Leaderboard

I acquired this coin a good while back (from Rob I think), just wondered if it seemed okay to people?

have a gamble, could be a 100g gold bar

I don’t think it matters very much as the grade alone is insufficient description of the coin. So I think GEF, no wear, weak strike means the same thing as UNC, weak strike. It might even be beneficial for a dealer to use the former as it gives an impression of a stricter standard. As has been pointed out previously, the Spink definition of “fine” is “a coin that exhibits considerable wear on the raised surfaces of the design, either through circulation, or damage perhaps due to faulty striking.” Hence, I assume that some would give a lower grade for a coin that is particularly weak strike. Another reason why I don’t think it matters is that most of the grading terms are, misnomers anyway. “Good” means the opposite of what it is reality. “Fine” isn’t fine. “Extremely” as in extremely fine is not extreme. The majority of coins described as “uncirculated” have probably been circulated for however brief periods of time. Even the term “mint state” doesn’t quite work as no one can be certain if the contact marks were in fact caused by circulation or not. TPG have no issues describing toned coins as “mint state” even though coins are of course not toned when there were just minted. In short the coin is the same regardless of the grade assigned by an individual. Personally, I think the phrases like “fully lustrous”, “particularly well struck”, “very few bagmarks”, “minor hairlines” etc are more helpful providing they are given in good faith.

CNG Auction 111 offers some very interesting 360 degree views, below is an example. The edge view looking at Alexander's face is spectacular, talk about high relief. https://cngcoins.com/photos/360_images/11100309/index.html

I only just noticed this but I'm thinking R over B in REG - any thoughts? At a glance, I can't find any references to other examples where this is clear / anyone cared enough to note it Edit: this would be a result of repunching of the R to working dies?

I have just realised/discovered that 1856 PT pennies have large dates and 1856 OT pennies have small dates - how strange !

To me it should - early British George V pennies or later Australian Perth Mint bronze can really have poor strike and even though they might be technically uncirculated, if they don't look the part then they're not really uncirculated.

Nice tone. Good purchase.

yes definitely the same coin David

It's no wonder there are so many varieties for 1858. It was intended to be the final year for copper pennies and therefore the reuse of older dies made perfect sense - it was only the drastic delays caused by the problems with bronze that put the changeover back at least 18 months.

Rob, I bid on this coin in 2016 so I was interested to see it resurface. Why do I think it's fake? It seems to have lost relief detail and sharpness and tbh it doesn't look right - it even looks cast to me. Here are but a few examples on the obverse, see what you think: Obv. ding missing on ebay example Obv. Ebay example, Sword flattened, Bridge of nose missing, hair detail gone, groove above crown deeper.

Both not the highest grade but fill gaps and nice to look at for now:

Better late than never:

Just come across this "reproduction" 1861 penny. Curious to know what variety the copiers had modelled it on, I took a closer look, and it appear to be a copy of a F29. Predictable enough. Anyway, another possible addition to your fakes site, Richard. link to