Leaderboard

1863 Slender 3 F44 Well I just can't believe my luck on this one, I never thought I'd ever manage to get my hands on one of these 🤩

This was a recent pickup in a USA auction, I like the condition of the piece, it being much better than most farthings of that era - but I enjoy the additional cuds on Charles II's nose and Britannia's right arm from the die breaking down. Also it appears as though the numeral 1 in 1675 was repunched - almost appears to have been repunched over a numeral 5!

Found another quite good condition coin from the hoard..... albeit 2 pence Maundy, George IIII, 1822, 😕 not sure I can cope with all of these good condition coins after a life time of manky worn out ones.... 😕

This one, on an F16, has always intrigued me. Ghosting of Victoria's face can be seen (as it often does) above Britannia's left knee, but there is also something strange going on with the border teeth. The series of pictures at the bottom show an overlay picture of border teeth, from the same coin, which I have made gradually transparent from 0% to 100% as go from left to right hand side. This shows that the marks through Britannia's knees are clearly from border teeth. I bought this coin at Heritage in 2013 (MS63 Slabbed), and it took me a long time to find another F16 like this, to prove that it must have occurred during the minting process.......rather than the coin being hit with something post-minting. I will show the pictures of that other coin immediately below, as this picture uses up my 500Kb allowance!!

This is just about the most extreme example I have come across !!! An 1862 penny Note the half circle on Victoria's back , its the shield from the reverse side . The extra ribbons are created from the folds in Britannia's. dress

Calm down everyone, nobody is accusing anyone of dishonesty or lying, or any any other form of undesirable attribute. It is a friendly forum, though I do seem to offend occasionally - not intentionally, but we are who we are and I might be a bit set in my ways to change. As Coinery wrote, it was intended as tongue in cheek, as a perusal of my similar previous posts with a similar emoticon would lead you to infer. All questions are valid, but with multiple questions on the doubling of characters already asked on this forum and replied to ad nauseum, I assumed that with over 160 posts, some of a similar nature, you had already explored that search option and done some background reading. A quick search of "doubled OR repunched characters" brings up over 600 posts, so lots of wheels have been reinvented over time. Apologies for any offence caused - it wasn't intentional. I am genuinely harmless, but rushed off my feet of late due to a fortnight in hospital with sepsis causing HMRC filing grief. And on another apologetic note. I give notice of apologies to Coinery for acquiring the Anchor over Key marked Elizabeth I halfpenny in the recent Noonans sale with the penny anchor punch. I think it might be big enough to fit a 2d, but haven't had time to explore yet. It also has lots of underlying detail from the previous state of the portcullis punch employed, so could be more useful than normal. I will send pics when I have time and probably drop in during the next few weeks if you are around as I have just had a change of tenant in Yeovil, so have to do some repairs. I assume it was on your list of things to acquire.

The double plume 1887 crown represents about 5% of the population. It is recorded and mentioned in a paper submitted to BNS blog but not yet published. Several of them were in The Thorburn Collection sold by Sovereign Rarities 23rd. Sep. 2025. notably lot 81

No way you’re new to this, your language and approach is not elementary, it’s very weird! I know it’s not helpful or constructive to say this but I am really struggling, I can’t pitch you at all.

It looks to me as if there was nearly a brockage, as the raised detail of the teeth is the incuse detail on the die. If a coin is not properly expelled between strikes, it will act as the die and leave an incuse detailed impression, because a die has the inverted relief, ie incuse is raised an vice versa, so to have raised 'incuse detail', it had to be a wrong-un, because the die would not have changed its relief and would strike normally, albeit off-centre. With several examples known, the detail must have been from a trapped coin.

Well, 1900 was currency. There was no 1901 crown. My understanding is that, much like in the US, people just didn't want to carry around the weight of the 25 g. coins. Here the casinos are the main reason they were in production as long as they were and were a big influence on the introduction of the Eisenhower dollar in 1971. Using the crown as the basis of a commemorative denomination was probably the best thing that happened to the coin. Of course, I don't tend to think they're too heavy ... Or too bulky... But then most things are paid for by me with the funny plastic card rather than from a bag of silver coins ...

Honest answer - absolutely not.

I can only real talk about my observations on copper or bronze pennies, as that is my major interest . I find that over stamped letters/ numbers are extremely common on coins up to about 1863 though some can still be seen through to the 20th century . The last I think being 1945. The ones that are of interest to me and I would guess a lot of collectors are the ones that are dramatically out of place or triple struck . Some examples below Triple struck Y quite sort after , note the G and D overstruck but of little interest Here's Y over Y dramatically out of place 8 over 8 And just look at this one !!

Phew, thank goodness you don’t, this fella may have been a little too much for you!

I like this one 😂🤣

Not quite sure what you're saying? The Mint stopped using 92.5% silver from 1920 as the price of silver during WW1 had risen to the point where it exceeded the face value of the coins being struck. Yes, it came down again a few years later, but the Mint were never going to reverse their decision. The same thing happened after WW2 when silver was abandoned altogether but this time it never came down to make using it for coins cost-effective. I'd treat YouTube videos with a large pinch of salt!

Those prove my point about it being easier to see on more worn examples - the ear on those is far better preserved than you'd expect looking at the obverse as a whole.

Sorry for the delay, it’s been a mad few days! Blimey, Rob, really sorry to hear you’ve been in with sepsis, that’s miserable. That’s a lovely halfpenny you have there, and at an excellent price, especially when the example I quote sold for £375. I did see it, but had my eye on something else. I know it’s nothing of the class of yours, but I picked up an anchor halfpenny not so long ago…plus very limiting resources are always going to force some difficult decisions. Yours is the same die as the Comber, Wilkinson & Lockett example and, what’s interesting, is what initially appears to be a double-strike of the portcullis, is actually the bottom half of it being re-entered, it’s identical on each coin. What’s also interesting, is that the oddities beneath your portcullis are less prominent on the Comber example, excepting a few dots here and there, most notably in the bottom 2 squares of the vertical righthand row. Equally the horizontal bar running under the anchor on yours, which possibly hinted at a key (if that’s what’s being referred to), is also not present on the other example. I wonder if some of what’s being seen on yours is the die becoming progressively damaged? Re your trip South, if I’m not on nights it would be great to catch up…there’s a lovely riverside Greene King pub, 1 minute off junction 13, if that suits you?

I think it has always been accepted that the Double Florin was a further step in the attempt to decimalise the currency, so it seems even more crazy that they started re-issuing Crowns at the same time as the DF. I suspect we will never know the reasoning.

Yeah, my bad - though the 1900 mintage was twice as high as the previous two years; theory: after Victoria died, they decided to use up the 1900 dies and carried on minting with them in 1901. That would indicate that if she hadn't died, there would have been currency crowns in 1901 and maybe 1902 if she'd gone on that long?

I'd agree - the reverse is no better than GF, but the obverse (under the tarnish) looks better; it's not easy to tell but I'd say AVF?

I accept the apology thanks. Maybe I was quick to get carried away. I know doubled or repunched characters are not of much interest I have learnt that. But some insignificant types or differences on coins have have been assigned freeman or gouby numbers and classed as more than insignificant although widely considered not real varieties. I dont have the all the book's and as far as I can see If one of the main specialist has written about a specific difference on a coin then it becomes something of interest. FYI i did exhaust searching for any written information about the coin in question. I'm quite happy doing my own research but if I can't find the a definitive awnser then I may ask the question. I started the question with I doubt it. I was just looking for confirmation of my own deduction thats all.

With all due respect to Rob, I too have noticed that he’s coming over as being a little less tolerant than usual…I think this could be, in part, on account of the gulf between his knowledge and the cerebral challenges he getting on this forum nowadays, if ever, to be fair! Top tip, though…as infirm, elderly, decrepit, grey, miserable and grumpy as he may be…he’ll be worth much more to your numismatic journey onside 😉

https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/ Ah. I got the name wrong, didn't I !

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...

That's supposed to be silver??

Definitely not the genuine article, but will definitely be the coin in that little group that will catch the highest bidder out, as there’s nothing else in there they could possibly be wanting!

Great. A few weeks ago another that I sent to the USA was returned to me, no reason given. So I'm now a bit nervous sending to the USA. I've emailed you a PDF of the Irish book.

Good pictures, nice coin. It will tone well on a sunny windowsill , turned from time to time . Jerry

all, I recently found what I believe could be a medieval coin while metal detecting in a cornfield in Castletown, Celbridge (Ireland), and I’m hoping to get some opinions on it. The piece is quite small — smaller and thinner than a modern 2 cent coin. It appears worn, but I can make out what looks like a cross on one side. There are also some pellet-like markings, and possibly a letter (maybe an “A”) beneath them, though it’s not very clear. The shape isn’t perfectly round, which made me wonder if it could be clipped, broken from a larger coin, or possibly even a token rather than an official issue. The metal doesn’t seem obviously copper — I initially thought it might be silver, but I’m not certain. I’ve attached photos of both sides. Unfortunately, the detail is quite faint, but I’d really appreciate any thoughts on: What type of coin this might be Whether it looks medieval (and if so, what period) Or if it could be something else entirely (token, foreign, etc.) Thanks in advance for any help!

Very interesting—thanks a lot for the reply and the link, Jerry. I’ve had a read and I’m going to follow up on a few new leads. I’ll update when I find out more

For what it's worth, I do not think this is a very rare thick flan 10+J but rather a normal flan one where the rim has been "rolled" in machinery and slightly compressed thus, and so makes the edge look wider. My evidence for this is a) this was commonly done with many, many bronze predecimal coins, I guess as people were just playing around with lathes etc in workshops, and I personally have many such examples of all bronze denominations and several monarchs, and b) from your photo, the rim itself next to the beads appears to be thin or non-existent, when in reality there should be a distinct rim edge surrounding the beads (see photo of obverse 10 below, taken from Richard's halfpenny website) which is basically where the rolled metal has gone from to form the "thicker" edge. c) The genuine thick flan is R20 for rarity, so VERY few known indeed. Of course, that is not to say another one wouldn't ever turn up, but mathematically one is more likely to find further specimens in the R17-R18 bracket, as you proved with your 1877 narrow date. But of course, one can only be sure when in hand and can be weighed, measured etc. But if you ask opinions from vague photos, be prepared to get vague answers, or indeed an absence of answers in light of the absence of evidence! I wish you luck with this purchase, just as you have had much luck already, but equally you must expect disappointments too... Also, give things a bit more time for feedback: you only posted on Saturday morning - I am replying Monday afternoon!

I suspect it may be related to the Irish obsidional currency , this article may give you a lead. https://oldcurrencyexchange.com/2015/09/03/obrien-rare-coin-review-confederate-catholic-rebel-money-coinage-of-1642-44/ Jerry

The coin was purchased prior to posting here.. To save you being party to any of it il refrain from posting questions about my coins here.

It's not the thinness - it's the recessed area as you say. On the left coin you can clearly see a hollow surrounding the ear which is absent on the Unc example.

1873: 1 to 6, 10 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 to 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39 to 48, 50, 53 to 65, 67, 69 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 83 to 89, 92 to 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 105 to 107, 109 to 111, 113 to 115, 117 to 123, 125, 127 to 129, 131, 132, 135 to 137, 141

It's a weird one - I remember when I was searching through bank bags as a schoolkid in the late 60s; now and again I'd see 1915 or 1916 pennies where the head just 'looked weird', especially around the ear. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I did notice each one when it appeared. It may be that the difference is more obvious on a more worn penny than on one that's EF or better? In other words, the ear is less worn than it should be and seems a bit more sunk than on normal examples.

It's good. I have recessed ear 1915 pennies both with and without broken tooth. Without seems rarer. Haven't yet seen a 1916 without broken tooth though.

My most extreme die clash .Apologies, not a penny (1696 Halfpenny) .

It wasn't totally abandoned - there was a DF pattern done in early George V so they must have toyed with introducing them again.

A lot of bar workers wouldn't. That's why they stopped using them as were frequently passed off as a crown at a financial loss to the barmaid through deductions in her wages. A sort of play on an anecdote I experienced on more than one occasion whereby an old landlady in a pub in Oldham which did a particularly nice pint of Oldham bitter, had a terrible habit of giving you £4.02 change for a pound note after you had bought 7 pints which cost 14p a pint at the time. This is 50 years ago and she is long dead, but everyone remembered her for her reputation, even in a conversation with a local I had a couple years ago! I wish I could remember the name of it, but is probably long demolished - or a fast food outlet.

Agreed, though there are exceptions like the New York 1960 crown which - though not a proof - has "shiny" fields and commands a premium over the normal ones. And don't get me started on 'mirror' fields! I remember bidding for and winning a complete 1887 Unc silver currency set at Warwick which more than one dealer there dismissed as cleaned. As the mirroring was in the fields but not on the raised elements of the design and legend, it obviously hadn't been cleaned. Oh well, my gain...

Good practice for me. I dug out my copy of The Standard Guide and looked at it and you pictures. I think that I'd call it (UK system) GF or just shy of (US) VF. The obverse shows a flattened ear but you can still see the front and rear edge of the bald spot. The reverse seems a bit more worn - the rein is disappearing on the neck but the sword is still quite clear. Lots of the high points having been hit. Anyone else think I'm off my rocker? (Or should I grab one of my 1935 crowns and get on one? 🤣)

If that was my question I would have given that answer a haha, but I guess not everyone shares my sense of humour.

Whatever. Rob be onside or dont couldnt give a monkey's.

Your call, m’friend! Though I could argue that, in the context of this post alone, Rob’s comment appeared very much tongue-in-cheek to me? That’s how I interpreted the bandit emoticon at least?

Oh yeah. I missed that.

earlier profile 72

It is probably confusing for the uninitiated, but the genuine 1775s have what looks like coarser hair strands than the 70-74 coins. End assumption? Looks different, so must be wrong. To clarify - the late coins have a virtually straight line from forehead to tip of nose, but the earlier ones have a distinct kink in the road.

Very poignant and caught me out for some reason. I’m 60 next year and been reflecting a lot upon the last 40, so maybe something to do with that?