More Pennies

[secret santa]

7 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I couldn't see anything - outside my imagination - that might have suggested an overdate.

There was definitely a possibility. But not worth betting on in my view.

[Bernie]

It's a Freeman 111

[secret santa]

23 minutes ago, Bernie said:

It's a Freeman 111

Yes, definitely Obv 11 - the hair to the left of the tie knot gives it away.

[jelida]

20 minutes ago, Bernie said:

It's a Freeman 111

I agree, and I would bet that it is 2/1 as well,  I think the evidence is there.  Well, I’ll know in a few days. Provided it’s not a normal 115 I’ll be happy.

Jerry

[1949threepence]

12 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Agreed. I couldn't see anything - outside my imagination - that might have suggested an overdate.

Difficult to say with absolute certainty, but what appears to be an upstroke is in the right place.

II I'd realised at the time it was a 111, I'd have gone for it myself. 

But either way, it's still a very nice coin.   

[jelida]

F111, 2/1. Its a very pretty coin.

Jerry

[jelida]

[PWA 1967]

Well done Jerry and thankyou for being able to confirm what i originally thought but from the photos could not be sure ,even the owner of the coin having a second look wasnt aware 😀

Edited June 9, 2022 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

Well, just scrolling through July's Coin News, which arrived earlier today, and noticed that "Goulbourn Collection Ltd" were offering an 1863 slender three penny, in Fair to NF, for £250. 

Intrigued, and a little sceptical, I called and the guy told me that (unsurprisingly) it had already gone. I asked if it was the real deal as in my view £250 for a slender date 3 is a ridiculously small amount, given they are vanishingly rare. He told me it definitely was. "A little manky" he said, but a surefire slender 3.

Would have been interested to see a pic.  

[Martinminerva]

48 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Intrigued, and a little sceptical, I called and the guy told me that (unsurprisingly) it had already gone. I asked if it was the real deal as in my view £250 for a slender date 3 is a ridiculously small amount, given they are vanishingly rare. He told me it definitely was. "A little manky" he said, but a surefire slender 3.

I too am more than a little sceptical! I believe one of the two confirmed, known specimens sold for in the region of £20K so if true, this would be bargain of the millennium! Go on then - did anyone here get it, and more importantly, is it the real McCoy and can we see a picture?! Given Goulbourn have, I believe, taken over Croydon Coin Auctions and are now running them from Chester, surely they would know what a genuine third example could command and indeed would be a real feather in cap for their auction business. I would only be convinced in the veracity of this with a decent picture...!

Or has it been doctored, perhaps?

[1949threepence]

17 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

I too am more than a little sceptical! I believe one of the two confirmed, known specimens sold for in the region of £20K so if true, this would be bargain of the millennium! Go on then - did anyone here get it, and more importantly, is it the real McCoy and can we see a picture?! Given Goulbourn have, I believe, taken over Croydon Coin Auctions and are now running them from Chester, surely they would know what a genuine third example could command and indeed would be a real feather in cap for their auction business. I would only be convinced in the veracity of this with a decent picture...!

Or has it been doctored, perhaps?

The more I think about it, the more suspicious I am. Somebody with his experience is going to know exactly what it is, and won't be letting it go for such a low price. Something a bit fishy here, but not sure what. 

[jelida]

6 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

The more I think about it, the more suspicious I am. Somebody with his experience is going to know exactly what it is, and won't be letting it go for such a low price. Something a bit fishy here, but not sure what. 

It wasn’t a slender 3, despite Bruce’s insistence, but a better than most open 3, so I decided to keep it. I took Gouby’s page on the types of 3 to give him at the Midland fair, but he wasn’t there last time.  I find that Bruce is a little erratic on grading and varieties,  and I hadn’t expected the real thing so wasn’t too disappointed!  It’s a shame he seems unable /unwilling to send photos.

It must be a month since I received his catalogue with this in,  the delay makes it pretty pointless advertising in the magazine.

Jerry

[1949threepence]

4 minutes ago, jelida said:

It wasn’t a slender 3, despite Bruce’s insistence, but a better than most open 3, so I decided to keep it. I took Gouby’s page on the types of 3 to give him at the Midland fair, but he wasn’t there last time.  I find that Bruce is a little erratic on grading and varieties,  and I hadn’t expected the real thing so wasn’t too disappointed!  It’s a shame he seems unable /unwilling to send photos.

It must be a month since I received his catalogue with this in,  the delay makes it pretty pointless advertising in the magazine.

Jerry

Thanks for solving the mystery, Jerry. I assume it was Bruce I was speaking to. He sounded a little hesitant when speaking, but was keen to add me to his mailing list.

 

 

[Martinminerva]

17 minutes ago, jelida said:

It wasn’t a slender 3, despite Bruce’s insistence, but a better than most open 3, so I decided to keep it. I took Gouby’s page on the types of 3 to give him at the Midland fair, but he wasn’t there last time.  I find that Bruce is a little erratic on grading and varieties,  and I hadn’t expected the real thing so wasn’t too disappointed!  It’s a shame he seems unable /unwilling to send photos.

It must be a month since I received his catalogue with this in,  the delay makes it pretty pointless advertising in the magazine.

Jerry

Aha! Issue solved - but I guess there will be other specimens out there somewhere... Could you post a picture anyway if it is a better than normal open three?

[Bruce]

7 hours ago, jelida said:

It wasn’t a slender 3, despite Bruce’s insistence, but a better than most open 3, so I decided to keep it. I took Gouby’s page on the types of 3 to give him at the Midland fair, but he wasn’t there last time.  I find that Bruce is a little erratic on grading and varieties,  and I hadn’t expected the real thing so wasn’t too disappointed!  It’s a shame he seems unable /unwilling to send photos.

It must be a month since I received his catalogue with this in,  the delay makes it pretty pointless advertising in the magazine.

Jerry

Hi Jerry, i asked for pictures from them by email before, then no reply for a week or only some inconsistent quality pictures received, some good some average, which were unable to use to define variety etc.  However, Bruce is kind when i talk with him over the phone.  In May coin list, i found 1872 National Thanksgiving medal specification seems not Wyon's n he admitted mistake n apologize for it.  Maybe they are just stick in old school style in doing business.

 

[1949threepence]

Having now completed my Victoria copper penny series (with the exception of the Medusa and 1858 large rose, small date), this is how difficult I've found the difficult dates/varieties (a matter of availability rather than  money):-

1839 proof - kept eluding me. Very difficult and the ones that did show up, very pricey. Had to eventually take the price plunge, otherwise I'd wait forever. Although if I'd waited, there's 2 at the upcoming Australian Noble auction.

1841 colon after REG: Scarce in mid grade. Very difficult in high grade. 

1843 (all types) very difficult in high grade. No opportunity so far for anything above VF. Only sub fine for no colon after REG.

1845 - scarce at all levels. Finally got a decent one very recently (Interesting that although 1844 is technically, roughly the same as 1845 in terms of scarcity, there always seems to be 1844's on offer, but very few 1845's)

1847 Medusa: only saw the one on offer by Coopers Coins. Didn't buy for reasons now forgotten.

1849: A few available in the low to mid grades, but the high grade ones are excessively rare. I was extremely lucky with the one I got. Other than that I've seen an EF specimen, and the aUNC Waterbird example.

1853 PT: have to say, very rare, especially in high grade. I'm convinced Keith Bayford made a mistake offering a GEF example for just £125

1853 PT italic date: you just have to jump if you are lucky enough to see one. The fine example I bought from John (Stephen) Jerrams was sold as a PT specimen only. He didn't mention the italic date.

1854/3 - the real deal ones are extremely rare, and even more difficult in grades above fine.

1854 no colons - again very rare. Seen two, although probably a few unattributed ones have gone under the radar.

1856 OT - managed to obtain a fine example, and that's it. Dave Craddock did have an a/UNC with lustre specimen on offer for £1600 about a year back, but not surprisingly, by the time I called him, it had already gone. Excessively rare for availability at any grade.

1858 large rose large date: not seen one yet.

1860/59 - not as desperately rare as I'd feared, and did get an EF specimen with slight residual lustre.   

         

   

 

[Coinery]

On 6/8/2022 at 10:26 PM, jelida said:

F111, 2/1. Its a very pretty coin.

Jerry

Only just seen this! Wow, could easily be a 1967 BU penny, it’s that good!

[copper123]

36 minutes ago, Coinery said:

Only just seen this! Wow, could easily be a 1967 BU penny, it’s that good!

I would rather it stays as a 1882/1 H

[Bruce]

Just have a look at my 1858 penny received a while ago, is it look like a 1858/3?

[secret santa]

The true 1858 over 3 (or 2 as is now thought) always has a die flaw through the base of the date numerals:

[1949threepence]

8 hours ago, Bruce said:

Just have a look at my 1858 penny received a while ago, is it look like a 1858/3?

Bruce, you might find this information from Michael Gouby, quite useful. In it, he discusses the 1858's at some length, including the variety accepted in some quarters as an 1858/3. However, he does not believe it to be so. Speaking personally, as we definitely don't know what it is, I don't think we can rule out that it might be an 1858/3. 

[Bruce]

8 hours ago, secret santa said:

The true 1858 over 3 (or 2 as is now thought) always has a die flaw through the base of the date numerals:

 

6 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Bruce, you might find this information from Michael Gouby, quite useful. In it, he discusses the 1858's at some length, including the variety accepted in some quarters as an 1858/3. However, he does not believe it to be so. Speaking personally, as we definitely don't know what it is, I don't think we can rule out that it might be an 1858/3. 

Thanks both for the info.

[alfnail]

On 7/2/2022 at 8:09 PM, 1949threepence said:

1853 PT: have to say, very rare, especially in high grade. I'm convinced Keith Bayford made a mistake offering a GEF example for just £125

1853 PT italic date: you just have to jump if you are lucky enough to see one. The fine example I bought from John (Stephen) Jerrams was sold as a PT specimen only. He didn't mention the italic date.

I'm putting examples of both these date types into the Noonans September sale if anyone is interested.

 

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, alfnail said:

I'm putting examples of both these date types into the Noonans September sale if anyone is interested.

 

 

 

Thanks for the advance info, Ian.

[secret santa]

Did anyone on here buy the 3rd known 1860 I over T last week (Roxbury auction, Australia) ?