secret santa

I've been talking out of my rear end again - the Max Brehm mule was sold by Spink as part of the Trevor Legge collection in December 2014, not the Andy Scott collection in September 2015. Are we talking about 2 different coins ?

I'm sure that unsold coins will still have the buyer's premium added.

Prax, I'm attaching the excerpt from the Numismatic Circular of 1986 (before anyone knew that it was a pattern obverse with 122 beads) regarding the Max Brehm/M Gouby/A Scott coin. The article doesn't refer to it as a proof - it was Michael that described it as a matt proof. Richard

Does anyone know who bought that Andy Scott mule ? They might not realise that they now own the only other known 1953 penny with pattern C* obverse (I own and discovered the first)

Sorry, they were catalogued as F129 Proofs - my mistake. BUT, Gouby erroneously describes F129 as obverse R +reverse r (Freeman 12+N) on page VP19 whereas Freeman describes F129 as S+r (13+N). The coins in the Roland Harris sale (lots 767 & 768) are both clearly obverse S (Freeman 13) so they could be F129 but that might be why Gouby thought that they were F128 (S+r).

Right, I believe that Michael is saying on page RH3 that Lots 767 and 768 (both listed in the catalogue as F130 proofs) are, in his opinion, actually both F128 currency coins, defined on page VP19 as BP1889C. Lot 769 is catalogued as F127 (BP1889A) and Lot 770 is catalogued as F128 (BP1889C).

Sorry, £920 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That one sold for £327 at LCA in March 2009 - and now they want at least £690 for it !!!!

From above "Gouby disagrees that two of his three 1889 proofs, were in fact proofs - not sure whether 129's or not, as Gouby has his own unique method of classification, and no Freeman equivalent is given on those pages. " Gouby always shows the Freeman number if appropriate in his books - page VP19 of his Victorian Penny book lists both BP1889P/F127A (specimen) and BP1889R/F129 (proof).

£60K plus commission

Chris beat me to it - but it is a very useful book !

Buy the excellent Collectors' Coins - Decimal Issues of the UK, available from this forum/website.

Great pictures, Ian. Thanks for your hard work. Richard

So, the top coins is a proof ? The second one a currency coin ? The third one the specimen. What is the 4th one (1879) ? I guess I'll need to see a specimen in hand next to a proof to fully understand the difference. Photos just don't do it.

So, which is which, Rob ?

I'm sure that some coins that I've seen claiming to be specimen strikes are no more than early sharp strikes. I'm comfortable recognising proofs but not specimens.

I don't trust "specimen" strikes...........

I have 2 N over Z pennies, the first showing the start of a die flaw by the 2nd N of PENNY and the second has a much more developed flaw showing it to be a later strike. I'll attach photos together with the relevant obverses (one of which has the rotated R) to demonstrate Rob's point. Earlier coin Later coin with rotated R Thus the rotated R is a later die.

Gary, if I were offered either of your specimens 2 or 3 I don't I'd accept them as dot varieties from those pictures. Maybe they look different in hand ?

Just checked my spares and I have an 1890 with a slightly rotated E too.

Keep the images coming, Ian - really useful. I've checked back through all my obverse R (Freeman 12) varieties from 1882 to 1894 and there is a mix of the the R & E touching and R & E apart. My 3 specimens of 1889 F128 (obverse S) all have the R & E touching like your picture above. I've updated my varieties website to record this.

So that's blown my theory out of the water if you have obverses with the additional leaf (obverse R) but R and E touching. I'm trying to avoid the whole reverse/date width issue at the moment - merely looking at the 2 obverses. In fact, I've now checked a lot of other obverse R coins, given that R was used from 1882 to 1894 and there are versions with R and E separated and versions with them touching - so ignore my previous red herring about the gap being indicative of Obv R !!!! Back to the drawing board.....................

I believe that Terry may have unwittingly discovered another difference between Gouby obverses R and S. I previously thought that the extra leaf was the only difference, which made it very difficult to distinguish between varieties on worn examples. But, having looked again after terry's post above, it appears to me that obverse R has the R and E of REG separated by a definite gap whereas obverse S has the R and E virtually touching. I only have a few examples of each but so far this difference is consistent. Could other collectors please check their coins for me. This could prove to be an effective means of distinguishing between R and S (Freeman 12 and 13) on worn specimens.

Good man Steve and best of luck with the auction, although you won't need it !!!!!

That seems to be what the evidence currently suggests ? Interestingly, when I recorded the Crocker specimen (which I bought) in my collection details, I recorded it as obverse R, although it's too worn to be sure.