1949threepence

I can't add to the excellent comments above about recognising a 1926, but I can supply some excellent pictures. If you scroll down the page on the link supplied here, which is Tony Clayton's site, you will see large pics of a virtually UNC 1926ME and the two 1926 obverses side by side, as well as illustrations of the other pointers already given above.

Old news! New seller though. Would be a "nice one, Tony", if some poor sap with more money than sense, fell for it.

My first thought was divided between GVF and NEF. Are you buying from a reputable dealer, Dave, and may we enquire how much you are paying/have paid for it. Personally, I'd say it was genuine. Looks like real time wear.

Some very interesting points, and I have to say, Rob, your logic is actually very compelling, dependent on when the ME pennies, were issued in relation to the rest. If they were all issued at roughly the same time ~ typically towards the end of the year ~ then what you say is undeniable. If, however, there was a significant gap between the two types, or a hybrid of say one batch at the end of 1926, and another batch of unmodified and modified issued together sometime in 1927, then your conclusions seem to hold water, Peck. Trouble is we will never know, and the position is further complicated by just how many collectors at that time, knew about the ME. Moreover, as was said earlier, wouldn't it be like us putting aside 2010 1p's in our collection cabinets ? Just who would have been interested in such coins, back then ?

All 1876 pennies were produced by the Heaton mint so all have an 'H' below the date. If you have an 1876 without the H, you might like to post a picture. Most likely it has simply worn off or been removed. Like you, I thought that the 1876 was H only, but according to Chris Perkins et al, there is an 1876 no H ~ link here I'd certainly never heard of one before, and it is a total surprise to me. I only discovered it whilst looking for the respective values of wide and narrow date 1876H's. The source is "Bamford" 2006. A picture of that coin is in Gouby's book, but he states that Bamford thought it to be filled H rather than a London mintage That makes sense. Thanks David.

All 1876 pennies were produced by the Heaton mint so all have an 'H' below the date. If you have an 1876 without the H, you might like to post a picture. Most likely it has simply worn off or been removed. Like you, I thought that the 1876 was H only, but according to Chris Perkins et al, there is an 1876 no H ~ link here I'd certainly never heard of one before, and it is a total surprise to me. I only discovered it whilst looking for the respective values of wide and narrow date 1876H's. The source is "Bamford" 2006.

Ha ha ~ I was thinking along the lines of "do you want to come home and see my etchings ?" (in the time honoureed way) ~ or in our cases, coins !!!

For me, that's the big one. Neither did we have internet forums where we could instantly post pictures to ask for peers opinions. Neither did we have forgers stalking us. Pre and post internet coin collecting, IMO, are two different sports. Totally agree with that one. Before the internet, apart from coin fairs, and/or if you were lucky enough to have a coin club locally, coin collectors were often quite isolated individuals. The internet has brought together almost the entire numismatic community. Moreover the advent of e bay, on line dealers and other on line auctions, not only enables us to survey a much greater range of coins than before, but has also no doubt re-kindled long dormant interest in many whose previously youthful interest was put aside by the demands of making a living, married life and raising a family. The problem I found as a young collector in the 90's (before the internet and when it was in its infancy), was that I hardly ever met anybody else who was even remotely interested in the hobby. It certainly wasn't the best chat up line with girls either, unfortunately

Very interesting mintage stats ~ which are often found in random places you might not necessarily expect. As far as mention of the 1926ME within coin circles, is concerned, what you say, appears to be at odds with what........ Rob says..... Maybe it was noted very early on, and then kind of "forgotten". Although I'm the first to admit that seems a somewhat vague and highly unlikely scenario. Rob seems very specific on the issue, although I'm not sure what the "circular" in question, actually was. What circular was it, or was it a coin magazine called the "circular" ? Excuse my ignorance, Rob

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two. Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO. If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing. Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps. In 1926 there had been no pennies issued for 3 years. Then demand must have increased enough to warrant an issue, even though the modified effigy must have been close to readiness. Assuming the normal run of casual collectors who habitually put a BU penny aside, the first run of 1926s must have satisfied that urge. By the time the ME came along (at the end of the year?) would people have readily seen the difference between the two types anyway? By the time they did, the 1927 pennny would have emerged in large quantities so those got put aside instead. I'm really thinking the 1926ME 'slipped beneath the radar' as far as being noticed. I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two. Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO. If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing. Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps. Surely rarity figures are all nonsence now due to decimalisation. I would guess only 10% of pennies exist now and all the so called rarities were stripped for circulatiion beforehand. The playing field is much levelled now a days and H and KNs are as common as 1967 pennies. That's a very good point, though I'd hardly claim parity between H & KNs with 1967!! We're on the same wavelength here Derek. As a schoolboy it took me a year to suss that my first-ever 1926 penny from change, was the ME ! Back in '26, I'm wondering how many people actually noticed, especially considering how few there were anyway? It would be interesting to get some coin magazines/annuals from around that time to see whether or not they are mentioned.

Assuming your next one had been a ME, and your collection at that point having been pure chance (which from change it obviously would have been), that might indicate 5% or less being ME. The 400,000 estimate is less than 10% (about, what...8%) Maybe conjecture, but that actually makes a lot of sense. Obviously not every single UNC unearthed will have been part of a collection, but many will have been.

i feel this may be more correct, theres a difference between going into a shop and a shopkeeper saying he doesnt want to sell you his item and not taking your cash from you, but this guy has accepted payment. there was a case a few years back when i cannot remember exactly if it was currys or comets, advertised on ebay tv's at 99p instead of £99, some guy bought something like a 100 and it went to court and the guy got his tellys.there was nothing the vendor could do, he;d paid for them at the asking price. if this were me, i would accept in the first instance the biggest ass licking apology and refund, if that wasnt forthcoming.......i would want my coin!!. Yes, now you mention it, I remember that, ski. Like you, I'd probably accept a grovelling apology and some token gesture, such as the £10 suggested by Derek. But really, the seller should stick to the rules, mistake or otherwise. edit: thanks for the legal clarifications, Scott. Obviously e bay's insistence that a binding contract is made as soon as a BIN offer is made, should be taken with a health warning.

Actually, on further reflection, wouldn't there be an implied acceptance of offer by the vendor ? The request to pay exists immediately after any win or buy it now. So surely the contract is closed in the buyer's favour as soon as payment for the item is made ?

I totally 100% agree. If I was the vendor, I would honour the sale, even at £1.00. The seller made a silly error, and Accumulator won it fair and square. As the seller I would take the hit and preserve my reputation for integrity, even in the face of "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". Piece of good luck for the buyer, piece of bad luck for the seller. But these things tend to even themselves out over time, in the coin market. Reluctant as I am to leave negative feedback, this is one occasion when, as the buyer, I definitely would. No buyer would be acting unreasonably to do so, and to be frank the seller is completely snookered when it comes to a meaningful reply. His honesty is well and truly compromised, and everybody would know it. Just trying to provoke discussion here not take sides, but isn't the seller just making an offer for sale and is not under any compulsion to accept a buyers offer. It's a bit like goods in a shop labelled incorrectly, you go to buy the goods and the shop keeper can refuse to sell the item to you and unless they take your money there's no sale. I can see the problem with the likes of paypal but by sending the seller your money you are only offering to buy, if they turn your money around no sale has happened. Now if they spent your money the sale would have been accepted. I'm not sure. We need an expert on the law of contract ~ especially with regard to paypal and immediate payment. Even then, the money leaves your bank account instantly, but is it immediately available to the seller ? Legal minefield, anyone ?

I totally 100% agree. If I was the vendor, I would honour the sale, even at £1.00. Torcoins made a silly error, and as a result, Accumulator won it fair and square. As the seller I would take the hit and preserve my reputation for integrity, even in the face of "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". Piece of good luck for the buyer, piece of bad luck for the seller. But these things tend to even themselves out over time, in the coin market. Reluctant as I am to leave negative feedback, this is one occasion when, as the buyer, I definitely would ~ especially in the absence of a decent apology. No buyer would be acting unreasonably to do so, and to be frank the seller is completely snookered when it comes to a meaningful reply. His honesty is well and truly compromised, and everybody would know it.

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two. Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO. If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing. Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

If it looks too good to be true, it probably is....

Having now been collecting bun pennies for well over a year, and over halfway through assembling my collection, I am struck by the fact that despite very few being more common than Freeman R4, and all either over or approaching 100 years at the time of withdrawal in 1971, it is still possible to obtain the majority quite easily, albeit expensively, in high grades. The same cannot be said of the 1926ME. A total of 4,498,519 pennies were minted in 1926, and the ME's were included in that figure. Whilst we don't know the exact separate ME mintage, we do know they are classed by Freeman as R5 ~ ie: no rarer than many buns, which from experience we know we can get in high grade without too much of a struggle. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that the 1926ME apparently has the same degree of rarity as many of the buns, it is a whole different ball game when it comes to getting one. They are difficult to obtain even at grades below fine, and virtually impossible at grades above VF. Nearly all the ones we see for sale are obviously those plucked from circulation in the late 1960's, with 40+ years of wear. I wondered if anybody had any theories regarding what I call the 1926ME paradox ~ paradoxically very difficult to find but with only an R5 rating. Why is it so tough to get a decent one, and just how many of the 4.5 million minted, actually were ME's ? I hope some of you are as intrigued as me about this enigmatic penny

Gordon Bennett !!! ~ for that price I'd want a die number under the date

Well I can't speak for everybody, but if I was on the till, I'd definitely accept one, and then change it for an ordinary pound coin later. Although I can't even begin to imagine who would want to try and spend one at literal face value.

I've checked my old head Viccies, all of which are UNC, and I can see the initials on all of them, although they are faint, and (if I didn't know) I wouldn't be able to make out what they said without the aid of a magnifying glass.

I've never bothered with the monthly publications like CN. They sound a bit samey and bland. Love to read some of the old Coin Monthly issues from the 1960's, though. Also coin books from earlier last century.

The MS definitions can be found here

I have also noticed this quote in Spink, but surely if a coin is UNC whether full lustre or not it merits UNC price. If a coin is toned, does that mean Spink says its EF? Not getting that part at all. Also how many bunheads have we seen in what spink would then regard as ture UNC which would mean with full lustre. Sorry but i must laugh at that quote Anyway back to the post, i believe that ms66 is 1 point short of perfect by USA grading standards, so hence the push in price me thinks. I don't think that is the case though, Dave. As you say there are very few bunheads which would be in what we regard as a pure BU state, and those which are, command a hefty premium over their merely (technically) uncirculated cousins. Have a look at this as an example of as near to BU as you will get with a bunhead. Look at what he's asking for what is one of the more common dates ~ and he will probably get it, or as near as dammit. It's no doubt enjoyed an almost hermetically sealed existence since minting. I think there are UNC bunheads in which all the original underlying lustre is essentially still present, in that there has been no wear to the coin, and when it came out of circulation, probably still presented with pretty much 100% lustre. But time and the atmospheric exposure of well over a century, has removed the surface lustre such that the coin, whilst otherwise perfect, appears brown or black.

Either he doesn't know what an ME looks like, or he's mistaken in his beliefs. Listing's been changed now ... "...I've now been told it may not be..." Do I hear the sound of furious backpeddling lol ?