Leaderboard

1826 penny inverted FAKE. Thought i would share this just incase anyone sees one for sale and before they perhaps pay to much for one ,believing it to be genuine. I could not tell looking at one ,no signs of anything to the outside edge or inner rim ,right weight ,size , looks genuine. BUT i had two and found pictures of another ,they are all the same with the same bag marks etc and could easily be passed off as genuine if you are not able to compare with another. Similar to the 1905 Half crowns that were done in the seventies and look real but all the same.

I wanted to pick your collective brains on the “onc tenth” florins of 1853-1860, and possible theories on how the error came about. 1. Is it a “c” or an “e” with the oblique bar missing? A comparison of the “e” and “c” on the obverse seems to show a slight difference in the width of the letters. 2. If it’s an “e” with the bar missing, is this due to die fill? The oblique bar is very fine, so this could be a possible explanation. But if so, why does it only affect the “e” in “one” and not that in “tenth” (or the “e” in “One florin”, for that matter)? 3. Whether it’s a “c” or an “e” with a missing bar, could it be that a wrong or faulty puncheon was chosen when sinking the die? But again, why only the “e” in “one”? 4. Is it possible that there were puncheons for the entire word “one”, one of them was faulty, and that this was occasionally used over the course of 7 years when sinking new reverse dies? Each pair of dies produced only around 25,000 coins at the time, so the 1853 florin alone (mintage nearly 4 million) would have required upwards of 150 dies. 5. If 4 is the correct explanation, it could also explain the sudden disappearance of the error in 1860 – the faulty puncheon was detected and destroyed, or it wore out and was discarded. 6. A quick survey of auction archives would suggest that the error is more common than might be inferred from Bull. ESC 7th edition Heritage London Coin Auctions Noonans Spink 1853 “scarce” 2 3 1 1 1854 “4 seen” 1 9 1 1 1855 “5 seen” 1 1856 “7 seen” 1 1857 “6 seen” 1 1858 “4 seen” 1859 Not recorded 1860 “5 seen” 2 2 Number of examples of “onc tenth” florins offered at four auction houses between 2010 and 2023. With the exception of London Coins, most were not catalogued as “onc”. Any thoughts or insight on this would be much appreciated.

My lovely bottle brush tree died during the winter along with a few other temp sensitive plants , but at the moment the garden is just a pleasure to be in and its still work in progress on it a true labour of love

This was discussed 10 or 15 years ago. Not only the 'circulation marks' match, but there are also small pits on the rim which are present in all cases. FYI the die axis is about 160 degrees and not 180. A couple more examples apart from the one Pete posted

No worries Mike. I had already started on 1858, whilst counting the large roses. Year 1 for 1858's has just over 400 coins, of which about 10% are No WW, and of those 2 are missing serifs. I haven't counted the other 4 years yet. I believe the missing serifs on the first I of BRITANNIAR only occurs when paired with a single obverse 'No WW' die (most examples have the same flaw after T of GRATIA). Several years ago, I tested several B26a coins, which I had accumulated over the years, against the wording found on Page 108 of Bramah, as follows:- "Another prolific source of minor variation is provided by the colons on the rev. Probably every die creates a colon variant and the only really satisfactory way of describing the position identifiably is by measurement and by the rather delicate indication afforded by projecting the line of each colon and so cutting the inscription opposite". Below is a picture of one of my B26a coins, with the projected lines as per Bramah. I tried to find the best pixel to identify the centre of each colon dot, and then drew a straight line through these centres to the opposite side of the coin. The teeth where the projected lines meet the opposite side are numbered (larger figures). Numbering starts from the tooth where the stem of the rose hits the border, and then works clockwise. The smaller numbers measure the distance between each pair of colon dots. I found that all my pieces had very similar sets of numbers i.e. within a range of 3 border beads, so I think Bramah's theory does work quite well at identifying individual reverse dies.....if one has the time to do this!!! Just thought that may be of some interest; I have reduced image size to meet the predecimal limit.