alfnail

Lot 2408, is it just me?

Many thanks for feedback on my 1844 Farthing, have just looked myself at past sales on LCA website and see that it does compare well with all their past sales, apart from one which sold for £1400 +BP which is clearly much better

Being a penny collector I don't have a great deal of knowledge on Farthings; just wondered if the Farthing experts could perhaps give me a rough idea of value for this 1844 specimen.

Hi Pete, your post reminded me of the one I bought on ebay a few years back, sold as a group of 4 half pennies (!), bought for £40 and sold the rest for well over that.....so essentially a 'freebie'.......happy hunting

Agreed, prefer coins not to be slabbed, but I have kept just a few CGS graded until now as thought would devalue by removing.......they are now coming out.......and definitely not paying £99 out of principle.

Here is the aforementioned trident flaw, also a close up of the numeral 8. If my coin has a trident flaw which Rob’s doesn’t, but Rob’s has an 8 flaw which mine doesn’t, then by my reckoning that must mean the two coins have been struck from different reverse dies.

Apologies there is a reverse die crack through the right hand prong of the trident, sorry about that.

......and the two Reverse E close ups.....

Thanks for your post Rob. I think that the repaired F13 you seek may well be Gouby type BP 1860 La (E +d), which he describes on Page 37 of his 2009 book, saying ‘Known 1’. I attach Obverse / Reverse pictures of my own La specimen, and will immediately follow these with close ups of the two ‘E’ repairs. I am sure my coin is his type La, although interesting that the E of ONE repair on my coin still has a portion of the middle bar missing. As far as I can see my coin does not have any reverse die cracks, but the obverse does have a large one to the RHS of HONI………which I cannot see on your own coin. I find the use of die cracks to demonstrate continuity a very interesting subject.

Yes Pete, I did sell a low grade 1863 Die No. 4 last December. I listed first on ebay but then sold to an existing customer off-line together with an 1862 8/6, the 1863 sold for £870. Well remembered, Ian

For the Victorian Bronze penny collector of Gouby varieties I notice there is an 1860Je (6/6) on this website, MS64 at what some may consider to be a reasonable price of $375 http://atlasnumismatics.com/1017329/

Wasn't sure which topic to put this in but just wanted to point out that despite being NGC slabbed this ebay piece is NOT an 1897 High Sea Level, so please do not be tempted / mis-lead by the authoritative labelling, would be an awful lot of money anyway even if it was:- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1897-Great-Britain-Penny-High-Sea-Level-NGC-MS-64-Red-Brown-/162088884604?hash=item25bd40197c:g:lZwAAOSwIjNXJp~w I have advised the seller so hopefully he will now either remove or add some additional comments

Now that this sale has completed, apart from a couple of pieces which seem to be rumbling on, I wonder whether members have views regarding selling one’s collection in this way as opposed to through a traditional auction house………. for example thinking of the recent Elstree collection.

Does this help clarify!?

......and the slightly wider Bx, but not as wide as Aa or Ca. Note that both type B's have the gap between R and E of REG. Apologies for picture quality of this one, sold many years ago so they are edited from my picture library.............as I retain everything!!

As promised final sets of pictures of the two 1889 narrow dates.....

No problem Richard. I will try to do the B and B* tomorrow, although the latter will not be to same definition as I unknowingly sold that coin not spotting the different narrowdate width.........at least I kept the old pictures.

....and Ad, widest 9 high in exergue

...and Ac. Again very small RE gap. Note digital microscope set to brilliant white light to get best detail...........but not best colour!

....and Ab pics

I’m back from my break and catching up. Have to say I’m quite pleased with the turn of direction my 1889 penny post headed off. I will want to return to the use of progressive die wear as a tool for determining timelines as I have done quite a bit of work in that area, but more on Victorian Copper Pennies rather than Bronzes………….. and think this has led to quite a few interesting finds. Well done to Rob for his clear explanation before others got the wrong end of the stick. For the moment, however, having already loaded 1889 Ca pictures I did promise to do the same groupings for the Gouby type A and B dates, so here are the first two (Aa and Ab). With regard to the R and E of REG touching I had previously replied to say that they did touch on the undocumented date width Ab, but having now had a proper look under the digital microscope I can see that I was mistaken and there is in fact a slight gap, and also a double struck R on my example. Does anyone else have this date width for comparison? The common Aa date width (extra leaf obverse) displays a distinct gap between the R and E, unlike type Ca (missing leaf obverse) where they always seem to touch

P.S. This is the best definition I can manage within the 500Kb allowance, but if you click on the images and enlarge they will appear better

I will undertake to do this, here is the first coin set of pictures. I am away now until Monday but will do the other 6 (Aa,Ab,Ac,Ad,B,Bx) upon my return if members find this helpful. As this takes me quite a bit of time I would be grateful for confirmation that this style of picturing is what you would like please. On the Ca you can see missing leaf with incuse lines in it's place, normal date width with top of nine directly under centre drape of gown, and also REG RE touching, as spotted by 2* Terry............who seems to have an excellent eye for detail to match the very best. It's Ian not Alf by the way Terry, alfnail is an anagram of real name, see if you can work that one out!

A collecting colleague has just confirmed that he has 1 of each of Aa, B and Ca which are same as my findings, so could be added to the counts in the table I posted above

Sorry Terry (Richard) was going to get back to you about the REG business once I had checked my records and coins, all quite interesting. Adding in the Crocker, Workman and LCA pieces I have the following numbers to add into the calculations:- Gouby R?EG Count Ca Touch 4 Aa Gap 3 Ab Touch 1 Ac Touch 1 Ad Touch 4 B Gap 3 Bx Gap 2