Penny, halfpenny and farthing varieties?

[Pavel]

Good day,

would somebody be able to help me identify the correct Freeman references for these three proofs?

https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/60093 - penny 1879,

https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/82685 - halfpenny 1879, and

https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/57818 - farthing 1879?

Edited October 2, 2020 by Pavel

[Rob]

Penny F101A,

Halfpenny, no proof listed in Freeman, though they do exist as I have Nicholson's

Farthing F539

[Pavel]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Penny F101A,

Halfpenny, no proof listed in Freeman, though they do exist as I have Nicholson's

Farthing F539

Thanks Rob, much appreciated.

[Pavel]

For the penny, 101A is 1880 - so is this one 97A or a different (not listed) variety?

[Rob]

Sorry, my mistake. 101A is 1880. I took it to be obverse 10 and didn't notice the date from the previous page.

It looks like obv 10 to me as Freeman says the linear circle goes all the way under the bust whereas 9 doesn't in the picture, but then the tie is bent whereas the picture in Freeman shows 10 to be straight, so the tie would be in keeping with obv.9. Therefore, F97A? Maybe someone else can elaborate.

[terrysoldpennies]

I would have said the penny is a  9+j   F97A.   Victoria on the obverse 9 appears to be looking forward , whereas on the 8 she seems to be looking downwards .  The 9 also has the R in REG pointing slightly to the right of the tooth , and as we know that can be difficult to see clearly on some pictures in this case the R does seem to favour just to the right of the tooth. 

[1949threepence]

The centre of the obverse of the proof penny above looks a bit strange. Or is it the photo? 

[Peckris 2]

30 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

The centre of the obverse of the proof penny above looks a bit strange. Or is it the photo? 

VERY strange. Blackened considerably.

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, Peckris 2 said:

VERY strange. Blackened considerably.

Indeed Chris. For all the world it looks as though someone has been at it with a (mini) blowtorch.

[Pavel]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

VERY strange. Blackened considerably.

If you look through their other photos of proofs, it seems they were not stored properly so an awful lot of them - which they got straight off the Royal Mint as specimens sent to the branch mints in Melbourne or Sydney - look weird, with patchy toning etc.

[Iannich48]

That is bad. You would think that somebody would have noticed when the coins started to tone, and done something about it.

[Rob]

8 minutes ago, Iannich48 said:

That is bad. You would think that somebody would have noticed when the coins started to tone, and done something about it.

I think it probably demonstrates how irregularly items held in museum storage are actually accessed. If things aren't on display they are out of sight and out of mind. i.e saved from rather than for the public.

[PWA 1967]

I think its probably more likely to have toned like that from being on display possibly with a light over it being magnified under glass.They dont take long to tone with any kind of heat and only a guess but imo more likely than just being put away.

[copper123]

Maybe an american wanted to make rainbow lustre - and it went wrong

Edited October 3, 2020 by copper123

[oldcopper]

Perhaps it was stored with this proof?