Leaderboard

And how it affects values. http://www.coinweek.com/dealers-companies/eagle-eye/overgrading-affects-coin-values/

Absolutely, this type of research is very painstaking, not to mention time consuming. Useful for others. Thanks a lot, Ian. Your efforts are appreciated. You're anything but that, Richard, and may I say thanks again for the - was it 7? - e mails you sent containing those penny variant articles. Incredibly valuable stuff. I sent them on to Dec LAN . Hope that's OK. Apologies for the odd spelling. Predictive text prevented the proper construction of the name .

Nonsense. He must stay in a lot more and extend the study. In true parasitic convention, everybody applauds the work and then just uses the info for their own ends. what would be more useful would be for a few people to carry out the same studies working in parallel. Chances are that whilst the bulk of material will agree, there will also be a handful of unrecorded types which would not come to light on the basis of a single study. The confirmation of research results is a pre-requisite for acceptance, the unexpected discoveries are the icing on the cake.

Hi Terry, thanks for your input. Yes, agree your 1841 REG: must be an earlier strike with flaws just commencing. To date I have found 9 different 1841 obverse dies, best illustrated by their date style differences, which I do not believe anyone has yet tried to document. I have attached a further picture showing these 9 different date types although I have had to reduce from over 3MB to less than 500Kb to get onto the Predecimal system, so the differences are not as easy to see as would be the case with higher definition. I have ordered these, top to bottom, as narrowest (Date 1) to widest (Date 9) and you can see I have shown Date 5 twice as this is the REG: obverse type with or without the flaw through the date. Date 7 by the way is Bramahs rare 2a variety. Also, the dates / obverses which I have named as Date 6 and Date 9 are two different obverses which are both seen paired with the Bramah 2c variety (repair to the F of DEF). I do find it interesting to use flaws and other 'tell-tale' features to plot a timeline of how dies have been paired, but guess that's serious anorak stuff for most! If anyone wishes to have sight of the 3MB image with these 9 dates then please contact me and I will also be happy to describe the differences if anyone is struggling to see them.

Got to be in anyones top ten

A few years ago I saw something of interest on an 1841 Victorian Penny. Recently I was able to purchase a high grade example with these features of interest, and this now enables me to properly share my find with other collectors of this series. Collectors will know that there are two currency varieties documented for this year, the common type without a colon after REG, and the much rarer type with a colon after REG. When I document coins for my collection I always take note of any unusual features. In particular I note the presence of any die flaws and, with additional specimens, how these flaws may develop as a given die ages. It was by studying such flaws that I discovered that the single obverse die which was paired with the rare 1841 REG: penny was subsequently paired with a reverse die which does not have a colon after REG The combined pictures below show the exact same obverse flaws present with both types of reverse die, the flaw through VICTORIA being more developed, as expected, on the coin without the REG colon. I have examined 17 examples of the REG: variety and only seen these flaws on 3 pieces, suggesting that these are ‘late strikes’ and the obverse die deteriorated quite late in life when paired with the REG: reverse. Also, I do not think this same obverse die was used for very long paired with the REG no colon reverse. I have only seen two examples, although I do not spend time specifically searching for more specimens. For reference, I will follow with an additional post showing full pictures of my 1841 penny without the REG colon. Full pictures of a flawed REG: specimen can be seen on the following link, or by examining the example on Richard’s English Pennies website, should you have access. 1841 (A + a) and 1841 (B + a)?…..lots more work to be done http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=142&searchlot=2621&searchtype=2

I think for beauty combined with a few thoughts as to how it was made, you have to look at ancients. Super detail that had to be made without recourse to a magnifying glass when engraving the dies. I have put up the Epaticcus Boar's Head before which is only 8mm diameter, but you could equally choose any one of many early works of art.

Buying from a reputable dealer who offers a simple return policy suggests you can have confidence in their stock. And I don't really mean eBay. While there are decent coins and sometimes even bargains there, it's better to have some experience under your belt before spending serious money. A coin fair might give you an opportunity to meet dealers and inspect some coins up close. There's nothing like seeing the real thing to develop an eye for something a bit dodgy. The internet is a remarkable resource. When considering a purchase (and I've been collecting nearly 15 years now) I still check auction site records, old sales catalogues and reputable dealers sites to compare the coin I'm interested in with others in terms of condition and eye appeal. You also have to remember that the vast majority of coins are genuine. Yes, fakes are a problem for some series, but not most. Provenance will help reassure, there although most coins will have little unless rare and it's generally a lot easier to spot earlier sales of a hammered coins (because each is unique in its quirks) than milled ones. More important then is spotting a coin that has been cleaned, checking for edge damage and trying to buy the best you can afford. And as Paulus says, posting a picture of a potential buy here for opinions can be very helpful. Oh. And we all make mistakes. Buy coins that we later regret or that turn out not to be the bargain we thought. All you can do is mark it up as a learning experience and try to make the mistake an inexpensive one! Welcome to the forum and have fun!

Mostly due to poor design, I'd say - the halfcrowns especially have a very shallow design that started to wear the minute they were issued; the florins are a bit more of a mystery, being even harder to find (certain dates) yet not quite such a shallow design. Mind you, the florins did stay in circulation for 20 years longer than the halfcrowns. It's also true that the 'new' Cupro-nickel coins were less popular anyway, so there may be something in them not being put by.

In all probability, I'd grade that as some as struck modern tat. And in 99% of cases, of course, it is! Glad I don't collect post 1946 That opens a veritable can of worms! Anyone with a Liz II 50s halfcrown or florin that's given the CGS highest grade really has got something saleable - most of them are at best AUNC, and EF examples look as though they've just been to an all-night party, hit the ale hard, crawled into bed at 5AM and react very grumpily to having the curtains pulled back before midday. In fact, I would go so far as to say that finding absolutely 'as struck BU' examples are almost as difficult as finding UNC Edward VII silver.