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 😉

When I started working in 1974 I could afford to buy a few pennies from one of the mail order coin dealers. In those days you did not get a nice colour photograph of the coin you wished to buy, but rather just a brief description on a typed list. I bought this penny for a few pounds. I was a little disappointed when it arrived because of the black spots on an otherwise good looking coin. I was, and still am puzzled as to what caused these marks. The uniform pattern looks like marks left from a pierced metal tray

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

Hello and welcome. Ive been here only a short while but learnt loads, its a great place to be 👍

Thanks for all the kind words. @Paddy I've never actually bought a bulk lot of coins, and I'm thinking it's something I need to experience! Doing your hunting at someone's shop you don't risk being saddled with stuff you don't want, but perhaps I'm playing things a bit too safe. @Peckris 2 I have a comparable tale from much earlier this year. I was at one of my local antiques centres where I'd been rummaging the lower grade pennies for a while, finding very little. I moved on to some of the other offerings and gathered together a nice little group. Before I left I thought I'd dip my hand in the pennies one more time, and out came a 1951. You can't beat that moment of disbelief!

I don't think Charlie would be too impressed with truck loads of cupro - nickel dumped in front of the palace.

I now have the coin in my possession. Seems pretty nice condition for one of these, despite the odd mark in front of the King's nose:

And yet another (this person needs the appropriate treatment) https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/358558652610?itmmeta=01KRNYZFVFSVZCD2C7D3B07R5C&hash=item537bc2d8c2:g:1d0AAeSwnxZqBwHF&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAA4GfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xBitEe9RDa3sc7hUT9hX%2FCOfxQKyq%2Ffk9mvXOGbDczpUO9joLFvUS2WadpYmPIOnOAlf0YszrS2sdD8A1SJuELkDUqma1VpZnEy5q4ZXojfFHwyhdE%2BTCVfVAmS%2BC97DrbSX40H4RetRi4Gu7VpPOYPQ8N2Oho%2FSa9VEl8vLNcwB7paH1zB721WMloM8o9WVt59UTO1G1T%2BdwM36QfBsO4lddL5fyB5pBoVMFq2o7jay63EgK9cPpx%2FOTWHxhuG%2FVF5GY2mna9%2BULIMUbH1ZCiv|tkp%3ABk9SR4L-_b7FZw

The light striations in the obverse fields indicate it might well have been wiped or cleaned in the past. As for polishing - is the mirror finish only in the fields but not the raised design (difficult to tell from those pictures)? If yes, then not polished, but if shiny all over then it most likely has been.

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

Hi Jerry, I was trying to show the mirror type reflection with the first picture. Also, it's definitely the genuine article 28.24 grams, specific gravity is bang on and sounds/rings like all my others. Cheers, Nigel

Try to take some clear photos of both sides of the coin, it’s difficult to comment on the images you give. There are some very good Chinese replicas available now and looking at the finish we need to rule those out first. Doubling in the strike would be a possibility, if we are dealing with the genuine article. Jerry

I wonder if it may be Father Andrew Alexander's collection? I made contact with my old school. Father Andrew's collection was passed to his brother on his death. I asked if they could pass on my contact details to the brother, but I have heard nothing since.

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

Business as usual, then! I still reserve the right to think you unusual, though. Keep going.

Hello. Wondering if this 91 die has been recorded for an 1873 One Schilling

I thought the ganga dynasty started with bob marley in Jamaca

Better than EF for me, contact marks aren’t so much of an issue as scratches and other damage from circulation. You can always be caught out by photos, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was graded MS 62ish. Price at auction is so unpredictable, you could offer it at a fixed price of somewhere midway between EF and BU in the catalogue but be prepared to wait, or nearer EF price for a quicker sale. Jerry

I completely agree about the common coin in uncommonly good condition being something to relish. The 1873 shilling I sold to Geoff Cope when he was desperate to find something to buy close to the end is one in question. I bought it from Andrew Wayne's sale at London Coins 110, lot 1046, 1873 shilling where I paid just over 200 for it. However, all good things come to an end, and with a date run of 3rd young head shillings still in the collection all in similar grade and toning due to being a bit too nice to sell, a decision had to be made when I needed funds for something else, so it went in the trays for about 3 years. Couldn't sell it for love nor money because everyone thought it wasn't worth book price, which I was asking. Sold it to Geoff for book price (about 500 at the time) who said 'Ooh, that's nice. I'll have that one' and lo and behold, a few years later sold for CHF 5500, or about 10 or 11 times what he paid as a top pop 66. So at least two other people appreciated the quality and it was worth at least most of that at today's prices. The colours on it were genuinely superb and the best of the bunch, but I made the decision to get rid of all bar and keep the higher graded and near perfect 1874. Reminds me of Non's 1843.

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.

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? 🤣)

Since I have been accused/suspected of being dishonest and or a liar here my back is up. I'm just passionate about my new interest. Sorry if that's intolerable.

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

That picture is much clearer and yes Gouby BP1898 Ba

and a 74 for comparison