More Pennies

[jelida]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Is that 1949Threepence?

Yes.

[PWA 1967]

One i havent had before ,although i must admit i have never looked for one 😀.

Thanks Larry 👍.

[Peckris 2]

On 10/11/2023 at 11:53 PM, jelida said:

Yes.

Let's hope all is well with him.

[jelida]

3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

One i havent had before ,although i must admit i have never looked for one 😀.

Thanks Larry 👍.

One sold at LCA a few years ago, and I have subsequently bought one at the MCF and one on EBay. They are certainly very scarce.

Jerry

[terrysoldpennies]

Talking of 1879s , I think I got a bargain when I picked this one up recently for just twenty quid. 

 

[terrysoldpennies]

Obverse

[PWA 1967]

F803  "PennEy"  Model Pattern.

Although i have had two others this one much better.

[Kipster]

Picked up this penny at auction recently. An F139. The variety hadn't been noted on the slab so I think it slid under the radar. Not the most beautiful coin in the world with a couple of issues, but far, far superior to my current example, and picked up for a very reasonable figure (I think).

 

[Peckris 2]

Interesting that you called it "F139" - time was they were invariably called "2mm".

[Iannich48]

It is a nice F139 2mm anyway.

[terrysoldpennies]

1940 single exergue . A recent acquisition which upgrades my existing coin , a devil of a hard one to find in top condition.

 

 

[PWA 1967]

1854 4 over 3 ,not attributed by NGC.

[Peckris 2]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:24 PM, terrysoldpennies said:

1940 single exergue . A recent acquisition which upgrades my existing coin , a devil of a hard one to find in top condition.

I paid Colin Cooke £20 for mine in the 90s:

[PWA 1967]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I paid Colin Cooke £20 for mine in the 90s:

Maybe its just the picture but doesnt look like one to me ?.

[Rob]

1 minute ago, PWA 1967 said:

Maybe its just the picture but doesnt look like one to me ?.

Looks like it to me. It is illuminated from below which plays tricks with what you are used to seeing compared with top lighting - raised features often appear incuse and vice-versa until your brain has been re-educated. In this case it is lighting the exergue face on from the source, making it appear wider. I can't see any evidence of two lines.

[PWA 1967]

16 minutes ago, Rob said:

Looks like it to me. It is illuminated from below which plays tricks with what you are used to seeing compared with top lighting - raised features often appear incuse and vice-versa until your brain has been re-educated. In this case it is lighting the exergue face on from the source, making it appear wider. I can't see any evidence of two lines.

You may well be right Rob ,i am often wrong.

What made me look twice though is on the single the waves merge into the line and on the double are on top.

I will put it down to the picture and my bad eyesight 😀.

[PWA 1967]

This is what i was trying to explain ,using pecks picture and Terrys to try and show the difference ,which although maybe the light and picture i am still not sure 😀.

[Peckris 2]

It's the difference between a strictly UNC example and - e.g. - GEF; the waves start to merge with the exergue line rather quick. Here's an AUNC 1939 reverse and you will see that the waves are still a bit distinct from the line. On Type 2 reverses there is a distinct gap between the upper line and the waves.

Also, I believe that  the so-called 'single exergue line' is actually 2 lines so close together that they appear to be one? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Peckris 2

[secret santa]

The waves are well above the double line variety.

[PWA 1967]

This picture that Terry put on a few years ago shows the difference well.

The single has no line /s below other than the one thick one ,these are as in Richards picture the double.

Compare the third picture with the top two.

Regardless of wear they are easy to spot when you have seen a couple ,obviously even more so in hand 👍.

Edited November 7, 2023 by PWA 1967

[Peckris 2]

Peck says of the first reverse that the exergue line is "faintly single" and of the second that it's "distinctly double". He doesn't go on to explain this further, but the implication is that the single line isn't clearly single, but - as others (I believe) have said - consists of two lines so close together that they appear (especially on less than perfect condition) to be a single line. I'm not sure what condition the 4th penny above is in but it MAY illustrate this 'grey area'?

My penny is all but BU so if it is the second reverse, the double lines would be absolutely clear - they're not!

[PWA 1967]

A rare 1896 Very wide date and eight years looking at thousands to find a really good one.

Gouby BP1896Ad ,NGC MS65 not attributed.

 

[Kipster]

8 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

A rare 1896 Very wide date and eight years looking at thousands to find a really good one.

Gouby BP1896Ad ,NGC MS65 not attributed.

 

Very nicely done. I was bidding on that as well and you pipped me to it. 👍

[secret santa]

Spink's Coins of England 2024 has finally included my proposed penny additions of 1847 Medusa, 1858 Large Rose (although they have mysteriously duplicated the entry), 1862 over 1, 1862 VIGTORIA and 1863 open 3.

[oldcopper]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

Spink's Coins of England 2024 has finally included my proposed penny additions of 1847 Medusa, 1858 Large Rose (although they have mysteriously duplicated the entry), 1862 over 1, 1862 VIGTORIA and 1863 open 3.

Do you know their pricing for the Medusa?