Martinminerva

Hi again, Richard. These are actually repairs to the die rather than a true double striking. Most conspicuous is the linear circle repair around REG - the new circle touches the tops of the letters whilst the vestiges of the original circle above the letters can still be seen. Similarly, just before BRITT the new linear circle isn't actually circular, but rather undercuts what's left of the original. Interesting, yes, but of no huge significance - die repairs in the early years of the Viccy bronze series are rampant! Looks like the R in REG would be the next letter due a repair! A true double striking would see consistent duplication rather than scattergun.

Brilliant! Thanks, Chris! @Chris Perkins Everything appears to be working again! Phew!

@Chris Perkins It has now returned to exactly the same error as back in January with the same code: Sorry, there is a problem Something went wrong. Please try again. Error code: EX145 Curious that smartphones seem to have no issues, but I have now tried three different PCs, four different browsers and two different locations. PLEASE can someone fix it!

Here's a couple of screenshots to show what is happening. Much like what happened at the top of the post back in January, only a slightly different error code:

No - still all wrong. It was working fine last night, but not at all today. As I say, I have tried two different computers and three different browsers. What about that error code EX1032 what does that mean?

It's happening again today to me on all my computers and browsers. Same "low graphics" homepage and similar error message (server or configuration error has occurred) but a slightly different code : Sorry, there is a problem Something went wrong. Please try again. Error code: EX1032 I have sent an email to Chris Perkins @Chris Perkinsto alert him. Anyone else experiencing this?

I've sent you a message. Hi Richard. I wonder if you could be really kind as to send me too your spreadsheet of prices realised? I'll PM you my email address now... Cheers!

The 1874H penny above is a standard Freeman 71, namely 7+G by his die pairings. However, your 1861 halfpenny is much more interesting - it is a Freeman 282, coincidentally also a 7+G pairing by his halfpenny die pairs, BUT the 1 over 1 to the left was only recorded by Iain Dracott back in 2004 in his series of halfpenny articles in Coin News magazine, and not many are yet known. As halfpennies tend to be less focused on by collectors, I bet there are a few more around and unnoticed, but once again you have nailed a pretty rare, if not especially (yet) sought after, variety! Well done again!

Thanks, Bernie - I live and learn! I knew there were 2 die pairs A over A and not, but didn't know "not" was R over R instead! That's what you've got, Bee ! Ignore all my nonsense about dings then!

Yes to the first (well done again!) - and the A of Victoria may well be over another A but can't tell from the resolution of the pictures (N over Z is known both with and without A over A in Victoria.) I think no to the second - looks like just a nick and consequent metal displacement, going along with all the other dings, bashes and nicks that the coin has sustained. Compare the base of the first T in Britt for example for similar damage.

Thanks indeed, Richard - that works great (and for part two, just change I for II in the url !!)

I can view the catalogue lot by lot, but can't see where one downloads the two PDFs you refer to. Can you post a precise link for a numpty like me ?!

Not convinced they are from the same dies - Terry, your one's final 8 looks to be noticeably higher than Kipster's. Both jolly nice cons, though!

...And here we go again: another of those "worn" Viccy copper copies. Funny that they're usually the rare dates... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/326313613734?itmmeta=01JAZ85WZ4491ZM08EH78RP8M2&hash=item4bf9ce99a6:g:onkAAOSwI79nGWh~&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwMxmj%2BiGvOveHXEBClPb29jJnRq4Vk51tHda%2BgRm49lyBxMS8eGUga7H8pd7mxTpU6TGw27gr1WtEisR0vhKGRsc58y36GGUyPLYP0J0FhEGeWjeWu9Q1jpufR7ok%2F1RXtXoRw0ApEDd8MBW9LocT%2FmrHAW%2Fx4EpYy%2FvfL2ohKQ%2BvNYS7NA7ZxfJEk%2BGJ%2FYg1HUpRZNuDPGzuEHTinPjzZ4puWle0bu%2FY3h7V%2BOEDZ280VluG6Y6ctbNL52KuRN3Qw%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR9TPl-jXZA

Hi again, Richard. This one above is Freeman reverse H (narrow date, sea does not cross linear circle). Not sure which obverse of course as you haven't shown it!! (More likely 7 than 6 as 6+H is quite scarce). Reverse I is below - wide date, low date numerals, H mintmark over gap not bead, and sea up to but not across linear circle. But it is properly rare!! I have taken the image from other Richard's website (secretsanta) and I as ever gratefully credit him here - especially given all the silliness that has been going on recently about images of rare pennies!

Can you post a link? Ta.

It's a normal 6+G using Freeman's notation, and in Gouby it's a BP1874He (12 beads date width - count inclusively!) It is not a reverse I @Paddy as the sea on Bee's one crosses the linear circle, whereas on rare reverse I it adjoins it only.

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...