secret santa

What coin did you count 187 rim denticles on? I've counted the rim denticles on a couple of Freeman C/Gouby d pennies and get 184. Sorry - my typo. I should have said reverse B. Freeman reverse B (Gouby reverse has 187 teeth. Gouby reverse c (not listed by Freeman) has 181 teeth. Gouby reverse d (Freeman C) has 184 teeth. Hope this clarifies.

That's the real McCoy! A 1922, with a 1927 Reverse. F192A. No, this is a 1922 with 1927 reverse

I've asked them if they are going online and they always say they have no plans to, so there's no bidding online thro the saleroom. I'm not sure whether you can even leave commission bids thro the saleroom. You can leave postal bids with LCA or get them to telephone you but you can't follow the auctions online. They're losing out on a huge audience but maybe the costs are prohibitive ?

I have it on good authority that these pennies are all fakes - best to stay at home and don't bid on them (please !)

No presents for you this Christmas then !!!!!

Sadly, this bears no resemblance to a genuine F192A which Freeman describes a having a "1927 reverse" which, of course, is not true because the F192A does not have a true 1927 reverse, but something similar which was probably a precursor to the 1927 design. A 1922 penny does exist with the true 1927 reverse but this is probably unique - certainly only one has been found to date. This forum seems to be attracting some members with questionable motives (not to mention grasp of grammar and spelling) , or am I a tad cynical ? P.S. Love Bob's F192A - a beauty

Right, doing my best Mystic Meg impression I can see a tall dark short-sighted stranger paying £750 for the F8 mule and £200 for that vile F41.

Matt Can you do the same trick with Bob's circular dot and my unc lump please. (and how do you do that ????) R Here you go, very interesting that thery aren't actually anywhere near each other.. I don't even need to highlight the two it's that obvious. They're not lined up exactly as it's hard to get both to the exact same zoom but it's still clear. And I'm using a program called Snag-it, it's actually really handy if you have to manipulate lots of images, it's not free unfortunately but we have it at work. Matt That's great - looks as though there might be 2 kinds of 1946 "dot" (with different dots in different places). That makes a pretty tedious "variety" a tad more interesting. I wonder if anyone has another example of the circular dot ? Get checking your pennies, boys ! R

Matt Can you do the same trick with Bob's circular dot and my unc lump please. (and how do you do that ????) R

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below 1946 F233 ONE' Flaw zoom.JPG I have a 1946 Dot like yours, but I also have a CGS Slabbed 1946, with almost a perfect "Dot"...pic attached. 1946 Dot close up.jpg Now that is very interesting - your dot appears to be in a different place, a little nearer to the E !! My "dot" is far from circular and matches the picture in Michael Gouby's book "The British Bronze Penny 1860 - 1967". It also matches 2 spares that I have which are more worn, with the "dot" becoming more like a dot as it wears down. Could you post a pic of the whole reverse to compare positions. I'll post pictures of the spares.

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below 1946 F233 ONE' Flaw zoom.JPG Again after looking at your site i have never seen or heard of one in such a good grade. Yes, I bought it over 11 years ago and have never seen any better than Fine since.

Difficult to say - if there weren't numerous examples, I'd say it was a bit of excess metal but a piece of clag must have created an indentation on a die that henceforth produced pennies with the raised "dot".

The 1946 "dot" is the least dot-like of all these features and, on an uncirculated example can be seen as just a lump of clag. See below

Both sets of pictures are very good and can enable the viewer to determine the grade of the coin which is important. Less easy to know is the extent of the lustre on the coin but that will always tend to vary with the light that was used when the photo was taken , whether natural or artificial. Just as the light used when viewing the coin in the hand will affect the extent of lustre. It all depends on whether the picture is an aid to selling the coin or to capture the image for the owner's information and pleasure. Picture taken seconds apart will vary depending on light fluctuation. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. R

They definitely mean the colon after F:D that's missing - it's a genuinely rare variety (less than 10 known I reckon) but, as Rob says, it's not nice.

Really interesting - any idea of what that krugerrand would be worth Dave ? I assume that whoever fakes these things will only fake something with a reasonably high value ?

Spink Numismatic Circular - May 2010 Page 74/75 R

If Vicky has got more coins like this and the 1926 ME he showed recently, he should get them all up on a website for our delectation and envy !!! R

Thanks Mark, much appreciated and thanks for the Geo V articles - really interesting and valuable R

Yes it is - it has the true 1927 reverse (184 teeth)

Might be of interest ?????????????????? It's orgasmic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm looking forward to the next article regarding the 2 "rogue" pennies (1922 and 1926) with M.E. obverse and 1927 reverse. However, I notice that there is no mention of the 3rd rogue penny (1926) with M.E. obverse and pattern or hybrid reverse that has been discussed on these forums. It would be a shame if this were not discussed or even explained. Richard

No - O of OMN is a bit further away from the colon after BRITT on F164A.

For interested Penny collectors, I have included details of the new obverse along with many other rare pennies, on a new page on my website, entitled "Varieties That I Don't Have" (but fiercely covet !!!!!) Richard

Yes, it's clearly not a die 3 penny - the "3" is far too small. I see that it's already up to £45 !!!!!!! Genuine example below