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. 

 

[terrysoldpennies]

Nice one Pete .

[Avocet]

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?

 

[Peckris 2]

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!

[Avocet]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

No!

Not absolutely everyone then! 😂

Still very happy with my acquisition 🖖

[terrysoldpennies]

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 yesterday at 02:58 PM by terrysoldpennies

[secret santa]

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.

[Avocet]

16 hours ago, secret santa said:

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.

I'm not sure I understand. Is anyone suggesting that features like those on the 1915 pennies pictured above were not created during the minting process?

If we do call such things varieties (not an issue I was attempting to address) how does that give the green light to the sort of nefarious activity you are describing?

[Peckris 2]

10 hours ago, Avocet said:

I'm not sure I understand. Is anyone suggesting that features like those on the 1915 pennies pictured above were not created during the minting process?

If we do call such things varieties (not an issue I was attempting to address) how does that give the green light to the sort of nefarious activity you are describing?

What is, and is not, a variety is something of a 'grey area'. Decades ago, 1961 halfcrowns without the engraver initials EF on the reverse were considered to be a variety. However as soon as it became clear that it was the result of a filled die, it disappeared from the list of varieties overnight. Only very rarely are such things classed as varieties, the exceptions being things like the 1946 ONE' penny. They are accidents of the minting process rather than design changes and therefore only collected by a small group of people.