Martinminerva

For what it's worth, I do not think this is a very rare thick flan 10+J but rather a normal flan one where the rim has been "rolled" in machinery and slightly compressed thus, and so makes the edge look wider. My evidence for this is a) this was commonly done with many, many bronze predecimal coins, I guess as people were just playing around with lathes etc in workshops, and I personally have many such examples of all bronze denominations and several monarchs, and b) from your photo, the rim itself next to the beads appears to be thin or non-existent, when in reality there should be a distinct rim edge surrounding the beads (see photo of obverse 10 below, taken from Richard's halfpenny website) which is basically where the rolled metal has gone from to form the "thicker" edge. c) The genuine thick flan is R20 for rarity, so VERY few known indeed. Of course, that is not to say another one wouldn't ever turn up, but mathematically one is more likely to find further specimens in the R17-R18 bracket, as you proved with your 1877 narrow date. But of course, one can only be sure when in hand and can be weighed, measured etc. But if you ask opinions from vague photos, be prepared to get vague answers, or indeed an absence of answers in light of the absence of evidence! I wish you luck with this purchase, just as you have had much luck already, but equally you must expect disappointments too... Also, give things a bit more time for feedback: you only posted on Saturday morning - I am replying Monday afternoon!

It's good. I have recessed ear 1915 pennies both with and without broken tooth. Without seems rarer. Haven't yet seen a 1916 without broken tooth though.

Spectacular, but not a die clash. This has been completely struck twice and rotated in the dies between striking.

Looks like it might well be LCW below foot. If so, well done, and what a stroke of luck (again) for you, especially as you thought it was something else completely - these are seldom seen, especially and ironically in lower grades. Took me years to find one!! Do you do the lottery?? 😄

Both of these are examples of classic pareidolia !!

Definitely NOT an H. As you can see from Secret Santa's post above too, the H if present is smaller than the smudge/toning/anomaly you have where the H would be. Many times we all wish the presence of something and convince ourselves from a humble picture that a smudge or blob just might be the magic thing! I myself must have bought over the years half a dozen 1863 pennies with "something" perhaps below the date which just might possibly have been a die number with a fair wind behind. Needless to say of course, none of them were!!

Just out of interest, when is the next Collectors' Coins GB (the pre-decimal one) likely to be coming out? The last one was 2020 ! I know bullion price volatility will be affecting values significantly, but even so, it'd be great to have an updated and revised edition soon!!

Just one of the ubiquitous modern replicas... Not even good enough to fool anyone except an idiot. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/406789410745?_skw=406789410745&itmmeta=01KMAVAFKDNTTGCHV256D0YB2K&hash=item5eb689cfb9:g:95IAAeSwS5ZpvvKF&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAA0GfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xBUXE%2BOaPHIv8uZXkMDusPtlLW3mKOT4AlbEkZlhYUSQf3ssm3Ki9cgqJyg%2FRy0CFuTTQ%2B27w6xt%2FDJHPkYlLSOUmbK2SYJqHN89UMFJvkaC%2BbtCI9b%2FdOAqtk14AxXA%2Fr1tEoxf3UHg04Jouny2X02ErsROqmKw3lh8h3eW645zAiFS0kEbugMTlsMpMQf1YE6rgBNnkuzLi%2FDevGJQ%2FH7bOyzmpQR3oK6TuV%2B6Q0mBaRRMZksZwNGHusaKSdlB3M%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR-L5qduiZw

No. All have the same size font digits. What you might be getting confused about is that some 1849 specimens (not yours above) have the small WW initials next to the date obliterated by the linear circle. These ones are taken from an 184(8) pattern matrix which has had the linear circle re-engraved (and the 9 added), thus obscuring the original WW initials. Or possibly a confusion with 1849 halfcrowns, which are indeed known with both normal and smaller date digits (latter is rarer).

Standard 8 over 7. Yours looks like type Da in the varieties noted by Gouby in screenshot from his website below...

A solid Fine for me.

A well known variety. See screenshot from Michael Gouby's website below. Typically a master die in the Victorian period had just the 18.. pre-entered on it, and from that working dies were made that then had the last 2 digits hand entered. (This is behind all the date width varieties for example on Victorian bun pennies). For 1857 shillings, one working die had the last two digits entered with numeral punches from the wrong font thus causing the example above.

Have a look at Gouby's (brilliant) website if you want to learn more about all the various types of coin varieties, and specifically at this page for this die-clash ribbon issue: https://michael-coins.co.uk/cp1848 ribbon.htm I also insert a screenshot of some of the subtly different clashes that have typically been observed by Gouby based on the impact pressure and transfer of detail for separate clashes.

Just because someone has made a random claim on eBay that this is a "rare variety" does not make it a documented fact of any substance. And herein lies the whole problem of so called "AI" - it just regurgitates superficial stuff trawled from the internet with no discernment or discrimination and presents it as gospel truth. Alfnail's quoting Gouby regarding die clash damage above is proper scholarly documentation, actual fact, and derived from many years of human expertise, experience, analysis and real intelligence. Yet AI couldn't manage to reconcile that internet based evidence...

It's a farthing. You are probably being misled by the size which is only a bit bigger than decimal pennies today. Victorian copper pennies were huge!