Martinminerva

Me too! All seems to be ok - and this'll be my test post just to see if things work with a random coin picture too. If all is good, jolly well done, Chris !!

Not a penny as it is dated. Can't determine denomination without other measurements ideally weight, but certainly diameter.

Yes, definitely a penny. Both three half pence and three farthings would be dated.

Perfectly legit.

I must say I have to agree with Coinery - whilst there were many high quality contemporary forgeries, it really does look pretty genuine; don't know offhand what a correct weight should be, though... One other possibility is that it is actually genuine and that some foreign matter got mixed into the molten silver when the blanks were made and it is this that has subsequently made the missing sliver of surface silver fall off during its life, a bit like a lamination flaw. To be absolutely definitive, it would need to be seen in the flesh by someone competent.

A very good quality silver plated/clad forgery, unfortunately. The area of damage is where the silver surface has been broken away, revealing the base metal (a copper alloy) underneath.

Good very fine.

Can you post a link, Bob?

Flan lamination flaw, yes, but double strike no - you mean instead clashed dies, thus imparting part of Viccy's face to the reverse die and then all subsequently struck coins. And the vertical bit by her nose is a corresponding clash from the edge of the shield on the reverse. I suspect the misformed G is also the result of the clash with whatever letter from the reverse legend corresponds with it. All interesting, but nothing really abnormal or a genuine error here as die clashes are very common in the Victorian series and lamination occurs as a result of trapped gas bubbles in the metal mix for the blanks.

Indeed, those pictures are missing, as are large / small dates just below. Haven't trawled through other pages yet to see if more is missing... Screenshots of what I see:

It's loading OK for me at the moment - I access it from a bookmark I have had for quite a while. Maybe a broken link from somewhere if you are trying to follow links?

Hear hear! And/or a book...

Agreed - just a die crack. They often are seen affecting legend letters emanating from the rim nearby - I guess that was a point of weakness or die stress.

My word! The picture uploaded!!

Yes - when just trying to look at @Chris Perkins's website where he has coins for sale, all sorts of errors come up. Wonder if that's connected to the issues on this forum? I'll try to paste in a screenshot, but given the fault here often prevents attachments, I am not optimistic...

Has any progress been made with a fix for this? It's been quite a while now...

Definitely contemporary counterfeit. But they are collectable in their own right by many...

Not corrosion, but deposits (grease and general filth) caused by storage in PVC or similar coin album/pockets. Often this is removeable and in this instance the deposits look very minor so should be easily removed with a bit of judicious cleaning/wiping.

It is a 4+C - extra leaf in third group down.

There's more die pair misidentifications than just two! A poor show - those claimed to be rarities are not and aren't worth anything approaching their estimates! Wonder if they've got a new "expert" cataloguer?!

Indeed it is - the central cut fishtail variety, and in lovely nick too!

Definitely so. The crude, porous surface is proof of this (probably due to a high zinc content).

Yes - I experienced this "forbidden" error when I tried to reply to a post with a link to another page of this very forum!! Can it not be fixed??

Solid very fine for me. By the way, it is an example of the 1758 over 7 overdate. Both the plain date and the overdate are very common, but might add a bit of interest for you...

Groat balls of fire?!