Mr T

@secret santa time to update https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/victoria-official-pattern-obverses-reverses/

Possible but unlikely I would think? I assume that die numbers were used sequentially and dies would either have been used until unusable or destroyed. Not to say that a numbered die didn't fall behind the couch at some point or other and get refound though.

It's frustrating I find (still working on my Cook Islands and Solomon Islands collections with no end in sight) but it's very satisfying ticking one off the list.

Got a picture?

I think this pretty much right - there are plenty of mules were the intent at time of production is unknown and whether it was deliberate or an accident I think it's still obviously a mule. Intent at the design stage is where the right way is meant to be decided.

Alright I guess it's the picture (or rather the lighting) - it looked different enough to me but looking at https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/george-v-1911-1936/1931-1d-s-4055-bn/3948?sn=203068&h=pop and https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/george-v-1911-1936/1931-1d-s-4055-rb/3948?sn=203069&h=pop which seem to have the same generally sharper design show that the feathers are the same.

I'll echo everyone else's sentiments and say it doesn't hurt to keep it - I've got more than a shelf of coin and banknote-related books, most of which I don't touch and some of which I've never read but it's good to have a reference library.

Going by these images at they seem to be different: Note the two feathers hanging down behind the helmet - next to the neck and the upward-curling bit of the back of the helmet - one the bottom coin the right feather is much thinner.

I would have said yes - I thought I read that some threepence patterns were produced with third farthing obverse dies. Possibly that was a genuine test but at the same time it's a mule pairing.

There was an article in the Australasian Coin and Banknote magazine a few years about mules which proposed the term 'hybrid' for so-called deliberate mules. I don't think there's any doubt about the obvious mules (dies from different countries or denominations and other combinations that should never have appeared together) but the rest, regardless of intent, aren't truly mules in my opinion - new designs get tried and possibly adopted; making coins is a business and it's not unreasonable to expect a new design to be gradually phased in , or possibly not and just used up to reduce waste.

Thanks again. My 2c is that it does appear to be a separate reverse - check out the bottom helmet feathers - on the circulation reverse the bottom two feathers are of equal thickness but on the proof obverse the right feather is much thinner. Possibly there are are other differences as well but that one stood out.

A .pdf of Iain Dracott's articles was posted somewhere on this forum a little while ago I think.

Thanks all, so it looks 1922 and 1926 are the only years where things were a bit of a mess and by 1927 it was back to a single obverse/reverse pair. Also, my suggestion would be that on https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/george-v-reverses/ the "Potential George V Proof Reverse Gouby d* (Freeman Reverse C*)" be renamed because Gouby c has been called Freeman C* is the latest edition (a mismatch which doesn't make the complicated situation any clearer). Excellent resource anyway.

Still trying to get my head around it all. https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/george-vi-varieties/ (yes the URL says George VI but it is George V) says 1927 pennies are known with 4+C and 5+C but gives the Gouby references as D+d - I assume they should both be 4+C? Basically, besides the Gouby D* for proofs, there are no varieties of 1927 penny? And do all proof pennies 1927-1936 use the Gouby D* reverse?

I found some decent images of both (never easy): Obverse 1: https://www.gbclassiccoins.co.uk/shop/silver-threepences/1838-queen-victoria-young-head-silver-threepence-scarce/ Obverse 2: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victoria-1863-Threepence-/361979845871 So it looks like besides the G and the hair above the ear, the obverse 2 R serifs seem to flick up more, and the : at the end of the F:D: seems to cut into the D on obverse 2.

I've got a fairly worn 1860 threepence and I'm trying to work out which Davies obverse it has. It looks like an obverse 1 as the G in D:G: looks like it has a big right serif and not much of a left serif. The Queen's ear is completely worn away so I can't use that, and the serif on the G seems a little shaky as a diagnostic (prone to die fill or damage I would think). Anyone got any other way of telling the two obverses? I have pretty much no young head threepences to compare with.

10 million might sound like a lot but the less there are, the less chance of a security company delivering thousands of dollars/pounds worth to anywhere near where you live. I'm very much into Australian decimals and anything with a mintage of lower than 10 million is, anecdotally, difficult to find.

I'm sure GST would be implied - I don't think you're allowed to advertise prices without GST (unless you clearly state GST isn't included). It is a price guide so I guess it wouldn't matter either way but in practice pretty much every price includes GST.

Maybe an E?

Ah yep - I wasn't getting redirected but the direct links show "Does not ship to Australia" in red. edit: actually digging a bit deeper it says will ship to Australia and UK but not to Oceania and Europe - I guess the will not ship to takes precedence.

Computer programmer.

Need to get myself a copy. Have you read Coins, Coinages and Currencies of Australasia by Coleman P Hyman?

The link works but I see nothing for sale and nothing sold.

Got a direct link? I can't find it.

That's a great site (though the maintainer unfortunately died of cancer in the last year or two I think).