Martinminerva

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?!

As ever, something is only worth what somebody else is prepared to pay, but precedent suggests varying thicknesses of individual characters is not of any additional interest to many, so would imagine little or no premium. Much more significant is the overall condition. Just bung it on and see what it makes!

Just standard worn dies and partial letter repairs that has cropped up in many threads on here over the last few weeks, I'm afraid. Very common in the Victoria series and though interesting, not really worth any great premium...

Just standard worn dies and partial letter repairs that has cropped up in many threads on here over the last few weeks, I'm afraid. Very common in the Victoria series and though interesting, not really worth any great premium...

Perfectly genuine - just a classic example of an actually reasonable out-of-the-ground detector find. The edge is not reeded; you're just seeing the border teeth and maybe wanting to extrapolate!

A solid VF for me, but no better, so perhaps the price is just a bit higher than I would want to pay, but not outrageous...

Would need to see pic of the other side to be sure of grade and likely value...

Just a die crack. Very common...