Am I missing something ? I can't see any difference in the rock between 1909 rev D, 1909 F169 rev E and 1910 rev E
1909 F168 rev D
1909 F169 rev E
1910 rev E
In geek-like fashion I had recreated the article in Word, even including the 2 photos and decided to insert the word "nevertheless" after "specimen" - so we're on the same wavelength (is that a good thing ???)
The sentence below the photograph seems to end abruptly after the words "but a specimen"..... Is that how it was printed or is it a fold in the paper ?
A decent 1893/2 sold recently on Ebay for £175 - see https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144097308499?ul_noapp=true
Strangely, it's now for sale at £500 from the same vendor...............
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144118332001?hash=item218e1f3a61:g:GFQAAOSwM-xg3fL6
I still maintain that one can't tell whether a coin has been "cleaned" or not from a photograph. Photos can differ dramatically according to the technology and lighting that are used to take them.
None of the coins pictured above look particularly different from many other of the London Coins photos.
There will never be a substitute for examining the coin in hand. If in doubt before buying or bidding, check that you can return the coin if not satisfied.
The 1869 penny was described as "wiped" in the catalogue. What exactly does this mean ????
I can "wipe" my brow or I can "wipe" all trace of something. Another ambiguous term.
Mike - the Freeman 7 went for £500 hammer - it was the nice F1 that didn't sell, surprisingly. I expect your 7 was a typo.
The 1864 was a good buy - nearly went for it.