1949threepence

There you go Richard:- (It's not mine. I do have a lustrous one, from the Hiram Brown sale, but for whatever reason, can't find the pic of it at the moment, and don't have time this morning)

Although unfortunately Cope & Rayner don't go into too much detail on varieties, so 1879 is shown as date type only, as is 1875 (apart from 1875H). With 1864, however, we have a range from Scarce for a fair version of the plain 4 to Rarity 4 for "as struck". That disparity is even steeper for the crosslet 4, which ranges from Rare for a fair version, to Rarity 6 for an as struck.

Hmm...well it might be interesting to have a "rare in high grade" listing. I know you mentioned the 1879 narrow date earlier - that truly is rare in high grade. I've only ever seen 2 or 3 with lustre. Although not difficult even in mid grade.

and they're definitely F79's where the sea crosses the linear circle?

Here's a cropped version of mine, Richard.

Could you make a case for <25 extant, Richard? It's really difficult to know. Although from an academic point of view it would be interesting to see if, or how quickly, your database reached 25. As you say, there might well be duplicates in your count, as the same coins get sold and then resold. In which case the overall total could remain stubbornly low. Not a glamorous variety, and doesn't attract a lot of attention, but clearly the type is visible to the naked eye. Maybe a bit like the F38 in terms of demand.

After a bit of research, I'd say the F79 was very scarce, but not desperately rare. Just looked at LCA - they've auctioned about 7 since 2004, most of them in the EF+ category, but one about VF, and one sub fine. I can only see two sold by DNW, including the Laurie Bamford specimen. There were a number of 1879's, some in groups of other coins, and most flagged up as F82's. I gave up trying to find anything in Spink. One sold at the Alderley, not sure of price. Superb BU example sold at the Copthorne auction for £400 hammer and a streaky not nearly so nice specimen at the Workman sale for the same price. Apart from that, the average price for a high grade seems to be about £250 to £350.

Cheers Jerry. He certainly is. Was all ready to take a photoscape pic for him to put on there, when it arrived. Surprised there was only one other bidder. Just shows that rarity doesn't necessarily equate to demand.

Managed to get an 1854/3 penny for just £31. Bargain in my view, considering how scare they are. Many are touted as 4/3, but aren't. This one looks to be the real deal, however. link

Sorry to hear that. Yes. Looks as though he drew them himself and probably got the proportions wrong.

Is it the same chap, Paddy? Seriously? Is he still alive? I only ask as that article was 30 years ago. Yes, I noticed that Richard. I think it was a transposition error.

That's something mentioned in the March 1991 article by A.R.Alexander. I decided to photograph it and show here. It's not a brilliant copy of each page, but it it is readable.

Not ridiculous at all Ian. Over a 4 is as plausible a theory as any other number. Others think it's over a 9 (or the other way round) I think it will remain a mystery. KB coins has it as over a three - link

Not bad at all. I've noticed some of the scarce copper varieties don't actually command big sums. I managed to get one that was aEF from Nathan Smith for £40 last year. Considered it a bit of a bargain as you really don't see too many of them.

Do you mean this one Pete? It certainly has a bit within the loop. If so, it doubles with the Bramah 25c 8 over ?. MG himself still seems very doubtful that the 8/3 exists, whereas with Royal Mint 1970 endorsement and MG's subsequent Numismatic Circular conclusions, I think we can be confident that the 8/2 is a fact in being.

Right, agreed. So cutting to the chase then, do you have an example pic of what you consider to be an 8/3? Or does anybody. Thanks in advance.

Here is mine bought privately February 2017. You may already have it, but If you do happen to want a better pic, Richard, let me know and I'll photoscape it.

The question for me now, is that if there are both 58/2 and 58/3 separate varieties, and it seems likely there are, then how do you tell them apart? It won't be an easy 10 second job under the magnifier. The fact we've been agonising for so long over what was (possibly) once accepted as 58/3, may actually be 58/2, speaks volumes.

Not too dramatic though. Whitty said that the new Kent variant had possibly a +0.3 to +0.4 greater mortality in older age groups, such that instead of 10 in every thousand succumbing, it might be more like 13 or 14. So a 1.35% mortality rate rather than 1.0%. I say older age groups as opposed to the over 65's, as that implies some strange magical dividing line at midnight on the 65th birthday, which is ludicrous as everybody ages at different rates.

I didn't know much about copper pennies until I started collecting them last year. You should learn, you don't know what you're missing. Very enjoyable and fulfilling experience for me, which lightened the whole miserable covid situation considerably. In its own way, completely different from collecting bronze pennies.

I've just read a very interesting article in the March 1991 Coin Monthly about varieties of British Copper pennies and the author speculates, quite intelligently I thought, about the possibility of both an 1858/2 and and 1858/3 existing in parallel. The conventional thinking is that the overstrikes in question are either one or the other, not both - or as far as I can see, not both. Whilst accepting that the 1858/3 exists, the author also refers to a photograph in the May 1970 Coin Monthly, which I have to admit, I completely overlooked when first reading the 1970 mags. Looking at the May 1970 article in question, which is under "Reader's Rarities" at page 139, a Mr Shirley from Chorlton, Manchester, states: "I have recently acquired an 1858 overstrike penny. The penny is in extremely fine condition with faint traces of lustre and appears to be an unrecorded variety ie: an 1858 over 2 penny. The article continues - "The Royal Mint verified that this coin is an 1858 penny with the last figure of the date struck over a 2 and in a further letter to T. Shirley, (The Royal Mint) stated:- "It is true that no copper pennies dated 1852 are known, and numismatists have deduced, reasonably enough, that all the pennies struck in 1852 bore the date 1851. It does not, however, follow from this that dies dates 1852 were never made, and if such unused dies existed it would have been natural to use them up by altering the date. It is also quite possible that an engraver who had punched a 2 by mistake proceeded to punch an 8 on top of it. Either explanation would fit your coin and one or two similar pieces which we have examined" The above tends to vindicate Michael Gouby's theory, but the additional existence of an 8/3 is a definite strong possibility. Unfortunately there wasn't an actual copy of the Royal Mint's letter, as there often is in the old Coin Monthlies.

Well I've had a stroke of luck........a guy was selling most of the entire series from 1967 (didn't include Nov & Dec 1966, but I've already got them) through to February 1992. I didn't need most of it, so made him an offer for the ones I did want, which he accepted. Received today. There were two missing, potentially three. July 1978, the fortnightly edition from 8th to 21st February 1980, and possibly one from 4th to 17th April 1980. This was advertised in the previous fortnightly edition as on sale from 4th April 1980. But then the next one appearing was a monthly edition for May 1980, so I'm assuming that was the one which appeared on 4th April 1980, replacing the advertised fortnightly edition. In that edition they said that the continuing issue of a fortnightly version was no longer viable due to of lack of demand. So I now need:- July 1978 Fortnightly edition 8.2.80 to 21.2.80 March to May 1990 July to October 1990 January to February 1991 April to May 1991 October to December 1991 ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** If anybody wants them, I now have as spares:- January 1982 June 1984 December 1986 June 1987 February 1988 January 1989 June to December 1989 (including two for September) February 1990 June 1991

Looney Tunes has signed off for good (riddance to bad rubbish)

It's a beauty. I saw it, but am skint at the moment so regretfully had to miss bidding.