davidrj

Can I second that in spades! on 20 September I fell at home, getting my leg tangled in furniture, leading to a fracture of the distal femur just above the knee. I was in hospital until just before Xmas, and I am still non weight bearing, so sleeping downstairs and walking with a Zimmer All the NHS staff were brilliant, and I mean all , not just doctors and nurses, also the physios, OTs, porters, cleaners etc. The main problem they were all working long shifts and there was gross understaffing. I saw staff in tears due to frustration they couldn't give the level of care they thought patients needed. So I am still receiving treatment, I need to go back in shortly for a marrow treatment to encourage new bone growth.

I use Gouby for my bronze pennies, but include Freeman in brackets in the label. Hopefully a revised renumbered "Son of Freeman" will appear in the future for us to use as a reference, time moves on, who still uses Peck numbers for bronze?

It might do, if anyone needs the birds foot flaw variety

A rare 1927 penny - Link

Merry Christmas everybody! ??

Do we know whether coins were treated with hypo after striking, or were they struck on pretreated blanks? If the latter, it may purely be a case of a different supplier of the bronze blanks.

Guide to Chinese brass cash coins http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/china/china8.htm#hsien

I regard scanning stuff on Ebay as the same as sifting through 5/- bags of pennies in the 60s, OK so 99.9% is crap - but the fun of spotting something unnoticed is still there

A few years ago I was the underbidder on an apparent 1911 Gouby X, A few days later I got a "second chance" offer which I accepted thinking the original purchaser had backed out. I accepted the offer and got a standard 1911 by return of post. The seller wasn't evil or bad, just uneducated in coin varieties - so long as we are talking trivial amounts, I think we just have to accept the reality that 90% of ebay sellers haven't a clue

Hope not, but I had a run in with him a while back for a dodgy description, he blocked my attempt to buy this one today. Fingers crossed for you

Edit facility seems to have disappeared for me

It was an 1875 cannonball

I'll wait a day or so to see if anyone on here bought it (only two other bidders). If no show I'll put pictures up in the penny thread

True. My bid was three figure though

Sitting watching a penny for 9 days with a starting price of £7.99, put a sensible & fair snipe at 6 seconds to go, and being beaten at 5 seconds by £2 Being underbidder is the story of my life these days

But the C* 1944 has two clear raised lines

Wow! I seem to have stirred the pot, no bad thing I share everyone's frustration with the 1940s. I have a heavilly circulated "single" that I've been trying to upgrade, having bought several which looked good on the pictures, all turned out to be "double" - I couldn't understand why the double exergue was so obvious to see on later coins but not on 1940; 1944s were not on my radar due to the date spacing difference. So I started looking to see if other pointers existed and came to the conclusion, to my satisfaction at least, that die C is only used for late 1940 and early 1944, and may be regarded as a transitional stage between B and C* (my D) David

Pennies 1944 - 1951 - all with recut waves

The standard works on George VI pennies list three reverses:- A - The sea level on the right extends to the centre of a border tooth; the upright limbs of N in ONE point to teeth (5 teeth from limb to limb); the exergual line consists of a large raised line with a very fine second line below it - 1937 only B - Similar to Reverse A except that the sea level on the right now extends to just above a border tooth; the two upright limbs of N in ONE both points to a gap; there are 4 complete teeth between the limbs. - 1937 to 1940 (the 1940 with reverse B is usually referred to as "single exergue line" C - Similar to Reverse B except that the exergual line is in lower relief – 2 fine lines separated by an incuse groove; the waves just above the exergue have been retouched and are now separate from the exergual line. - This reverse was used from 1940 to 1951. - the 1940 with reverse C is referred to as "double exergue line" C* - Is the notation used by both Groom, and the new Freeman to describe the variety of the 1944 penny with the terminal 4 pointing to the centre of a wave. Although recut waves are cited for C* , both references list reverse C for dates 1945-1951. I propose that C* is significantly different from C to warrent it's redefinition as die D. The exergue lines are now clearly double, making them much easier to see than on the 1940 & 1944 reverse C. The waves are sharply recut and are clear of the exergue lines. This die is used 1944 to 1951. I would argue that the 1944 varieties are not a trivial date width variation but two distinct dies

Sadly there are far too many folk recognising unattributed varieties these days I was following this too and put in a tentative (failed) snipe on the off-chance it wasn't spotted, didn't go further as it was not a real improvement on my existing example. There's a newly listed one on Ebay here

Agreed, I'm struggling to capture this, the image on the left below is what sparked my interest - taken from the seller's image (not listed as anything special) And interesting variety, similar to the better known BP 1862 F extra plumes, not convinced either are repairs, more likely clashed dies

Not sure on this, but it does look similar to Gouby's BP 1863 Ab, raised spikes from Brittania's arm.

The one I remember was the Afinsa scandal, the once leading stamp company in Portugal

Happy birthday!

Here it is, anyone any idea what's going on here? My guess is a clashed die with a repunched 1, but really I don't have a scooby do. an interesting £4.95 BIN