secret santa

As Rob says, if there is only a handful known of a particular variety, collectors will snap them up regardless of condition. Some of the coins on my website are little better than washers, yet have sold for hundreds of pounds !

Take a look through my rarest penny website (below) - the pennies featured there will still be worth quite a bit even if corroded like yours.

very clever, not seen that before.

Thanks sabrejv, all useful information.

Yes, interesting. It would be good if we could get a Royal Mint comment/perspective.

Like Arsene Wenger, I see nothing.......

So, Rob, are you saying that all proofs are struck in the same way but some emerge with the "super sharp" effigy and mirror fields ? i.e. all proofs are equal but some are more equal than others ?

Plenty of plausible theories but who can give the definitive answer ? The Royal Mint ?

The term "cameo" gets bandied around quite a lot without, as far as I know, an unambiguous description. It is certainly dangerous to draw conclusions from photographs as to whether a coin is cameo or not. It appears to me that the method of photography and lighting etc can make huge differences to the appearance of a coin. For example, I own 2 1948 proof pennies and the photographs that I took with my digital SLR, macro lens and built-in flash make them look like cameos and yet when I hold them in hand they are clearly not. Terry Eagleton sent me a 1953 proof penny which looks like a cameo in hand but my photographs of it do not ! I'm assuming that a true cameo appears to have a darkish background with a lighter "frosted" raised image ? My photo on left This the original Heritage photo which is more as it appears in hand. The basic message, as always, is to be wary of photographs and judge it in your hand wherever possible !

You're right and I've now found it but it's a PDF and too big to attach.

I think I remember Peter Andrew buying a lot from LCA (Elstree collection ?) which included a document regarding 1897 variations. He sent me a copy but I've saved it to somewhere that I can't find !

I agree with Jerry. It's quite easy on worn coins to convince oneself that something is not as it should be, but collectibility is in the eye of the beholder although, as Jerry says, it is best to confirm genuine oddities on coins in EF or better condition (assuming one can find them - but if you can't, it probably means that they are not worth recording).

Catalogues won't be out for a little while.

Actually, ignore that, it's not always true !!!

No - a useful guide is that the top of the curved part of the 3 is just about level with the top of the curved part of the 6 on open 3 varieties but lower on normal varieties.

Desperately sad to lose a fellow lover of coins.

Here are the pictures of Louise's 1860 penny.

The waves are the clue - clear daylight between base of waves and double exergue.

Pareidolia........................

Thanks Mike - fascinating and very relevant to numismatics !

That's not in my dictionary, Jerry - is it an obscure Welsh word ?

If you haven't got it, buy "The Standard Guide To Grading British Coins" (from Predecimal). It nicely describes and illustrates the grades (states of wear) on all the major obverses and reverses. Every design has its high point of relief which shows wear first, and on George V obverses it's around the eye and top of ear which wears first, reducing it to EF as in your 1934 penny.

My mate Bernie Workman will be most upset !!!!!

Yup, F33. Take a look at my varieties website (below) to help with identifying obverse/reverse varieties.

I believe that they are probably scarce rather than rare. The more we discuss them, the more people will check their own coins and the more will emerge from the woodwork. That's been true of the 1863 open 3, the 1903 open 3 and the 1911 hollow neck.