More Pennies

[Paddy]

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!

[terrysoldpennies]

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 

 

[Paddy]

OK - thanks, no problem!

 

[Paddy]

... and it turns out the lines were some kind of glue/varnish residue. Same coin after an acetone bath:

[alfnail]

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!!

 

[SilverAge3]

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 ₤₤₤!

[terrysoldpennies]

1862  2+G   F38   Another rare slot in the collection filled 

[secret santa]

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 !

[terrysoldpennies]

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. 

[PWA 1967]

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.