Jump to content
The British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Declan is a bit low in my opinion. It's not far off EF but it has some edge knocks which let it down. £20 at a rough guess (£30+ if it didn't have the knocks).

All the common varieties from 1861 to 1863 are just that - very common, with big mintages following the Mint's changeover from copper to bronze. From 1864 the picture changes, and many dates are scarce until 1874 and 1875. They get really common again from 1889 to 1893.

Edited by Peckris
  • 3 years later...
Guest Vinnie
Posted

The 1863 Queen Victoria one Pennie I good condition at a coin valuer's is over £3000 pounds

Posted
19 minutes ago, Guest Vinnie said:

The 1863 Queen Victoria one Pennie I good condition at a coin valuer's is over £3000 pounds

If with a die number below the date, or a slender 3 in the date, or with a 3 over 1 in the date, then, yes, quite possibly.

A bog standard 1863, even in uncirculated condition, wouldn't be worth a tenth of that figure.

Posted

The normal 1863 is one of the most common early bun pennies, as are the common varieties of 1861 and 1862. They were new so many got put aside. From 1864 they start getting scarce especially in top grades, but there are also squillions of different varieties - some extremely rare - between 1860 and 1861. It's a specialist subject in its own right - very complex.

  • Like 1
Posted

That is a very interesting 1863 Penny did anyone bother to blow it up? You'll see what I mean :)  Does something slender tilted lurk beneath?

Posted
1 hour ago, zookeeperz said:

That is a very interesting 1863 Penny did anyone bother to blow it up? You'll see what I mean :)  Does something slender tilted lurk beneath?

Yes and no.

Jerry

Posted
6 hours ago, jelida said:

Yes and no.

Jerry

typical Jerry answer :) . dreadful pic but something going on there

1863.jpg

Posted

Yes, the resolution is set too low. Needs more pixels. Actual rather than imagined evidence is far more convincing.

  • Like 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, Rob said:

Yes, the resolution is set too low. Needs more pixels. Actual rather than imagined evidence is far more convincing.

That's the guys coin in this post . best i could do with it as it was only tiny :( 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...