More Pennies

[Martinminerva]

I am most terribly sorry! I did not know that convention. Unfortunately, it won't let me remove the post now.

If any member has moderator status or authorisation, indeed please remove it.

Mea culpa - and I won't ever do it again. 😩

[alfnail]

Caveat emptor

Really getting into the swing of this now!! 

[1949threepence]

5 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

I am most terribly sorry! I did not know that convention. Unfortunately, it won't let me remove the post now.

If any member has moderator status or authorisation, indeed please remove it.

Mea culpa - and I won't ever do it again. 😩

We can all learn from it, Martin. In scrupulous fairness to you, I have seen similar heads up posts in the non private part of the forum, go unremarked upon. 

The problem is the very large amount of non member traffic through the forum, as can be seen if you ever click on the online users link. Even at 3am our time, as it reaches a global audience.

Maybe @TomGoodheart could delete the post. Although he's not on here that frequently, and apart from Chris Perkins, we never see the others at all. Or once in a blue Moon. Although if you PM'd one, an e mail is sent out, which they might well see. 

[Martinminerva]

Thanks for your understanding, Mike. Indeed, I have seen many, many other heads ups over the years on here that no-one has ever been reprimanded for which is why I didn't give it a second thought.

I believe @secret santa might have clearance to remove things? Many years ago he kindly changed my user name for me...

[secret santa]

9 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

I believe @secret santa might have clearance to remove things? Many years ago he kindly changed my user name for me...

I think you must be mistaken Martin, I've never had any privileged access rights.

[jelida]

The number of watchers has jumped from 2 to 8 since Martin’s post, presumably mostly forum members!

Jerry

[will1976]

I'm watching out of interest but won't be bidding 

[Martinminerva]

So sorry again...

[Martinminerva]

4 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I think you must be mistaken Martin, I've never had any privileged access rights.

Oh, I must be then. I thought it was you who arranged for my user name to be changed when people were assuming I was a person called Martin Platt. I am not he !!

[jelida]

12 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

So sorry again...

Don’t worry, you are forgiven! These things happen, and we move on.

Jerry

[Martinminerva]

And thanks for your understanding too, Jerry. Yes, I have certainly learnt today!

[jelida]

Sadly the coin has just been pulled, and my bid cancelled. ☹️

[Martinminerva]

Oh god, that makes me feel even worse now...

I hang my head in shame...

 

[secret santa]

The penny is now withdrawn so either an honest person has pointed out its true identity or an unscrupulous person has tempted the unknowing buyer into a bad deal.

[jelida]

The seller tells me that he has been notified of its rarity and withdrawn it for further investigation. Maybe it will reappear in a different guise? At least it doesn’t appear that he has been ripped off. 

Jerry

[Iannich48]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

The penny is now withdrawn so either an honest person has pointed out its true identity or an unscrupulous person has tempted the unknowing buyer into a bad deal.

I doubt if the "Honest person" was bidding for the coin. It looks like a four figure price coin from a dealer, if fit was for sale in a shop. Unfortunate.

 

[Peckris 2]

On 2/27/2021 at 10:55 AM, jelida said:

The seller tells me that he has been notified of its rarity and withdrawn it for further investigation. Maybe it will reappear in a different guise? At least it doesn’t appear that he has been ripped off. 

Jerry

I've seen it's pulled .... but 0 bids? How do you explain that given the above posts?

[will1976]

10 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I've seen it's pulled .... but 0 bids?

I believe the bids are automatically cancelled as the item is pulled so it gives the impression (wrongly) that no bids where placed

Edited March 1, 2021 by will1976

[secret santa]

The vendor has sent me some new pictures but they are still a little ambiguous (in my opinion) regarding whether the lustre has been previously enhanced, and so he's going to get it checked by a local coin person who will advise him on condition.

[1949threepence]

On 2/11/2021 at 10:19 AM, oldcopper said:

There's a 1934 lustrous example coming up in the LCA auction. Hard to tell from a photo I suppose but the colour looks reasonably honest:

 

 

On 2/11/2021 at 11:07 AM, PWA 1967 said:

When i used to collect a forum member bid on that same coin for me at LCA about 5 years ago ,remember it selling for about £250 + ,must stand out and not see many for me to remember it 😃 

 

On 2/11/2021 at 11:39 AM, secret santa said:

September 2016 - looks like the same picture. With a halfpenny, sold for £240 + commission. Seems pricey to me. Looks like it's with the same halfpenny again ?

Pete, do you not collect any more ?

Meant to say I kept an eye on this pairing, out of interest. They didn't sell.

Not entirely surprised though. As Richard says, the estimates were a bit pricey. 

[1949threepence]

Couple of questions which have been intriguing me. I'm not entirely sure anyone can answer them with any degree of true certainty, but I thought I would throw them out there for the sake of interest if nothing else.

The first question concerns the 1827 penny. Clearly they are a scarce item, but why are so many porous/corroded? That seems to be a commonality in many (although not all).

I read one report that the porosity was incurred on a sea voyage to Australia, where the pennies had apparently been produced for. But this was an unofficial account, although it sounds plausible enough. If seawater had breached the hold where the coins were stored, the corrosion is easily explained. Is it true though? 

I've also noted that it appears virtually impossible to obtain one in very high grade.

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************

The second question concerns the 1860/59. Over 32,000 of these were minted and I've now read in two sources that they were never issued for circulation. But if that was the case, then what happened to them? Where were they kept and how come they are in the public domain at all?  Moreover, I've seen a few - one was posted on here a while back - which had quite obviously been in circulation. From the state of it, you'd have been forgiven for thinking it was for longer than the 9 or 10 years possible maximum before demonetisation.    

[copper123]

Just now, 1949threepence said:

 

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************

The second question concerns the 1860/59. Over 32,000 of these were minted and I've now read in two sources that they were never issued for circulation. But if that was the case, then what happened to them? Where were they kept and how come they are in the public domain at all?  Moreover, I've seen a few - one was posted on here a while back - which had quite obviously been in circulation. From the state of it, you'd have been forgiven for thinking it was for longer than the 9 or 10 years possible maximum before demonetisation.    

This interests me as well , you often find farthings and halfpennies and pennies very worn from the mid 1850s to 1859 , I know copper is a lot softer than bronze but really I suspect many coins must have been accepted at face value probably until the late 1870's .

I dont think this is an unreasonable thing to the public to do  after all these coins had quite a worth of copper in them .

I strongly think this might have happened though it might have only been acceptable in the big citties of the time ,London , Birmingham, etc.

Edited March 28, 2021 by copper123

[1949threepence]

4 hours ago, copper123 said:

This interests me as well , you often find farthings and halfpennies and pennies very worn from the mid 1850s to 1859 , I know copper is a lot softer than bronze but really I suspect many coins must have been accepted at face value probably until the late 1870's .

I dont think this is an unreasonable thing to the public to do  after all these coins had quite a worth of copper in them .

I strongly think this might have happened though it might have only been acceptable in the big citties of the time ,London , Birmingham, etc.

I think you might be right. It would certainly account for why many coins from that era show so much wear. Conversely why the majority are in such good condition, as most of the public just didn't try to spend them after 1869.  

[Peckris 2]

7 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

The second question concerns the 1860/59. Over 32,000 of these were minted and I've now read in two sources that they were never issued for circulation. But if that was the case, then what happened to them? Where were they kept and how come they are in the public domain at all?  Moreover, I've seen a few - one was posted on here a while back - which had quite obviously been in circulation. From the state of it, you'd have been forgiven for thinking it was for longer than the 9 or 10 years possible maximum before demonetisation.    

I don't believe they were not intended for circulation, though it's quite possible they got held back. You have to look at the buildup to conversion to bronze. I've read (can't remember where) that the original date for this was to be 1858, but they ran into so many problems it got pushed back, and the sheer number of errors and dies between 1860 and 1862 reinforces that. That would explain a couple of things:

1. the huge number of overdates and varieties for 1858 as they used up dies from previous years; there is no other year in the copper series which contains anywhere near so many varieties. This makes sense if in 1857 they still intended to switch to bronze in 1858, but then decided to postpone the changeover to 1860. This would also explain the relative lack of varieties for 1859 - having made the decision to postpone, possibly late in 1857, they had time to produce dies for 1859. OR, they postponed further from 1859 to 1860 but having done so once, left themselves with enough time to create 1859 dies.

2. the low mintage of 1860 bronze pennies. (5m for a major changeover is low, especially when you look at the vastly higher mintage for 1861, 62, 63). If the problems persisted, only being resolved quite late, then they would have started striking too late in the year to achieve a high mintage. Meanwhile there may have been an emergency issue of pennies required - all they could do in the time was reuse the 1859 dies; however, if the bronze pennies then started to be struck, it may be that the limited number of copper 1860s were never needed and thus didn't get issued? Except perhaps for a few, which either got out unofficially, or a few were released before the Mint could stop them.

But what happened in the end to the small 1860 copper strike is anyone's guess. You'd have thought they would be melted down.

[copper123]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

But what happened in the end to the small 1860 copper strike is anyone's guess. You'd have thought they would be melted down. 

Yes its really just a guess as to what actually happened , everyone who might have recorded anything is dead long ago .

Very interesting though and just shows the plans of mice and men ............