Accumulator

Thanks Steve, Well thats the bulk collection of pennies I had well and truly sorted now! No other varieties to be had, just one question, why the hell do I keep looking? :P Regards You're probably like most of us. Hunting for those elusive varieties amongst a host of more common coins is where the fun really starts!

Hi Justin, Again you are correct. As Peckris says, the 1916 is fairly common but the 1915 is a little rarer.

Totally agree. I can't see any way a Court type survey could ever be undertaken now. As far as I can tell, most if the accumulations sold on eBay have already been sifted for many of the rarities. Of course it would be possible to do a similar survey on circulating decimal coins, if anyone felt so inclined. I won't be ordering a copy though!

Based on another topic about pennies recently sold on eBay, I thought it might be interesting to look at relative prices being paid for a few of the rarer examples. As a basis for discussion I produced a small table showing 4 varieties, their frequency in VR Court's survey (i.e. the predicted number of coins of that date you would have to search to find a single example of the rarity) and the predicted market price (for an example in around Fine condition). This market price is based on the regular eBay trades of 1903 Open 3's, averaging say £90. I have chosen the 1903 as they seem to appear more regularly than any of the other coins. The results are below: Who'll have a go at explaining the sale of a 1909 F169 at London Coins in March for £1600? The only explanation seems to be that many collectors (me included!) just get too lazy and aren't prepared to do the necessary legwork to find these coins!

Hi, yes it is. If the reverse is definitely 1911 then that's a nice find! Awesome! I did have to check the reverse again though! Cheers Private message sent.

Hi, yes it is. If the reverse is definitely 1911 then that's a nice find!

Clearly, anything "I was after" I have now either acquired or no longer have an interest in obtaining.

A photo would be nice. Apart from the references in Peck, and the fact that they are presumably still in the BM, I have never come across any of these 3 coins.

Hi Rob, brilliant work yet again... Sherlock Holmes has nothing on you! It certainly looks convincing as a Johnstone coin based on the blue Peck numbers. Also the pencil sale details on the back of the ticket seem to be in the same hand as on your coin. The only question is, do you think the ink description on both tickets is in the same hand? I note that the 'ic' of victoria on my ticket is not linked, whereas the same letters in 'Richmond' on your ticket are. What do you think? Ras told me he didn't write 'copper?' on my ticket, so it must have been added by someone else. Yes, I think they are the same hand on the basis that the t of Victoria and the t of pellets on the P147 ticket are similar, and very unusual in character. The crossbar on the t starts at the top and goes right whereas I'm sure that 90%+ of writers would have the t crossing the upright slightly below the top. The Peck numbers also limit the writers to either Johnstone or Baldwins given the book didn't appear until 1960. I have to admit the 't' is very distinctive. Also the auction dates on the reverse are clearly in the same hand, particularly the separating dots and the '4'. On mine the date is in pencil. How about yours? Also, mine is clearly Glendinings. Is yours "Brugge Salle". If so, presumably that refers to a Belgian auction?

Hi Rob, brilliant work yet again... Sherlock Holmes has nothing on you! It certainly looks convincing as a Johnstone coin based on the blue Peck numbers. Also the pencil sale details on the back of the ticket seem to be in the same hand as on your coin. The only question is, do you think the ink description on both tickets is in the same hand? I note that the 'ic' of victoria on my ticket is not linked, whereas the same letters in 'Richmond' on your ticket are. What do you think? Ras told me he didn't write 'copper?' on my ticket, so it must have been added by someone else.

John just offered you £10k but is probably wishing he'd said £2k now... I certainly am!

Very nice Bob! Freeman 90? Is that for the collection or re-sale?

Recessed ear (no ghosting and fully struck on the reverse):

On the basis that images bring a thread to life: Non-recessed ear (no ghosting, but not fully struck on the reverse):

which also suggests a single die variety..? Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die? On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable? That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one) Numbers: 1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do 1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then. It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate. Wouldn't it be more logical to 'add' a mark to the dies to identify them, like a hairline or something, which would appear raised on the coin? Breaking a tooth would actually mean blocking the tooth on the die wouldn't it? I of course have not actually looked to see how the broken tooth appears on these coins, but will tomorrow! We call it a 'broken' tooth, but it's actually more like a half tooth, and something that could be done quite deliberately I would have thought, as it would be undetectable to ordinary users, while collectors of the time didn't even bother with much of anything after 1816. But even they did, few would have looked closely at a new currency issue, as 20th Century coins just weren't of any interest at all pre-WW2. Has anyone found a recessed ear variety without the 'modified' tooth? I've seem them advertised but never been convinced. It's very difficult to identify a recessed ear, as such, but the give away (other than the half-tooth) is a fully struck reverse and no ghosting, as intended.

A great find John! How many 1937 sets did you have to search to find that one? Any clues about what to look for? Pictures when it arrives, please, though I know proofs are notoriously difficult to photograph.

The recent topic about collecting micro varieties, has prompted me to ask how other collectors handle the insurance of these coins? Typically policies will limit cover to, perhaps, 75% of the Spink catalogue price. For the bulk of collections this is fine, but in the case of varieties the insurance cover would automatically be linked to the most common version of the coin and make no allowance for the additional rarity.

If you're not interested Dave, do you have a link?

I guess Freeman numbers would cover micro-varieties, so you can add me to that list

Only just noticed this post Derek. It's beginning to sound possible that this coin was part of Baldwin's stock, though being such a good example I'm surprised it didn't sell before they 'hoovered it up' (if that's what happened) or that it sat in their stock for a long time. Unless, of course, it became 'lost' in their basement for some years.

Right, I've got the catalogue for 20-21/6/1940. Lot 282 was 4 proof pennies, 1860 toothed and dotted borders, 1868 bronzed and plain. The provenance is George Wight. I don't have buyers, nor where it came from originally. If Wight was a Baldwins customer, then a good possibility would be ex Clarke-Thornhill, as his 1868 set (lot 842) was bought by Baldwins for stock. This lot was ex-Nobleman 378. As regards whose handwriting it is, there is nothing conclusive. The bold writing could be Fred Baldwin's based on the tenuous link of a slight upturn at the bottom of the 1, which would possibly make copper? either another Baldwin employee or Wight, or the buyer of lot 282. Depending on who wrote it, the ticket could refer to the first of the 1868s with the copper? written afterwards, but equally could refer to the second with someone questioning the bronzing compared to the first. I think we are looking at the difference between bronzed and bronze though in all probability, with the catalogue reference to plain meaning bronze. Unless a metal analysis was done it would be difficult to predict. Not sure if this takes you any further other than the provenance of Wight. Fantastic work again, Rob. Thank you! After trying the British Library and various other sources for the 1940 catalogue, I'd got as far as establishing that Spink had a copy. They offered to let me have a look next time I was passing, but I've not been in town since. The conclusion about the material being copper came from Mark Ras (based on the colouration and his experience), though, as you say, only a metal analysis could confirm it 100%.. The Wight provenance (with a possible Clark-Thornhill link) is a great start. It must have passed through a few hands since 1940, though. The search, as always, continues! Thanks again!

As VickySilver says, there seem to be various examples of 60's pennies struck in other metals. If your example is for sale, please let me know too? I have nothing in CN myself, but I do have a 66 penny in brass:

Which book did you read? It's in Spink and is a fairly common coin. Here's mine:

Gone The seller appeared to be brazening it out, so I doubt he de-listed it. I presume it was eBay, after all the complaints? If so, power to the community!

I had a bad day, so writing to this seller made me feel a lot better Not that I expect him to take any notice.