jelida

The comprehensive appendices that Richard added to the last Freeman (authorised) reprint did incorporate the significant varieties-new dies, overstrikes etc - recorded until then, but did not deal with variations in date width, slapdash but otherwise correct letter repairs etc that Gouby does address. It was well produced and at a very reasonable price and quickly sold out. Gouby did of course update his text also comparatively recently and still offers occasional update pages eg for the (F15) R over A in Victoria, Medusa 1847 numbers . Really only Richards online ‘Pennies heads n tails’ is really up to date, including the new 1887 to 92 obverse. Any printed publication will age - though a ‘print to order’ version of Richards site would be wonderful! Jerry

Absolutely true, a study based solely on the pennies surviving now would be quite different in its balance between common and rare. Use of rarity values is at its best unreliable, and we must all understand that. Jerry

Except in the case of Freeman of course, who actually studied a massive random sample from circulation ; while not perfect, his estimations of comparative rarity are as accurate as will ever be achieved for the bronze coinage. In terms of actual numbers of exceptionally rare coin varieties that were barely or not represented in Freeman’s sample, there will always be an element of flux as demonstrated by RS’s excellent ‘Rarest Pennies’ register. A ‘unique’ ‘slender 3’ 1863 penny becomes three known for instance, and more will be found. And in the end, it is market availability and demand that determine the price. In general I can see where you are coming from. One has to hope that those declaring, and particularly publishing, rarity values make every effort to ensure reasonable accuracy. You will not find a ‘rarity’ value on any of my coin tickets, for good reason. Jerry

You really shouldn’t be so sensitive to criticism, I have already stated that it is your prerogative to act as you wish. As they say, you can take a horse to water etc. Jerry

It does seem that generous resources seem to attract women…..or am I just watching the wrong sort of videos…..? 😮 Jerry

Removed duplicate post - my cock-up!

In discussion of Freeman rarity allocations, we have to understand how they were arrived at, which was by the study of over 60,000 pennies gathered randomly from circulation - a project that can never be repeated. They were not based on the collections of numismatists, which are inherently biased, and largely unpublished and untested. The sheer number of coins Freeman categorised cut the margin of error to give a factually based (but not necessarily perfect) estimation of comparative rarity, which in combination with official RM mintage figures and estimates of survival rates give the approximate numbers available to collectors today. A ‘Freeman number’ and rarity estimation is that published in his book, not something for us as individuals to make up - though by general consensus and consultation with Michael or his copyright holder modifications might be made. If I as an individual collector find a coin that I think merits varietal status, it is not adequate just to ask around my mates and look on EBay or past catalogues and not finding any more to declare it R19 or R20. Take your F10a, the ‘N over Z’ (actually N over sideways N) which you rate R17 - this is actually quite a common coin, often on EBay and in auctions and the latest Freeman already gives it a rarity rating - ‘R14?’- which is much more realistic. Your F10c - the triple F - you rate R18. Again seen reasonably frequently and nowhere near R18; Dave Craddock sold a fine example for £25 a couple of years ago, and he knows the market better than most. Similar applies to other examples that you have allocated spurious Freeman rarities to. You have a wonderful collection, certainly one of the best, you don’t need to embellish it. Jerry

I’m not sure where you want to go with this? KB’s resources , as in my case, may well include a pension pot - they are still demonstrably resources spent that most of us do not have! Mr Booth is lucky enough I understand not to be limited financially in the way most of us are, and more power to his elbow, as the saying goes. And I too would much sooner see these coins stay in the country of origin and in the hands of a collector than with an overseas investor - that was the issue that was addressed in the original post! I did not to say that we should be prohibited from collecting whatever we want, from wherever we want. And not a full stop, definitely a comma - If I had the ‘resources’ the prices would have been higher! But I did win two Workman lots. Jerry

This is entirely your prerogative Kevin, but why not just do what others do and state ‘not listed in Freeman’ and then your own description or reference? If we all did as you do, there could be dozens of Freeman 0’s 10 A, B, C’s etc in use all referring to different coins. Anarchy! Jerry I will address the rarities issue tomorrow , the wife is grumbling about me using the iPad in bed!

Presumptuous? Unless Kevin had the resources, how could he have afforded such wonderful coins? The Workman spend alone is greater than my pension pot! Yet I still obsessively splash out when I can…… Jerry

And I was surprised to spot this in a little tub of coins in my local auction at the weekend; somebody else must have too, as it went for £170 plus commission. But a bargain I think. Jerry

A nice penny from Ebay, 34 Euro including postage. Considerable residual lustre that doesnt seem to show in the pics - nicer in the hand! Jerry

I think there is confusion here Kevin, our Coinery (Stuart) is not to be confused with ‘The Coinery’ (Guy) who has the 1808 penny. And I think Stu came first! Jerry

Hello Kevin and welcome to the forum. You have a wonderful collection, I wish that I had your resources. Interesting in your reference to the Merrion Centre in Leeds, that was the first coin shop I ever visited, as a teenager, when visiting my grandmother; I purchased a hammered groat of the Bristol mint, still in my collection. Your website has been widely known to penny collectors for some years now, and I am glad to see that it has been updated with your latest purchases, and that you are advertising it ,and I am also pleased to see that so many important coins are staying in the country. But there are a couple of statements that you make that I must gently take issue with. Firstly I wish that you didn’t ascribe non-existent Freeman numbers to your coins; if it’s not published in Freeman, it can’t have a Freeman number! Gouby references most of the coins in question, why not use his system? Secondly , why make untested statements such as ‘finest known’ or ‘probably R19’ ? In my experience, these almost always prove incorrect with time (I know some to be very debatable) though it is reasonable to quote published (Peck, Freeman, Satin, Gouby) figures that have been subject to research and the test of time. But to end the nit-picking; I hope you enjoy your interactions with the penny collectors and others on this forum, you are now on the cutting edge of the ongoing study of these wonderful coins. Jerry

They look to be where a brooch pin and catch were soldered. Jerry

I think this has to be the most likely scenario, your work on the teeth does seem to confirm the dies being the same. Now, you need to find non DFF examples with the same distinctive border features! Jerry

I wonder if the die, having been annealed to soften for repair, might have had the developing die crack filled and polished at the same time that the ‘I’ was re-punched -a bit high, as you say -and perhaps colon repairs also? Thus two different stages in the life of a single die, though why wouldn’t the damaged ‘E’ be repaired as well….……? A damaged ‘E’ punch could have been used creating the ‘F’, but it would have had to be used separately while undertaking die repairs in 1843 and 1844, unless the 1843 die was skilfully filled and altered to 1844, assuming the master die was undamaged. The damaged ‘E-F’ looks so distinctive and similar that it is difficult to believe that it arose independently on different dies. I find this all rather confusing. Time for a beer- it’s the bellringers Christmas do tonight, much cheaper in January. Jerry

Could there have been a chipped master die, from which two (or more) working dies were struck? Had its use spanned 1843/44 production, that would explain die’s for both dates and differing die cracks. Jerry

Well the one on the left has two circles of lettering on reverse, and is either a groat or halfgroat, probably the latter given its size though it is quite clipped. London mint and probably Edward III. The pellets between the letters of TAS are interesting. The other looks to me a penny of Edward I/II, bifoliate crown. But I’ll leave more detail to others better informed. Jerry

Bah humbug! Just give me the prezzies and some beer. At least I can start commenting ‘evenings getting later’ from tomorrow. I try to be the first. And I do like New Year. But I gladly send my Best Wishes to you all. Jerry

Yes. Always worth a visit. Jerry

I was bemoaning the lessening likelihood of acquiring one for my local collection at your stall at MCF recently; You reassured me otherwise, and I won the coin at half its previous hammer price! If it arrives in time, I’ll bring it Sunday. I want to chat re provenances. Jerry

I had half a mind to bid on it as an upgrade, but stymied that by making an expensive non-penny purchase. Looking at book value I noted the illustration with the same toning marks. Interestingly my other purchase is also ex Adams and the Spink plate. Rob might make a good guess. More to follow eventually. Jerry

The picture in the Spink catalogue that illustrates the coin type. Jerry

Yes, I spotted that too, even put a low ish bid on it. Not many bargains get through these days. Interestingly the 1837 penny is the Spink plate coin. Jerry