More Pennies

[secret santa]

Not the greatest photo but looks like an R or S (I'm not convinced there's a difference between the 2 varieties).

[1949threepence]

Some time ago we discussed the 1897 O.NE penny, and @Zo Arms was of the opinion that the dot was the result of a deliberate attempt to stem a spreading crack by drilling a small hole in it - link  

Bob's theory is echoed in "A handbook of Modern British Coins and their varieties 1797 - 1970" by Michael G. Salzman, and prior to that by Freeman in Coin Monthly October 1976. Here's a pic of the relevant note - No 90 - from page 96 the Salzman book.  

I have two F147's, with perfect dots of slightly different sizes. So maybe the operation was performed twice. Once to try it out, then again when it was realised a larger hole was needed.  

Edited July 15, 2021 by 1949threepence

[Zo Arms]

I would suggest 1 hole that gradually filled with grease etc, forming a smaller dot. Think die fill.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Zo Arms said:

I would suggest 1 hole that gradually filled with grease etc, forming a smaller dot. Think die fill.

Yep, more plausible.

[secret santa]

A decent 1893/2 sold recently on Ebay for £175 - see https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144097308499?ul_noapp=true

Strangely, it's now for sale at £500 from the same vendor...............

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144118332001?hash=item218e1f3a61:g:GFQAAOSwM-xg3fL6

[DaveG38]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

A decent 1893/2 sold recently on Ebay for £175 - see https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144097308499?ul_noapp=true

Strangely, it's now for sale at £500 from the same vendor...............

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144118332001?hash=item218e1f3a61:g:GFQAAOSwM-xg3fL6

Very optimistic. They are not that rare, even in high grades. Mine cost £26 in EF.

[Peckris 2]

12 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

Very optimistic. They are not that rare, even in high grades. Mine cost £26 in EF.

I'm not surprised at this, given how difficult they are to spot.

[PWA 1967]

victoria penny 1892/1 Not recorded Very Rare Better In The hand High Grade | eBay

😮 😂

 

[secret santa]

Not convinced !

[RLC35]

5 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

victoria penny 1892/1 Not recorded Very Rare Better In The hand High Grade | eBay

😮 😂

 

 

Do you have a larger picture of the 2 by itself?

[1949threepence]

7 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

victoria penny 1892/1 Not recorded Very Rare Better In The hand High Grade | eBay

😮 😂

 

He's 'avin a larf.

Better in the hand indeed.  

 

[alfnail]

I've just listed a 1966 Freeman 2nd edition on ebay if anyone is interested. It's under books, not coins, so usual searches may not find it.

[PWA 1967]

I dont know if anyone reading this or a forum member has this 1909 F169 that was sold as part of the workman collection.

I have been studying some paperwork and after someone using some software it was the first one discovered by Michael Freeman. I have some pictures and notes and the coin i believe was also used and pictured in Coin news in July 1971, this i dont have but i have an old black and white picture which we used. There are tiny microscopic differences to the pictures which probably happened over the course of the 45 years it was in a collection or the difference between one picture and another ,however all the main marks match up exactly on the software which gave a reading of 98.6% being the same coin.

Michael Freeman records that he found it himself and was the only one known at the time.

The coin wasnt sold in the workman sale with any provenance but thought the person who has it now may wish to know ,if they dont already.

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by PWA 1967

[Bernie]

9 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

I dont know if anyone reading this or a forum member has this 1909 F169 that was sold as part of the workman collection.

I have been studying some paperwork and after someone using some software it was the first one discovered by Michael Freeman. I have some pictures and notes and the coin i believe was also used and pictured in Coin news in July 1971, this i dont have but i have an old black and white picture which we used. There are tiny microscopic differences to the pictures which probably happened over the course of the 45 years it was in a collection or the difference between one picture and another ,however all the main marks match up exactly on the software which gave a reading of 98.6% being the same coin.

Michael Freeman records that he found it himself and was the only one known at the time.

The coin wasnt sold in the workman sale with any provenance but thought the person who has it now may wish to know ,if they dont already.

 

There was no record of the workman coll. Freeman 169 being from the Freeman collection but I think it highly likely it was. This coin was probably the finest coin available when it was obtained for the workman collection. I have attached a different picture of the workman collection coin.

 

[1949threepence]

On 8/2/2021 at 6:39 AM, PWA 1967 said:

I dont know if anyone reading this or a forum member has this 1909 F169 that was sold as part of the workman collection.

I have been studying some paperwork and after someone using some software it was the first one discovered by Michael Freeman. I have some pictures and notes and the coin i believe was also used and pictured in Coin news in July 1971, this i dont have but i have an old black and white picture which we used. There are tiny microscopic differences to the pictures which probably happened over the course of the 45 years it was in a collection or the difference between one picture and another ,however all the main marks match up exactly on the software which gave a reading of 98.6% being the same coin.

Michael Freeman records that he found it himself and was the only one known at the time.

The coin wasnt sold in the workman sale with any provenance but thought the person who has it now may wish to know ,if they dont already.

 

 

I've got it, Pete. Here's the article in its entirety. Again, apologies for the quality, but magazine pages are not the easiest things to get a photo of, as the pages tend to corrugate with age, and the glossy finish glares in light. I photographed these in natural daylight a few minutes ago.

 

[Peckris 2]

I love that he says "...pre-1971 bronze will soon be out of circulation..." - in July 1971 it had but a month to survive! I'll bet that few bun pennies were around during that month though.

[secret santa]

The sentence below the photograph seems to end abruptly after the words "but a specimen"..... Is that how it was printed or is it a fold in the paper ?

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

The sentence below the photograph seems to end abruptly after the words "but a specimen"..... Is that how it was printed or is it a fold in the paper ?

That's how it was printed. It does end abruptly though, and looking again at the article in the magazine itself, there is no full stop after the word "specimen". So I do think something has been inadvertently omitted from Freeman's article, even if just, perhaps, the word "nonetheless".    

[1949threepence]

Hopefully this is a better pic (size adjusted) and more honed in on that area.

 

[1949threepence]

Here's the other page also size adjusted. Obviously you always have to keep in mind the size limits of 500kb on the forum, and I deliberately chose a small version yesterday so as to fit both pics onto one post. But obviously the text came out ridiculously small. This should represent an improvement. The page is split, upper part of page on this post, lower part of page on next post:-

   

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence]

[secret santa]

6 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

That's how it was printed. It does end abruptly though, and looking again at the article in the magazine itself, there is no full stop after the word "specimen". So I do think something has been inadvertently omitted from Freeman's article, even if just, perhaps, the word "nonetheless".    

In geek-like fashion I had recreated the article in Word, even including the 2 photos and decided to insert the word "nevertheless" after "specimen" - so we're on the same wavelength (is that a good thing ???)

[1949threepence]

59 minutes ago, secret santa said:

In geek-like fashion I had recreated the article in Word, even including the 2 photos and decided to insert the word "nevertheless" after "specimen" - so we're on the same wavelength (is that a good thing ???)

Great minds think alike, Richard !

Do you remember that list of penny articles I made up from the Coin Monthlies? Well I actually overlooked that one at the time (now added), and yesterday was the first time I read it. It's a really good article and like all Freeman's work, very well written. 

Anyway, hope you found the new larger versions useful, and apologies for not getting it right in the first instance.  

[1949threepence]

On 8/3/2021 at 11:05 PM, Peckris 2 said:

I love that he says "...pre-1971 bronze will soon be out of circulation..." - in July 1971 it had but a month to survive! I'll bet that few bun pennies were around during that month though.

As far as the 169 is concerned, even several years prior to 1971, I reckon you'd have been lucky to find one, given that Court found just 1 in 846 of the 1909 pennies to be F169 (0.12%). So even if you'd changed £100 into pennies (240 x 100 = 24,000), the chances of you finding a F169 amongst them, would still have been slim, given that there probably wouldn't have been more than what.......100 pennies dated 1909 amongst the 24,000.

Incidentally, Freeman was correct, the rock above Britannia's foot is a different shape to reverse D, although personally I can't see any obvious differences with the waves and the exergue. However, on mine at least, the sea to the left of Britannia, under high magnification, doesn't appear to reach the linear circle. But it does on my 1910, which is also reverse E. So maybe an optical illusion or wear.   

Edited August 4, 2021 by 1949threepence

[secret santa]

18 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Incidentally, Freeman was correct, the rock above Britannia's foot is a different shape to reverse D,

Am I missing something ? I can't see any difference in the rock between 1909 rev D, 1909 F169 rev E and 1910 rev E

1909 F168 rev D

1909 F169 rev E

1910 rev E