secret santa

One of these please

Hi Just.me I've checked out the pattern reverse under a 10X magnifier and the border teeth look just as if they've been stuck onto the coin - the line you see on the photo is a very slightly raised edge as if a ring of teeth has been stuck onto a coin with no teeth. I'm hoping to get one of these digital microscope things in the new year and if I can master the technology, the pictures should be very interesting. Happy New Year to all penny collectors and to those of other denominations........

The signature function seems to have disappeared ? I have added my website URL to my personal settings but it doesn't appear whenever I add a post and the old way of adding it to my signature isn't there unless I've missed it.

Nice penny Matt - the Edward pennies seem to be some of the fastest increasing coins, value-wise. R

Aaaahh, the eyes of a young man !!!!!

Yes, die clash but quite attractive !

Jerry, Thanks for pointing these typos out - I will add F72 with ja. Rarity on F115 was an error. Rarity on the obverse G varieties is based on my own observations in auction listings etc. The proof rarities that 1949threepence pointed out were also errors. There will be lots more so please tell me when you spot them. Thanks R

Thanks for the comments guys - I'll address them once all the seasonal family stuff is done with !! There are bound to be some typos/omissions as I rushed through the preparation. Happy New Year R

Slabbed as Mint State when there's considerable wear at the top of Britannia's dress. You can do much better than that for the money.

Why would anyone get their coins slabbed by CGS ? Lot 2792 in their last auction was slabbed by CGS as 1855 P1509 PT when it's blindingly obvious that it's a P1508 Ornamental Trident (with far colon after DEF to confirm it) !!!!! If they get that wrong, what else ????????

Sorry - I've no idea why it doesn't work for some people. I tried to put the link into my signature but the new forum doesn't allow me to do that.

sorry, www.headsntails14.wordpress.com

website is www.headsntails.wordpress.com

I am currently producing a website which I hope will be useful for penny collectors to identify particular varieties. I am trying to bring together Gouby and Freeman varieties in one place with pictures and descriptions, including patterns and proofs. I'd appreciate feedback Merry Christmas

I will get back to you on this after Christmas - I promise !!!!!!

I agree, too - everything looks right to me. SS

Yes, BP1953N is B+x as Terry says.

Mr T It's not quite right to equate a die combination with a Gouby identifier (e.g. BP1953A) Gouby assigns an identifier to each unique variety, i.e. combination of year, die pairing, variant (currency, proof, overstrike, different metal, flan size, etc etc) So, for example, die pairing C+b exists as BP1953P (proof) and should be given a separate identifier such as BP1953Pa for the matt proof (for photographic purposes) which Gouby does not list. BP1953M (B+a) is the highly polished proof from the VIP set but I have a (B+a) which is much more like a circulation coin and therefore should have a separate identifier. In the same way that 1967 pennies exist as BP1967A (normal issue), BP1967F (heavy flan), BP1967G (brass) and there should be new identifiers for the cupro-nickel strike and the missing waves variety of 1967. Thus, we are not sure that BP1953L and BP1953R are the same variety because no-one has compared the 2 side by side. BP1953L is described by Gouby as a matt proof but my BP1953R does not seem to be a proof to me. They are certainly the same die pairing but may not be the same variety. Re his mention of B* in his letter - Gouby uses B* to indicate the highly polished version of Obverse B used for the VIP proof coin in his illustrations in "The British Bronze Penny" but does not include it in the list of varieties at the back of the book. If he did, it would be BP1953M (B*+a) so my (B+a) would still need a separate identifier. Hope this is clear.

Michael Gouby's letter on the subject (attached on an earlier post) defined my penny as BP1953R (in the absence of proof that they were the same variety) and said that they could be from the same dies (I think they probably are). Michael hasn't held both coins in his hand to say whether they are the same variety. The article in the NC (by M Brehm) was written long before I pointed out to Michael that I had found a penny with 122 beads. Michael then compared a photo of my coin with his coin (the ex-Brehm coin BP1953L from the article) and they appear to be similar with regard to the legend v bead configuration (i.e. which letter points to which bead). However, my coin does not appear to be a proof although it could be a slightly more worn version of his which is described as "probably from sand-blasted dies". So they could be one and the same variety although no-one has compared the 2 side by side. Spink NC article attached Spink NC BP1953L.jpg And yes, they should both be C*+a

Michael Gouby's letter on the subject (attached on an earlier post) defined my penny as BP1953R (in the absence of proof that they were the same variety) and said that they could be from the same dies (I think they probably are). Michael hasn't held both coins in his hand to say whether they are the same variety. The article in the NC (by M Brehm) was written long before I pointed out to Michael that I had found a penny with 122 beads. Michael then compared a photo of my coin with his coin (the ex-Brehm coin BP1953L from the article) and they appear to be similar with regard to the legend v bead configuration (i.e. which letter points to which bead). However, my coin does not appear to be a proof although it could be a slightly more worn version of his which is described as "probably from sand-blasted dies". So they could be one and the same variety although no-one has compared the 2 side by side. Spink NC article attached

Dave I think the only answer is that CGS must grade a BP1868Ab F56 as a different coin from a bog standard F56. I must say that treating every date width listed by Gouby as a standalone variety is going too far in my opinion. R

Great coins Jerry, and so much better than they looked in the catalogue or on the website !!!!

I now discover that I do have a photograph of BP1953L (which is the coin sold at Spink in Dec 2014) and it is the same die combination as my BP1953R (C*+ although I'm not convinced that mine is a matt proof.

My second attempt to list the various 1953 penny types: