Martinminerva

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...

Very simple: generally in the Victorian series the last two datal digits were punched into the dies by hand ( the master die just being 18--). That leads to all manner of date spacings and alignments. A quick search of eBay or Richard's penny website, or looking at books like Gouby will show a huge number of different positions. Even silver denominations display these varieties, though on bronze and copper there seems to be even more.

There is no "possible" about it - see this listing which I found in 30 seconds. (NB the word 'copy' is only on the picture, not the actual fake coin): https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256808503600495.html?gatewayAdapt=glo2usa4itemAdapt Beware !

This is yet another of the many, many modern Chinese pressure cast white metal copies available on Alibaba and similar sites that we have been banging on about for a few years now. As well as alignment, the date digits are the wrong font (especially the zero in this case). Virtually all dates of shillings have been copied and they are increasingly seen on ebay and the like and dupe many collectors, novice and more experienced alike. Caveat emptor !! Duplicate reply to the other post with the picture of the reverse. The obverse here displays the customary porosity and granularity to the surface caused by the pressure casting.

This is yet another of the many, many modern Chinese pressure cast white metal copies available on Alibaba and similar sites that we have been banging on about for a few years now. As well as alignment, the date digits are the wrong font (especially the zero in this case). Virtually all dates of shillings have been copied and they are increasingly seen on ebay and the like and dupe many collectors, novice and more experienced alike. Caveat emptor !!

Indeed, just damage / gouges, either deliberate or accidental, and associated metal displacement - see how the H of Half and N of Penny have also "grown" extensions to their limbs. And the gouge in the field below the H has resulted in a raised "hook" at the end of the gouge. Glaciologists would call it terminal moraine !!

Totally agree - post mint damage for sure. Any lack of flatness on the original blank would have been squeezed out when coin was struck. A cud (caused by a piece of die breaking away) would not have a corresponding recess on the opposite side.

Perfect for displaying the 1792 wire money maundy pieces!!

Spot on - just die fill, and very common.

It is definitely 1859 (1839 has the 3 in a very different font to this as does 1869 with its 6) and the date has been dinged - a gouge upwards from south -west to north-east as it were, of the 5. Zoom in on the 5 and it's very clear. The "ghosts" on the letters you mention are just signs of letter repair on the die. Nothing numismatically significant here, sadly.