Martinminerva

I have this one also - 13.5 beads and final 7 over 7:

Yes - yet another one of these (fortunately) crap copies from China.

Actually, the circulation ones being released are 2023 after all, and they too don't have mintmarks... So only the set ones from 2023 are mintmarked, and none thereafter, it seems.

The 2024 ones don't which is what I imagine are being released - see below. I haven't found this one in circulation by the way, so no claim to the prize/bragging rights, but many are for sale on ebay etc.

Well that sounds like one 'ell of a challenge !😉 But, how are you going to be sure it's not one from one of the year sets already released being scanned and posted...

I believe too it doesn't exist. As has been said before on this and other gothic florin threads, there are an awful lot of mistakes in the catalogues and listings for this series that just keep being perpetuated (eg the Bull reference)!

No - it is a high tide as Richard says above. Rather than mucking around with the sea level, much easier identifiers are that the shield almost touches the border beads at its bottom left, and the P of Penny points between two beads. On the common type, there is a distinct gap between shield and beads and P points to a bead. Simples!!

Ah, but it does have the wonderful "grade of G 6" if you read the ebay AI generated blurb. Clearly AI is yet to understand Freeman die pairs, then... 😉

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The 8 over 6 type is very clear as can be seen below (courtesy of Richard's penny website). Having said that, yours has signs of doubled entry/strengthening on the 1 and the 6 of the date, so the 8 too might have had work done...

On 6/10/2024, PWA 1967 said: Have you not sent LCA an email Rob to just post you one. Doesn't seem to work! See my original comment above...

Not had a printed catalogue for over two years now, despite regularly requesting them and having spent hundreds (and sold similarly) with them over the years. Likewise nowadays rarely bid with them. The online catalogue is a poor substitute for the printed, the latter which I used to like to peruse at my leisure. Lockdales did the same with me many years ago, and I have never bid with them since.

That's AI for you, as demonstrated by ebay's push to allow "intelligence" to create the listing blurb on behalf of a seller. Over the last few months, the amount of bollocks that is being said in coin listings (and no doubt other categories too) beggars belief. Thank god some of us on here still have human intelligence, but heaven help the world for the future... 😩

Somebody else now trying to jump on that bandwagon, though suspect this one is just total ignorance rather than fraud. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/266766404000?mkevt=1&mkpid=0&emsid=e11021.m43.l1120&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=6152c033966842d9bd5af6cdef42cc77&bu=43098541495&ut=RU&osub=-1~1&crd=20240413030842&segname=11021 I particularly like the "obtuse" reference!!

Link and/or picture, anyone?

And here's another with die clash marks like yours by the ribbon, and in front of Victoria too. They are the remnants of Britannia's drapery etc. from the clash with the reverse die.

Just die clash marks where the dies have come together without a blank in between, resulting in transferring of some of the opposite side's design into that die and so causing permanent damage that then is transferred to any subsequent coins struck from that die. Very common, especially in the Viccy penny series.

Die fill to the E of Penny, yes, but different obv and rev combo (as Bernie says, this is a 5+E) to the E (or F) over B in BRIT pairs (4+G and 6+G respectively), and this one does not have that error. Suspect die fill (on any letter) is pretty common... What was being wondered is if there are more of the E over B 4+G and do they have the die fill?

Way out of my knowledge area in numismatics, but as a Classicist, it appears to read LINDI which is the genitive of LINDVM (Lindum) which was Lincoln. So, Estan on (=of) Lincoln ??? Or could it read LVNDI which is London ?? Hope that helps a bit! Probably not!

Thanks, Bob. Just out of interest, what reverse is yours? On Richard's draft on his halfpenny page he (and I) assumed yours is a reverse G as mine is, but that was when we thought they were both the same obverse 6. Now we're sure yours is obverse 4, wonder if it's a different reverse too? Can you post a picture of the reverse?

I think you're both absolutely right. The original, brown one has minimal O of SOIT visible at the back of her truncation, but the redder one has the O near complete, so for me, yes, one is obverse 4 and one obverse 6. I suspect a rewrite of your half pennies page will be coming, Richard! So, two new discoveries rather than one! Whoever was on B repairing duty at the mint for these two dies was having a bad time!! Any more of either obverse out there in forum land? Check your 1861's everyone!

Good shout - I think you're right. Full obverses are already on the thread, the earlier one on page 22 and my one below the microscope enlargements, but I paste both in again here. The R you refer to has different degrees of rotation as can be seen by where the vertical points - on mine to a space, but on the original left of a bead. Keen eyed people might be able to spot other differences? So, wonder if it is two completely different dies, or just other subsequent repairs/alterations? What would be the chances of exactly the same E over B twice? The die crack on mine isn't on the original, so suggests mine is a later strike than the original if it is one die that has had other work done on it?

I have found one of these too! It's an 1861 6+G, and can confirm it's actually an E over the B. On my specimen below, there is a bit of a die crack to the left of the E/B and some damage to the beads above. Wonder if that's connected to the repair? Worth recording on your Viccy halfpennies obverses page, Richard? @secret santa Feel free to use the pictures!

As the saying goes, philately gets you nowhere... 😉

Apparently not. It completed and "sold" for £450, and the seller has left feedback as mentioned above. None of that could have happened if it was removed - unless something can be removed after the event, but I don't believe it can. A sale can be cancelled, of course... Here's the link again: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/315165500518?itmmeta=01HQ4BZS9A4NM7ZVFA9MG6MAZ0&hash=item496153e466:g:y9gAAOSwvNFl04mN&itmprp=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4N7kipPiTz0BCXQMgWC6iSMHj%2F5zvSQuQxWjY2cu6yNpjIZ%2F525P%2FMzwhnjKHRdVzwKOh6%2FxD6k4m96TMefoC3i%2FZ2un8azd78R6UEDf2IuGAYr0HhlODfACMlsManI4g1BRVpGQ5Sq39AMYB3bjQ5wmJK2xzvaT1gCcKIVsvA3uVJ8yJrk51DdWtXHwbQQI8xiym02pABGTJhbO165Zxo9HC4Zs5OB9xVhJ%2FunFcmFvno8bmwJUwd9jETHNc%2Bywt3%2Bkx7mF%2BLRWFiUYuLO2T%2FUNKhZ%2F9BZwQh8JWTUektfo|tkp%3ABk9SR96U_4u5Yw

Feedback of 90% says it all really. The plot thickens slightly... Still no feedback received from the "happy" buyer, but the dodgy seller has left this positive comment below for the buyer... But of course, they could have left feedback for the shill, but wouldn't the shill then "reciprocate"?? Maybe someone has really bought it, and they're either ignorant, in for a major disappointment, or currently pursuing for a refund for item not as listed?! FEEDBACK FEEDBACK LEFT FOR WHEN Payed promptly .polite and easy to contact. Rare 1922 Penny Rev 1927 (#315165500518) Buyer: 0***6 Verified purchase Past month