time locating the form. But like so many things these days it seems to be thought up either by morons or someone deliberately trying to make life as difficult, time consuming, aggravating and annoying as possible. I can't quite make up my mind which. link Why not just continue to use them and let them gradually run out. Obviously barcoded and non barcoded stamps can be used up to and including 31.1.23. So what's the problem?

The LCA December catalogue is out, and I see there is yet another clear date only 1863 F47 die No 4 under date on offer. @secret santa - Richard, I don't think it's on your rarest penny list as there is a distinct mark to the right of the 8 of the date, which is absent on your examples. link to the coin

Same here Ian. High grade 1856 OT pennies seem distinctly rarer than high grade 1843, 1849, 1860/59 currency, and 1839 & 1853 proofs. Even at low to middle grades they are hardly ever seen. I did notice an a/UNC specimen on offer from Dave Craddock a year or two back (for about £1600 I think), but hadn't read until the e mail had been in the in box for a day, and on enquiry, it was, as expected, gone. All the more frustrating, looking at your chart above (for which many thanks by the way), where is can be seen that they formed over a third of the 1856 total.

It depends which year and date type. But either way, I think Ian @alfnail would be far better placed to answer your question than me.

Thanks Richard.

Thanks chaps, small date it is.

That was my immediate thought too. But 1856 small dates invariably seem to sort of symmetrically lean into each other. This one doesn't - although might be an optical illusion.