alfnail

A few years back I placed 3 coins with LCA for one of their auctions. It was suggested to me that they would realise best price if I paid for slabbing.......which I went ahead and did prior to the auction. As I did not have much experience of LCA at that time I decided to place reserves on these coins. One of them did not reach it's reserve of £200 so I brought it home with me to sell on ebay. I found it really difficult to take decent pictures through the slab, so committed what I felt to be a sin at that time of bursting it open. I then took the desired pictures and sold on ebay for almost double the reserve............an interesting experience!

I agree with Richard's comments about the LCA 1862 8 over 6 spacing being right for this variety. I attach close up pictures of the date on my own piece for members reference, the latter one taken with digital microscope in brilliant white light to better show the detail....but not the colour. I may well sell this coin once I see the LCA auction results as my 1861 8/6 is in better condition and suits me well enough for my Bronze collection.

I see that those two 1861's are now for sale at LCA Lot 2763 if any member was interested, £100 - £200

It would be good if we could all agree how to count date widths. This is something I raised with MG shortly after his book was published back in 2009 because to me he seemed to be consistently adding 1 to the date widths which I was counting. Apparently I was not the first person to have raised this with him. His response indicated that his method of counting teeth is to include both teeth which the first and last numerals are over as a full tooth each rather than half a tooth each. Referencing Page 76 of his book, for example, where 1880 date widths are described, if you look at the narrow date type BP 1880 Aa (M +k) he catalogues this date as having 12 teeth, which is 10 full teeth plus the 2 half teeth which the first and last numeral 1’s are over, both of which he counts as full teeth. So instead of being 10 + (2 x 0.5) = 11 he has decided to describe as 10 + (2 x 1.0) = 12. He has used this method consistently throughout his book, the only anomaly being the 1881 date where the first 1 is over a gap rather than a tooth, so if you look at the adjacent page 77 at type 1881Ca he describes as having 11.5 teeth whereas strictly speaking there are only 10.5 (i.e. he still adds 1). All date variety collectors will now find it difficult if we adopt different methods to describe our coins to one another, so I would suggest that as Gouby’s book is the main reference point for describing date widths that we all try to use his method? I also attach a picture of a coin I have kept because it seemed to me to be the missing 1880 Ac date width. On Page 76 MG lists Aa, Ab and Ad, but no Ac. His Ab and Ad have the centre of the numeral 0 (zero) directly over a gap, whereas my coin has it more towards the centre of a tooth. So if we use MG’s method of counting then this would be a date width of 13 teeth, 11 full teeth plus 2 bits (almost halves) = 13 (not 12). Hope I am helping rather than serving to confuse. P.S. If Terry’s got lots of 1877 narrow dates I wouldn’t mind one, doesn’t have to be UNC!

Thanks Pete, yes I was thinking of the 1875 penny; always thinking about pennies! These foreign bodies which get trapped in the die also appear on several other Victorian pennies, the Copper 1854 dot below first I of VICTORIA, the 1859 DEF extra dot and the 1846 (more pennies discussion) are examples, then of course there is the 1897 DOT as another Bronze example...........these are not the result of human introduced design, or deliberate / mistaken repair..............unless one expects that a person should have checked that a piece of grit / metal filing should not have been there......... and that constitutes an error? But I don't expect for a minute that my views will stop penny enthusiasts from wanting an 1897 DOT Penny!!

Thanks Brian, here are the 1851 penny different numeral types I mentioned earlier, in case anyone is interested

Not sure how much of the 1902LT wide date stuff was said in jest but here are comparative pictures of type with bar and slightly wider normal date for reference, also a 'close up' of bar in top of zero, which is sort of straight! Inclined to agree with Rob about varieties, "design and errors", both human introduced rather than machine, e.g. not keen on cannon balls, crow feet, clashed dies being classified as varieties, but they do seem to have found their way into all recognised documentation to date (and CGS), so now have their place. With Victorian Pennies (my main collection) I always find that repairs are the more difficult ones to decide whether to collect because I think probably every letter in the legend has been repaired on one die or another, some much more obvious than others, so where does one draw the line, and what should be termed a variety? Clearly everyone wants an 1860N/Z, but a repaired E in DEF is far less desirable, but still nice to have if it's a real botch job. Then there are date variations and colon dot positions which again vary in location from one die to another, human introduced so perhaps fairly classed as varieties by some authors. For exampIe, I recently looked in detail at my 1851 pennies, no over-dates on that year but we still see different numeral sizes on the 1,5 and 8, and when additionally taking date widths into consideration I found in total I have 12 different date variations.............and that's not a particularly common mintage year. Think this is a subject which collectors will never agree upon, as always looking for something different to collect, and dealers / auctioneers will always market a new 'feature' to aid their sale.....and then a feature sometimes turns into a new variety! Could go on forever but will stop now, expect this will open a can of worms!

Assuming that link has taken me to the right place I only make that jacinbox F18 obverse 143 teeth, attached image with marks every 10 teeth starting clockwise at V..........are everyone's eyes as boggled as mine, I need to concentrate on a quiz this evening!?

Jerry, as you seem to have the best 145 example are you planning to put alongside a normal Obverse 2 (143), and do a careful analysis just to see if there are any other undocumented differences in addition to the legend ones already noted? Thanks, Ian

There was one sold on ebay back in February by ribs18 from the Netherlands, but I think that may be the same coin which Terry has pictured. Re. the straw poll I have checked around 20 of my sold pieces this morning and none had 145 teeth. Also the 1861 Obverse 2's (F18 and F20) have 143 teeth but I do not have an F19 to check.....sure I can find that on Richard's site when get time to look!.

My final picture has been done with the aid of a graphic designer colleague by combining the 60/59 date with the 59 narrow date………. a 50% transparency of the 60/59 picture has been positioned (using those 3 protrusions as reference points) on top of a 50% transparency of the 59 narrow date. I do not know whether this has been done before and I may be repeating what others already know. Anyway I feel that my results look fairly conclusive, and would welcome comments. Thank you for bearing with me, and apologies for hogging the site for a while!!

.....and the protrusions highlighted which I mentioned

Using exactly the same microscope setting of 130x I have taken shots of my two 1859 smaller numeral varieties and attach these as a combined picture, along with the 60/59 date inserted between them for comparison. You will see the Gouby B date style type at the top; the bottom variety is not currently documented by him, but seen from time to time. When I looked at these 3 pictures side by side I felt that the bottom variety (which I call the narrow date) was a strong candidate for being overstruck with the 60, to create the 60/59 variety. You will notice that there are 3 good protrusions on the 60/59 which could be used to triangulate over the 59 narrow date………..these protrusions are highlighted in red arrows on the next attachment which I am about to post.

....and the 60/59 date close up

Returning to the 1860/59 discussion, attached my latest acquisition, also a digital microscope 130x close up of the over-date, following as a separate posting due to the 500Kb attachment limit.

Got it........awkward reducing file sizes to fit 500KB!

Still trying to get the hang of adding pictures, which will follow soon!

Bought this at Spinks last week because thought may be a 'flying ship', and now examined it does seem to be that way i.e. lustre around the ship and then again beneath but above the waves seems to highlight it's flight! Also interesting obverse, think Gouby R as has re-cut fish, and score above LCWYON, but not sure about small tuft of hair (stage 7) and re-cut plaited hair (8) because 7 seems to be present, but 8 doesn't (Gouby S?). Also the obverse colon dots seem quite interesting as have had some work. Any thoughts please?

Thanks everyone, after nearly 10 years I was ready to crack this one open, but now it's back in the safe. Would still be good to know if any member actually has a piece with same dot, so if anyone happens to read this in years to come and has one of these coins then do please let me know. Just realising it's good to have a site like this to share views, will try to make more use and contribute in the future. P.S. There is a 60/59 on ebay.com at the moment, NGC AU58, but at £3,700 it seems too much to me, although I see he's taking offers.

I have an 1846 DEF Close Colon which is slabbed and graded PCGS MS63. I have been wondering whether to de-slab this piece so that I may check out what appears to be a small dot to the RHS of the T of GRATIA. I think the dot is actually on the coin rather than the slab, but cannot be certain without checking once out. If the dot is on the coin then I will be keeping it in my collection, but selling if it is on the slab because I do have a higher grade piece. I’m thinking, however, that by de-slabbing I may reduce the value when selling so just thought before doing so whether any forum member may be able to help by advising if they already have a piece with dot in same location. I have owned and seen many examples of this rarer type but never noticed this dot before. If anyone wishes me to add a picture of the reverse please let me know. Thanks all

Many thanks Pete, I may actually sell (or swap) the F27 because I have this rare reverse in better grade, albeit on an F32 (pictures attached for further drooling), and I concentrate my collection on Victorian Copper Pennies rather than Bronze. The F32 may also be the best known, but dare I say that.....lol?

First posting on Predecimal; so hope I have done this right! Thinning down collection over the winter, including some Cartwheel pennies which is not really an area I collect. Came across this one and struggling to identify variety. Can see something in Peck about a proof reverse having detached leaves on olive- branch also weak rigging and sea beneath ship. Have I really got a proof coin here or are these features also present on currency dies as well? Coin is in good condition so think these weak areas must have been present when originally minted. Thanks to anyone who has better expertise of 1797's and able to shed some light. P.S. Can take more pictures if helps!

Thanks for reply Rob, appreciated. Also the warm welcome from Pete, are you the guy who bought some coins from me for your son's starter collection, sorry to ask but don't know you as PWA 1967?