terrysoldpennies Posted May 28 Posted May 28 23 minutes ago, secret santa said: I can believe that more than one trial die was produced while they were considering the final design of the 1927 reverse and it's possible that several coins were struck from the new dies with strict instructions that they never leave the Mint - but they did ! It might have been that two or more Working dies were struck with just the 192 with the last digit 6 being stamped on separately before use . Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted May 28 Posted May 28 37 minutes ago, Martinminerva said: Just to add another spanner in things, here's a picture of a normal (albeit missing waves) 1931 reverse (from Richard's site) which also seems to have the smaller Britannia, longer teeth, thinner thumb, bigger gap from trident to teeth etc such as Richard has identified for these trial pieces. Are there actually BOTH subtly different Gouby reverse d's known for all dates 1927 to 1936, perhaps as a result of hubbing variations, and so this could after all be a doctored 1927 piece???? Or is it just for 1931? Minor modifications were probably quite often made, and I guess we will never know all of them. Many years ago I looked into minor changes made to the 1958 Halfpenny with different teeth lengths and rim widths. All were done on a scanner so as to have exactly the same proportions with no distorted pictures, and the result was four types. Even the ship size varies as shown with two differing coins spliced together. below Quote
Peckris 2 Posted May 28 Posted May 28 4 hours ago, secret santa said: Exciting news ! Terry Eagleton has just pointed out to me that a 1926 penny was sold at London Coin auction in 2025 described as a F195 Modified Effigy but is, in fact, only the second ever "recorded" instance of the rare Gouby D+d Mule, i.e a coin with the Modified Effigy obverse but the true 1927 reverse. Obviously it was not recorded by LCA, but it is indeed the second known example. The first example was discovered by Michael Freeman and bought by me. If anyone on the Forum bought this coin. I would love to know more. Auction 190, lot 2174. Wow. I've seen the "original" (which you have?) and have always assumed - correctly or not - that it's a proof or pattern created to test the actual true non-mule type that would be seen in 1927. By the way, D+d cannot be a mule, unlike the actual 1926ME - it's what the 26ME WOULD have been if they hadn't been in such a hurry to 1) get the small supply of 1926 pennies where they were unexpectedly needed, and 2) were fully resourced supervising the changeover to the Modified Effigy for all denominations, plus preparing the new reverses for 1927. Quote
secret santa Posted May 28 Posted May 28 3 hours ago, Martinminerva said: Just to add another spanner in things, here's a picture of a normal (albeit missing waves) 1931 reverse (from Richard's site) which also seems to have the smaller Britannia, longer teeth, thinner thumb, bigger gap from trident to teeth etc such as Richard has identified for these trial pieces. Are there actually BOTH subtly different Gouby reverse d's known for all dates 1927 to 1936, perhaps as a result of hubbing variations, and so this could after all be a doctored 1927 piece???? Or is it just for 1931? I'm going to have to trawl through all my GV pennies later!! On my varieties website, I picture a 1927 reverse which I postulate is a "special" proof reverse but it looks uncannily like the missing waves reverse that you picture above, with features like the longer teeth etc. Quote
Peckris 2 Posted June 2 Posted June 2 On 5/28/2026 at 5:26 PM, Martinminerva said: Hi Richard. I saw it at the time and was considering putting a bid in but concluded it was a doctored specimen: the 6 on the LCA specimen is surrounded by lighter coloured metal consistent with it having been transplanted from another coin onto an original 1927 coin. Quite apart from that, it would have to be a different die too as on your ex-Freeman one, the 6 is over a gap between teeth and rotated slightly clockwise, whereas on the LCA one, the 6 is bolt upright and over a tooth. I can't believe two trial dies were produced striking one coin each! Happy to be proved wrong if anyone here did buy it and microscopy eliminates my suspicions... Unbelievably I missed seeing these posts. I think you've made a very valid point. The two 6's are indeed different, and there is absolutely no reason why they'd have two virtually identical experimental dies each with a different 6 stamped on, just to strike a few coins. The other suspicion - though it might sound rather trivial and inconclusive - is the colour difference; 1926 pennies are usually darker than 1927 onwards which usually have a paler more orangey hue. But as I say, that's not really conclusive unless someone has a record of an alloy change made in 1927. Quote
Paddy Posted June 2 Posted June 2 On 5/16/2026 at 7:06 PM, Paddy said: I am confident enough that it is a recessed ear, and that is good enough as it is going into my own collection. @Martinminerva also expressed the opinion that it was right in a previous post in this topic. I already have an example with the broken tooth in only slightly worse condition, so I will keep both to cover my bases. Neither will be sold until I pop my clogs, by which time I won't care anyway! I am here to eat humble pie! Having considered this coin for a while I finally got round to doing some direct comparison work, and have to conclude the doubters were right and it is not a recessed ear. Here is a comparison picture: On the left is my "normal" 1915. In the centre is my existing 1915 "recessed ear" complete with the indicative broken tooth. On the right is the one I hoped was a better "recessed ear", but side by side it clearly isn't. I had put too much faith in the depth of the trench to the left of the ear, whereas the fineness of the top of the ear and the absence of the rib in the centre of the ear seem to be better indicators when the broken tooth is absent. Quote
Martinminerva Posted June 2 Posted June 2 I am inclined to agree with you, Paddy, now I see all 3 together. But, keep looking for a 1915 recessed without the broken tooth as they do exist. I have one! 1 Quote
secret santa Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Some lovely rare pennies sold at Sovereign Rarities this morning. Most of them have been on the market before with some increasing in price and some decreasing. The wonderful 1882 F112 BU sold for £12,250 which was cheaper than it realised in the Spink Gerald Jackson sale (June 2014 for £15,150) 1 Quote
Rob Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Not only the pennies were good. It was an all-round interesting sale given things like the unique 1847 6d and the Henry VI (restored) farthing. I picked up a couple things, so in a good mood today. 2 Quote
Paddy Posted June 7 Posted June 7 The other pick up today was this 1874 Penny. I think it is 8+G making it F77, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The lines in the fields, particularly on the reverse, are confusing. My original thought was die-clash, but I can' make out which parts of the design they could represent. The coin is currently taking an Acetone bath to make sure it is not some glue residue! 2 Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted June 7 Posted June 7 I'm sorry to say Paddy I think Its a 7+G . The outer Ribbon is too narrow and has a large gap between the two ribbons Ribbons on the 8 1 Quote
Paddy Posted June 7 Posted June 7 ... and it turns out the lines were some kind of glue/varnish residue. Same coin after an acetone bath: 3 Quote
alfnail Posted June 8 Posted June 8 On 5/20/2026 at 4:50 PM, Martinminerva said: Fortunately with his (or her - Linda??) outrageous prices, most people are fly enough to not fall for such bull, but I do see this one has sold: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/358558956337?itmmeta=01KS30XZG90WV7QVHWDYHQTRTW&hash=item537bc77b31:g:74IAAeSwAllqBx9t Obviously, post mint damage. Part of me thinks if some idiot has £500 to throw away on this sort of rubbish, more fool them, but I do take the point that naive people might get burnt. Don' know what the solution is. Ebay aren't ever interested in reporting items like these... I wonder what Linda would make of this one. Perhaps missing waves......and lighthouse!! 1 3 Quote
SilverAge3 Posted June 8 Posted June 8 5 hours ago, alfnail said: I wonder what Linda would make of this one. Perhaps missing waves......and lighthouse!! Missing shield and rock seat, too ₤₤₤! Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted June 11 Posted June 11 1862 2+G F38 Another rare slot in the collection filled 5 Quote
secret santa Posted June 11 Posted June 11 Nice one, Terry but why the different backgrounds to the photos ? If anyone else had put these pictures up on Ebay, I'd have smelt a rat ! 1 Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted June 11 Posted June 11 Ahh yes It does look a little that way , but actually I took a picture of the obverse without any problem but then when I tried to photo the reverse, the 2 was almost missing , as It is weakly struck and someone has scratched across the date , so I had to find a different lighting situation , hence it was laid down on another surface . I'll have to remember that next time. Quote
PWA 1967 Posted June 11 Posted June 11 9 minutes ago, terrysoldpennies said: Ahh yes It does look a little that way , but actually I took a picture of the obverse without any problem but then when I tried to photo the reverse, the 2 was almost missing , as It is weakly struck and someone has scratched across the date , so I had to find a different lighting situation , hence it was laid down on another surface . I'll have to remember that next time. 1 Quote
Avocet Posted July 6 Posted July 6 Right back on the first couple of pages of this thread I see there was discussion about partly filled date numerals in George V pennies, whether they constitute collectible varieties, etc. Clearly V M Court was keen on them, as shown by the attention he gave to the 1915 and 1920 examples. But over the years they seem to have attracted very little comment. This coin arrived in the post today, purchased unattributed from eBay for £2.18 including postage which I'm very pleased about: An almost perfect match for Mr Court's example, a coin which featured prominently in a celebrated document. Wouldn't everyone want one? Quote
Peckris 2 Posted July 7 Posted July 7 10 hours ago, Avocet said: An almost perfect match for Mr Court's example, a coin which featured prominently in a celebrated document. Wouldn't everyone want one? No! Quote
Avocet Posted July 7 Posted July 7 2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said: No! Not absolutely everyone then! 😂 Still very happy with my acquisition 🖖 2 Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted July 7 Posted July 7 (edited) One mans meat is another mans poison . Here's one I have . There not very sort after but are pretty rare. Also in the same vein this one my interest you , Its a 1940 penny with two filled letters the only example I've ever seen. Edited July 7 by terrysoldpennies 1 Quote
secret santa Posted July 7 Posted July 7 19 hours ago, Avocet said: Right back on the first couple of pages of this thread I see there was discussion about partly filled date numerals in George V pennies, whether they constitute collectible varieties, etc. Things like this can be collectible without being a "variety". If we start calling them varieties, it invites anyone with a hammer and chisel to start creating their own varieties. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.