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 Tuesday 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.

[Avocet]

14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

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.

Coincidentally I checked my very small pile of 1961 half crowns the other week, prompted by seeing the missing EF abnormality listed on Michael Gouby's site. And I find that I have one, now properly installed in my collection as a coin of interest.

Generally my wife's attitude to my hobbies is one of resigned acceptance at best, but she "gets" my coin collecting. I find people are genuinely interested when I show them examples of variations and abnormalities and talk about the stories behind them. The unanswered questions help to add to the intrigue.

 

[secret santa]

On 7/8/2026 at 12:13 PM, 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?

In my humble opinion, varieties are created by the design process, i.e. the decision to strike a coin from a selected pair of obverse and reverse designs. Any anomalies created by the minting (or striking) process are exactly that - anomalies, collectibility of which is in the eye of the beholder. The confusion was probably started by Freeman's decision to grant a variety number to the 1897 Dot penny. As I say, just my opinion. And the debate will probably go on forever. On my websites, I refer to variations to a particular "variety", such as variation in the date spacing, as a "sub-variety" whereas Gouby assigns specific identifiers.

You pays your money......................

[Peckris 2]

18 hours ago, secret santa said:

In my humble opinion, varieties are created by the design process, i.e. the decision to strike a coin from a selected pair of obverse and reverse designs. Any anomalies created by the minting (or striking) process are exactly that - anomalies, collectibility of which is in the eye of the beholder. The confusion was probably started by Freeman's decision to grant a variety number to the 1897 Dot penny. As I say, just my opinion. And the debate will probably go on forever. On my websites, I refer to variations to a particular "variety", such as variation in the date spacing, as a "sub-variety" whereas Gouby assigns specific identifiers.

You pays your money......................

I agree with all that. However I'd lay the blame not with Freeman but with Coin Monthly! I started collecting as a schoolboy in the late 60s and the very first issue I bought had a Beginners Page featuring (did they call them "varieties"? Can't remember..) three pennies, two of which have been mentioned here: the 1897 O.NE and the 1946 ONE' - plus a Vic copper penny though I don't recall which date or where the extra dot was.

I think that as a result of that notoriety, those particular anomalies became accepted as varieties.

[Rob]

One of the fundamental rules of collecting is that it is entirely down to individual taste, with no right or wrong. A person unable to see alternative views is too blinkered or has an unhealthy personal interest in the outcome.

It is also a given that if someone writes down their research on paper, some people will collect said identified differences. One or more of the latter group will then see anomalies and try to rationalise them, and so the research continues. The logical conclusion therefore is that eventually, we will able to identify nearly all of the coin dies that were ever made. Not 100%, but pretty damn close. As a reference point - great. As a collecting aim - get a life if you want everything, and ask to carry any brownie points into the afterlife, because you will need all the time you have 10x over

I can't explain why, but whenever I hear the passionate debates about what is right and wrong and the refusal to back down on a view, I am always reminded of the late Eric Heffer's speech in the Commons concerning the Labour left's hounding of Princess Michael of Kent regarding her father being in the SS during WW2. The basics were along the lines of: I think it important that someone from this side says this. I've never met the woman, have no desire to meet her and I am unlikely to ever do so, but in a democracy, nobody can be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. So if those  trying to make political capital from this would kindly sit down and shut up, we can get on with the business for which we were duly elected. He may have been left wing, but living in a democracy topped his political views

By extrapolation, a tolerance of conflicting views ensures that life can continue peacefully, with the only likely damage in numismatics being data overload. I can live with that. The views will always be diverse, only the tolerance varies.

[secret santa]

I wonder why Freeman included the 1897 dot in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain" but not the ONE ' - maybe because the latter looks like an extraneous piece of metal whereas he postulates that the perfectly round dot on the 1897 might be some kind of identification mark.

Either way those two example are much easier to describe concisely, just as you have done, than the other spurious dot types which can appear anywhere on the coin.

[Avocet]

I can quite see how a snappy descriptor, coupled with just the right level of scarcity, adds a touch of glamour to a particular coin and helps to make it more sought after -  whether the V word is carelessly applied or not.

Against the dot pennies, the poor old "1915 extra bar penny" doesn't stand much a chance, despite its origins and scarcity being broadly similar (IMO).

 

[Peckris 2]

6 hours ago, Avocet said:

I can quite see how a snappy descriptor, coupled with just the right level of scarcity, adds a touch of glamour to a particular coin and helps to make it more sought after -  whether the V word is carelessly applied or not.

Against the dot pennies, the poor old "1915 extra bar penny" doesn't stand much a chance, despite its origins and scarcity being broadly similar (IMO).

 

It may or may not attract enough interest to eventually be classed as a variety. Do some research, write an article, and who knows? Gouby listed the 1946 ONE' and claimed it was scarcer than the 1926ME. I used his note in my ultimately successful effort to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, which would  have increased collector interest several times over.