Martinminerva

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.

Corrosion spots often are raised as chemical changes break through and push up from below the surface. Essentially what is the question is: is the dot original metal (caused by a recess or incuse mark on the die and thus "proud" metal when transferred to the coin), or the product of corrosion. Given the number of other marks, I do fear it may be the latter. A gentle pick with a SOFT object (eg. dampened matchstick, or a fingernail) may remove or scratch through a corrosion deposit but won't affect solid metal. Hope that may help...

Looking at the whole obverse, especially all the bits and bobs in front of Victoria, I think these might be corrosion blobs on the flan itself, rather than transferred from the die which is perhaps why it has not been seen before ?

Yes, just a circumferential die crack. Victorian bronze was very prone to it, and around the legend letters especially so as these were points of weakness. Nothing numismatically significant here, I'm afraid.

Yes, correct on all three! Numbers two and three are quite scarce die pairings.

Just see the furore that has broken out on ebay about this! In just one day, over 150 negative comments and counting... https://community.ebay.co.uk/t5/Seller-Central/NO-LONGER-SELLING-DUE-TO-SIMPLE-DELIVERY/m-p/7813888#M717338 As I said above: And I absolutely rest my case. I will not be selling any of my duplicates on ebay any more. Perhaps I will indeed put a few things on the for sale and wanted threads here and just maybe in time we on the forum can build our own marketplace??

"Rear coins", my arse! Never a truer word spoken, ironically!💩 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335864676756?itmmeta=01JPFXGTJTN1RG45Y420E50A97&hash=item4e33184194:g:z6YAAeSw3gRn1tFb&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA4MHg7L1Zz0LA5DYYmRTS30mrq7ZxPzDEwuz8dTR9vNwPjzLW%2FuMX5XltgQFtpMHHmnRKnKSwHS2EHGaBuZZTzeAyo7vBCaNXWE7rC0eUs1a3UAPqSfoxMXUhGYBRxRctI1SzZkz%2F87wmmn7PLVuqilJL2Hnpyum2FXPyagkamcmyk19tRXQ1uYhivX%2F%2BQ5MpVwJR4wrVH884T3OqmdtYRy%2FMBYuL99oc2ot7nkkIQkglog9iV0i6hktsrzfkuOT9Vj8D4SESULXQdPk7VyUd5VA36awsPuW0yS638Fe%2BmT45|tkp%3ABFBMyKnD_bNl

I am sure they did as it was an auction listing rather than a buy-it-now (I saw it too and took screenshots also, so you're not going mad, Terry). Changing the image and the title is a way for the seller and buyer to avoid others noticing - though they did - and to avoid a hefty eBay fee to boot. Wonder who got it and for what actual price??

Curious... If you look at this screen grab I've just done (at 8.55pm today), the page still exists and works - highlighted in red, but at the END of the list of links. The one bracketed [2] in its usual place is a dead link. Copy the one that works while you can!!

Indeed, really bad. It was working earlier today fine - I saw the new uploads of the 13#+L's of Bernie's and Bob's. One thought - does your web host not have a facility for undoing recent changes, and returning to a previous state where all worked fine? They usually do for exactly this reason. Fingers crossed.

Very true, but websites have a habit of vanishing when the person behind it no longer supports it for whatever reason. Web archiving eg. The Wayback Machine does not seem to preserve pictures, and for coin varieties, they would seem to be essential. We have been talking about Joe Lee's farthingshalfpennyerrors.com recently, and also the about farthings website and others that are no more. Many years ago there was a brilliant website about threehalfpences and groats, but again now totally gone. A book gives permanence, even if outdated in time in terms of new discoveries. We still refer to Peck and Freeman as something of "bibles", and rightly so, the originals of which go back fifty plus years. And likewise, Gouby's has decades of pedigree. The best bet for me is both media - a book for a permanent record and ease of ready reference, and websites for latest discoveries etc. When appropriate, the latters' findings can then be incorporated into revised editions. ESC is now onto its 7th incarnation, I think, and still going strong. Website only research and publication will become totally lost in time, which is just a terrible waste.

First one is mdccclxxiii, so 1873. Second one is mdccclxxxvi, so 1886.

There was talk on here a few years back about an official re-write of Freeman (maybe either by Michael himself, or under his auspices?), incorporating all the new findings, whether the appendices in the reprint of that book, Satin's work, Gouby and also those discoveries now published on this forum by various members. And with the advent of digital photography, much better images. A monumental undertaking, but it would assemble everything into one place. But I have heard no more about it. Maybe just too big a job...?

Thanks! It's not the same coin. On this one above, the stop is significantly bigger and in a different location. Also, the coin above is more heavily worn than the coincommunity one.

Can you post a link to it as I'm not on that forum? Thanks.

Well, I take it all back! I have now seen this one. The seller states that 3 are known (not sure where that data is obtained from though). Just to clarify - this is not the type with the last i re-entered directly over a much lower i - I have one of those! The stop (or blob ?) is significantly offset from the final i. So, is this what the cataloguers meant?

Hi Richard This is a die clash rather than die crack - the mirror image of Victoria's face is what has transferred to the reverse die and all subsequent coins then struck, due to the dies coming together without a blank in between them. Nice and clear, but very common.