secret santa

For the 1999 edition, only the 4th point (about misaligned colon dots) applies. For the 2001 edition, the 2nd point (1862/1) and 4th point both apply.

Right, I have to correct what I wrote in the 3rd bullet above. On page 41, the top left diagram, the description "Mis-aligned Colon Dots...Type 1" should be followed by the words "(20). The line of dashes shows the normal alignment of Colon Dots". The misaligned colon dots are the ones nearest the edge of the cape and there is the most subtle of differences between 20 and 20A with 20A being slightly nearer the cape. Hope this is clear.

As there was no provenance listed in the DNW sale, it's possible that the vendor did not supply any. He/she may not have had any. It's possible that they came by it by accident, by inheritance, by dishonest means, etc etc. If it were in the state pictured above, a non-numismatist would probably be pleased to clean it up to the shiny state and get over a thousand pounds for it. So, not necessarily an idiot per se but who knows ?

I have recently been talking with John Jerrams about his census of rare pennies and my rare penny site. He has asked me to let interested collectors know of some corrections to his 2003 edition. For anyone who owns this - "The Early British Bronze 'Bun' Pennies and their Varieties" (With Updated Valuations) 2003 edition, the following corrections apply: In the valuations section in the middle of the book, the valuations for Satin 8 and 9 (Freeman 8 and 9) should be switched - F8 is more valuable than F9 On page 31, bottom section - the sentence "Namely, an 1862 specimen, as for Number 38, except that the '2' is struck over a '1'." should read "as for Number 40" (i.e. F39 and not F38). On page 37, nearly halfway down, on the right hand side is a comment "See Note 'q' " with "Page 26" under it. This should read "Page 36" - my own copy already had a corrective sticker over it with Page 36 on it, so other copies may have this sticker. On page 41, the top left diagram, the description "Mis-aligned Colon Dots...Type 1" should read "The line of dashes shows the normal alignment of Colon Dots". Actually, to me the 2 top diagrams look identical to me, so I'll query that with John.

Yes, so why lie about its attributes ? I think we know why.

He's found another one...........https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victoria-1859-Penny-Unrecorded-Small-Date-Over-Large-AUNC/233412320431?hash=item3658755caf:g:u0MAAOSwNhNd2SZv

I'm adding it to my rare penny site - can someone tell me about its provenance, e.g. was it advertised/sold on Facebook ? Don't worry, I've just seen the Facebook entry.

Thanks Mick. Due to my lousy broadband, that picture wasn't showing yesterday evening. Today it's fine.

Could someone post the reverse please as I can't get to the Facebook page.

It's gone !!!

Just to confirm it's not genuine, it doesn't have the die flaw by the O of ONE.

I've temporarily added this to my rare penny site as a "non-example" just in case someone looks on there but I guess the people who are bidding on this coin are probably not aware of the site.

Are you calling me a nerdy type ? Surely that must be classified as a hate crime ?

Lukasz certainly has got green fingers when it comes to finding rarities.

I think that, apart from DNW or Baldwins, the quality of their photography is their own worst enemy. I wouldn't buy based on the pictures from Spink or LCA.

Back in 1987 I asked in my local Barclays bank whether they had any mint sealed bags of the new smaller 50p and they let me have one - I still have it although that year saw one of the biggest numbers struck. Probably worth no more than face value.

I agree. Actually, are there any known instances of a mass melting with no surviving specimens (obviously difficult to prove) ?

Parcelforce phone number is 0344 800 4466 in case you need it.

If it comes by USPS, remember my experience. I rang Parcel Force yesterday and actually spoke to a human who said "you should have had 2 letters from us". Well, I didn't and they didn't even apologise. Simply confirmed that it had been returned to the US. Customer Service ? - it's gone the way of the Dodo.

OK, here's another theory. The metal for the creation of a working die has to be annealed, i.e. heated up to soften it to allow the punch to create the incuse image before plunging it into water to harden it. Is it possible that the would-be die might not soften uniformly upon heating and when the punch slams down into the softened metal, the highest points of the punch (which create the lowest part of the die which will in turn create the highest point of the struck coin) comes up against harder (i.e. less soft) metal and does not create as sharper a mould as it should ?

Surely it must be caused by something a bit more robust than grease ? The power with which a die strikes a blank would drive grease out of its way ?

Is a picture of the whole reverse available Terry ?

Umm. I'm not sure I'd include that one on the basis of that photograph.

I can't make up my mind whether the pennies with missing waves are truly rare and merit an entry on my Rare Penny site. Example occur for 1934, 1937, 1966 and 1967 (these are the dates that I know about) and I have pictures of fewer than 5 for each date. Although I don't regard them as a truly recordable man-made "variety", they are genuinely collectable and appear to be scarce. At first I created a web page for each year but now I have summarised them on a single page, although I am continuing to update the individual year pages and they can be reinstated at any time if collectors show the interest. I'd be grateful to know of any other years which exhibit this feature.

Just emailed it to you.