Martinminerva

Yes - certainly is. Yet another good find... you seem to have picked up quite a few rare varieties in all your lots. Well done!

This is the "normal" date width of 13.5 beads (to tip of the 2) and so is Gouby BP1892Aa as are all my fat face/double chin ones, but Jerry above confirms he has a 14 bead fat face one and a 13.5 bead normal face one, so there is indeed crossover in date widths and reverse sub-types for the micro-variety completist... Hooray! I quite like the fat face nomenclature, actually - does what it says on the tin!!

I too have both sub-types of face/chin for 1892 - a very interesting spot, Bee - jolly well done on raising a hitherto unnoticed variety!! Not that my sample is huge, but all my fat face/double chin ones are Gouby BP1892Aa with the 13.5 beads date width, and the slimmer face ones are Gouby BP1892Ab with 14 beads date (and the BP1892B only-recorded-on Gouby website 13 bead narrow date see: http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/bp_1892_varieties.htm (wonder why he never included this last one in his book??)) All good fun!! Wonder if there are more crossover dates or indeed date widths?

They are VERY common - almost one and a half billion (!) minted in 1971 (1,454,856,250 to be precise!) and hundreds of millions in the subsequent years. They are NOT selling for that money (merely optimistically listed at that): as others have said here it is only the 1983 mules that are rare. A combination of ignorance, misunderstanding and downright deception is behind the ludicrous pricing. If anyone has actually bought one for silly money, frankly more fool them!

First thing to do is to ascertain if they really are different obverses: easily done - 13 has the "missing leaf" compared to 12. If so, no need to worry about fractional possible differences around nose/lips/eye area. If they prove to be the same obverse, like Richard and Rob, I don't think there's any significant difference worth noting. Could well be depth/pressure of strike, wear of die, resistance of metal in each blank etc. With the 1899 and other date widths you might see, you really need to get hold of that latest Gouby (2020 additions) as he covers all manner of subtle date varieties - but as we've said before on these threads, many other date widths (and heights!!) are known, even if not catalogued by Gouby yet.

Yes, it certainly is. Richard (santa) will I'm sure agree when he gets my post and tweak the example numbers. Too many Richards with you too!!😉 Happy variety hunting!

Think it is an "actual" 7 over 7 (lower 7 type) and therefore example 12, rather than 3A of the higher 7 type, Richard @secret santa @The BeeBee - my thoughts on your other coins: the 1860 is typical of what happens when a coin is buried in soil for ages (ie. a detector find) and acids in the soil eat away at, ironically, the more raised parts of the design leaving this "ghost" image of letters and numerals. Have seen it myself on numerous coins, silver included, so of no numismatic interest, sadly. The 8 double entered on the 1893 is a sign of die strengthening/repair/re-entry as happened a lot in the Victorian series as dies often got a real pounding. All sorts of dates display various letters and numbers thus doubled. If you do track down a copy of Gouby's latest penny book with the update pages (good luck!), he covers quite a few examples, but loads of others are known. The less obvious the doubling, generally the less interest there is - compare the significant doubling of your 1874 above! The 1863 halfpenny looks like a standard large 3 (see below - from Richard's halfpenny website, parallel to his penny one) to me. I think on your example, some wear or scuffing diagonally across the 3 from top right to bottom left has deformed the 3 slightly? Again, I don't think it is of any significance.

Yes - certainly is. Another nice find - you seem to have a few! Richard (secretsanta) might well appreciate full coin pictures of both obverse and reverse for his website...

All explained in this thread from a while ago: https://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/14238-1953-farthing/?tab=comments#comment-202806 In summary, it is the pointing of the F that is crucial: to tooth on common reverse B but to gap on this VIP unrecorded one.

An over-letter would not account for the sharp gap between the round bottom bulb of the "B" and the vestigial leg of the R, whereas a scratch and metal displacement would. All other proven B over R's or R over B's on other Victorian denominations show no such gap as metal flow on the die when corrections are made maintains smoothness. I'm not saying it's categorically not, but we need a much clearer picture to be certain either way. This is the best I can do with the original supplied image - I'm sure I can see a scratch...

Think it is just a scratch that runs through the letter and has displaced some of the metal of leg of the R. Given that the coin has clearly been through the wars - looks like a detector find - with all its various dings and scratches, for me it is just damage. Can you do a much enlarged / better resolution pic to help be sure? I have blown up your existing image which I think shows the scratch:

I think it is post mint damage, I'm afraid. With a bit of judicious photo editing (see below), I believe one can determine a suspiciously straight line running through the R and across Victoria's cheek, typical of a scuff. I have done it myself on occasions when metal detecting and scuffing a coin with my trowel (boo!). That would certainly account for the flattening of the letters.

Yes, another good find! These are scarce rather than rare and there are many subtly different types of 1865 over 3 overdate, but yours is indeed nice and clear. Keep up the good work and welcome to the world of varieties!

Hi I will start a new thread and send it ! See my comments in that new thread. F41 is the small date 1862 penny.

Think that's not the one secret santa meant - this, I believe, will be your 1861 with the weak letters and serifs you mentioned in the other thread (die fill, rather than a true variety, by the way). F41 is the small date 1862 penny, and the obverse above surely cannot match the 1862 you posted earlier due to the massive differences in wear!!