Leaderboard

The coin has flipped and rotated slightly during striking which has made the legend quite messy. Based on the letter M which you thought was a H I'd say it's Henry III. Probably class 7b. Mint signature ends in a T followed by a stop so i think its it's either Canterbury or Bury St Edmunds. Moneyer is either Simvn or Simvnd I'd say.

On a relatively high grade penny like that, the H would show strongly. What you've got there is a ghostly anomaly, and I'd agree - no H

Definitely NOT an H. As you can see from Secret Santa's post above too, the H if present is smaller than the smudge/toning/anomaly you have where the H would be. Many times we all wish the presence of something and convince ourselves from a humble picture that a smudge or blob just might be the magic thing! I myself must have bought over the years half a dozen 1863 pennies with "something" perhaps below the date which just might possibly have been a die number with a fair wind behind. Needless to say of course, none of them were!!

I can’t see an H either. I think there may be a blemish in there that the brain may try to interpret as something meaningful, especially if one is looking for it. Like the image of Jesus in a slice of toast or an alien face on Mars.

over the year Ive been sifting through my coins and put Colonial Coins in another bag to sort out at a later date and create some organisation .... I have checked and found that most are .925 silver so at the very least scrap.... However...some of these seem to be quite scarce... The 1887 Canada, 10 cents, Mintage 350 000 The 1891 British Guiana and West Indies, Fourpence, Mintage 336 000 The 1918 Australia, Threepence, Mintage 3 119 000...... ok so not a rarity... the Victorian Colonial coins of this lot are the scarcer and as the page of the ones I own is growing its a becoming real eye opener...👍

Thank heaven the vendor confirms that it is genuine, not a replica! I rest assured 😄. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/198243354927?_skw=hammered&itmmeta=01KN2QEJGWGHJW8JGVRHXGCNZK&hash=item2e2839892f:g:EjYAAeSwwP5pzBu5&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAA8GfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xCdMdsLZrzlKxQyLy1byZLX53r1elvuJN%2FF39HjSTeEV6eWM8XGXpL0nqXXF2nnpzem946gkjE36Mqqfd%2FcS%2FY04ocGPDJeJHJTgnZZRWylpSn3UcChX1ZfxgnWVN0cucnA4xdSNuaHzpYUrwuRDjrkDQveuTwjgPZTedsF7la4rPTS5YtWSWqxbPAxvxFqI824RBtL8fvyDZrLL5rlJgQl%2FHSHTi3ISEmZV2bPtZ5l17h3SfKg%2BBD9rdJz%2Fx44Kdm9o0hbtItqnP5YB%2FWs3MuUlSAXLUKm7Xq9x5WiQnvyig%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR4aputeoZw Jerry

Come back Dr Larry, all is forgiven!

Blimey, I’m out of this one…where does it stop?

Having dismissed the H as an anomaly, I might have to revise my opinion as I saw the face of Jesus on my slice of toast this morning...

They’re going to ruin that 100% positive feedback with that 😆

Well Done again! If I was you I would buy a national lottery ticket, about the same odds!

Both of these are examples of classic pareidolia !!

I'd be happy to rate that EF (perhaps AEF on the obverse, just a trace of extra wear on the hair?)

I have found (so far) 2x 1835, 1x 1839, 1x, 1842, 4x,1843 (I read that this date is the most common with over dates as well, but none of mine are, I think it was 43 over 34?!?!) 1x, 1862... I had these in with Victorian Maundy one pence coins car boot find, I still had the cash bag from Midlands Bank that they came in... miss them days. 🥲

or not there

You will have difficulty finding any die detail specific to the Heaton mint other than the letter ‘H’ as the working dies were prepared at the Royal Mint from their master dies and sent to Birmingham for striking. The Heaton mint did not develop their own dies. And don’t confuse differences due to die wear, depth of strike, clashed dies etc as differing varieties. It’s a potential minefield. Jerry

Great Collections has responded to me, and accolades to them for being receptive and ethical.

I would say it's an F82. The figure 5 is more upright on the 1875H.

FWIW I don’t think it’s an H, just an anomaly of toning and surface metal. The big issue is, if you’re going to call that an H, you then have to have an explanation for the Triangular shape that’s hovering between the digits?

Images, photos, etc, can be deceptive and not necessarily deliberately. The best determinant is studying the coin in hand.

Im going to study the 1875 and 1875 H there must be an identifiable die characteristic unique to the H coins. Lets see.

Thank you both for the orders. wlewisiii, I'll sort you out with a PDF of the Irish book over email.

Can also clearly see the 'WRL' on the reverse. Westair Reproductions Ltd, I think. They make replicas for museum gift shops etc and they always have WRL stamped on them.

Hi, I just received this curious piece in a lot of cut pennies I bought. I think I can make out the legend SH ON W on the first side. But this could also be LSH ON W. I am not entirely sure. Couldn't find any moneyer + mint combination in my literature that matched this so was wondering if anyone could give me a hand? I am hoping to narrow down this one as much as I can. Thanks for your help.

Great work Stu.

I have sinced found a few other coins with a ghostly H including another 1875. If you look at the attached image there is an 8 a C and also some guys face in the circle with long hair and a pointy nose any ideas who it is?

You might see a flying orange flying man-baby in london complaining about us being late for the third world war (well they were late for the first two weren't they?)

Thanks. I can JUST about make it out now you've told me, but perhaps you hammered guys are more used to knowing where to find it!

One of your better coins 👏👏👏

Nice coin. I think your initial assessment of an attempted holing is more likely correct. I think the bulge in the wreath beneath the 8 on the reverse is the other end of that. I don't think a die fault would allow so much proud metal. I like the threehalfpence coins - a short run intended for the colonies but legal in the UK and listed in all the GB books. It took me some years to complete the date run, the 1837 William IV proving the most elusive - a lot scarcer than the books indicate.

Definitely not an H - as in all your pictures of the 1875H, the H is below the 7 and 5 whereas on your coin, the shadowy "H" is higher.

I noticed that Britannia's foot is also closer to the denticles on the High Tide. Obviously the tides are different, even if i did not scale the pictures exactly the same. Using the two PCGS examples, both correctly, and (IMO) incorrectly attributed.

I contacted Great Collections, who has it up for auction, trying to contact PCGS through their web contact form, but the contact options don't exactly pertain to this, so who knows how this will go.

Its just a F82 for me.

My own opinion for what its worth is there is NO H there 😃.

I decided to order it today from your link because of this post Now I just need the other one and I'll have two really nice references!

Yes, get the Freeman book, esp as the new edition is available once again, although the prior edition is extremely useful, and an industry standard.

It's not really a paperback - it's A4 pages held in a ring binder.

Did you order via: https://coinpublications.com/product/the-bronze-coinage-of-great-britain-freeman/ If so, it'll be reasonably fast. I have a few in Germany that I use to fulfil international orders, as postage is much cheaper from here. The UK warehouse has 2 or 3 left at the moment and I just ordered a small re-print yesterday, so with any luck no one will notice the gap.

I enjoy having huge silver coins in my pocket so I added a new one to my “pocket coins” today: a 1971 S proof Eisenhower 40% silver one dollar. It looks fun alongside my 1935 Peace Dollar and 1935 Rocking Horse Crown from the UK. My son was “Oooh! Shiny!” and, yeah, proof coins are cool that way. To protect them I do keep them in encapsulated so that they don’t get scruffed and dinged in my pocket like other circulation coins. Fun stuff

Hi Bob, There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity. The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety. In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far. In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia. To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion. Best wishes, Ron Guth Actually, according to Michael Freeman's designations in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", the attribution is F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A)...... Obverse 1 is described as having Round Beads, Obverse 2 and later Obverses as having a Toothed Border.... Reverse A is described as having Round Beads, Reverse B and later Reverses as having a Toothed Border...... "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (1986 and 2006 editions)" is considered the authority for Bronze Collectors. Peck for tin, copper and bronze.... Although neither is absolutely complete, their respective descriptions are the accepted standards for attribution and are considered authoritative. In virtually every instance of a new discovery or variety, that discovery only complemented the text and/or added information, and did not change the information already in existence..... Krause merely designates TB/RB and gives no accompanying text to ensure that the proper attributions are made and might be the text that is referred to in the quoted text. Possibly the proper question should be; "Is this coin an F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A) as listed in Freeman?", the variety that is universally accepted as a mule.

Hi Bob, There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity. The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety. In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far. In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia. To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion. Best wishes, Ron Guth This is in response to the suggestion that the round beads are actually toothed beads that were LAPPED, or struck from worn/polished dies.... (Highlighted and BOLD within the quoted remarks).... It is my understanding that there is NO doubt that the ROYAL MINT used ROUND BORDER BEADS in the initial striking of the bronze coinage on all three denominations (Farthings, Half-Pennies, and Pennies)... This has been documented as such, as well as the fact that there were difficulties with the design and they were therefore redesigned with a TOOTHED BORDER.... There are HIGH GRADE examples of all denomintaions which show this clearly. There are records that document the fact that a ROUND BEADED BORDER was the original design... It has NEVER been suggested (to the best of my knowledge) that a ROUND BEAD BORDER was the result of a defective strike, polished/lapped dies, etc..... It has ALWAYS been acknowledged to be the original design, and then later that year (1860) changed to the TOOTHED BORDER.... The mere suggestion that this is the case sends up red flags and begs the question that "If the ROUND BEADED BORDER is the result of DIE WEAR/POLISHING/DAMAGE, then how did it happen that the ROUND BEADED BORDER was released into circulation first...." ALSO, why has there been NO question of attribution or question of LAPPED dies in relation to the OBVERSE DIES....... Calling a WORN TOOTH a BEAD does NOT make it so........ In the example of the 1922 "PLAIN" cent, it is known that there were NO Philadelphia mint cents struck.... We KNOW that it is an error from a worn/filled die... As such, we can document the various stages as the die deteriorated..... There were also different reverse dies used..... That with the D missing completely and the strong reverse being the most desireable..... I have a PCGS specimen of the missing D with the WEAK reverse, still rare although not as valuable as the STRONG reverse... I also have an ANACS example of the WEAK D, an intermediate stage, and FAR LESS valuable than either of its siblings.... In any case, had there been a 1922 PHILDELPHIA MINT coin struck, the 1922 "PLAIN" would STILL NOT be a PHILADELPHIA MINT COIN.... IT would be MOST ACCURATELY a "1922-D NO D" or "MISSING D".... Calling a WORN TOOTH a ROUND BEAD as a means of making an expedient explanation of a question at hand is counterproductive to discovering the TRUTH , and in this instance also does not instill confidence in PCGS's GUARANTEE.... Using another US coin as an example, the 1866-S dime notoriously has a WEAK mintmark and is quite often not visible on worn specimens..... HOWEVER, calling it an 1866 as another 3rd party grader, NOT PCGS, did in certifying a specimen, does not make it so.... The 1866-S is relatively common, the 1866 Philadelphia mint coin is significantly RARER.... The proper attributions can be made by using die diagnostics, as should be used in this case... In the case of the 1866 Dime, the other 3rd party grader tossed it off as a "CLERICAL ERROR" and refused to offer or provide any guarantees... PCGS has ALWAYS stood behind its certifications; will they continue to do so???? Or will they continue to obfuscate the issue by presenting speculations that do not fit the facts????? Admittedly there are new discoveries being made, but until this coin is examined by experts knowledgeable in THIS series (farthings), we can not have a satisfactory resolution to this attribution..... This raises an issue too... Which experts (and what were their qualifications insofar as GB coinage?) originally examined and certified the coin???? Also, which experts (and what were THEIR qualifications insofar as GB coinage is concerned, especially as this was a re-examination) studied the coin in its second review (the one that prompted PCGS letter standing behind its original attribution????? Calling a duck a swan does not make it one..... A rose is a rose is a rose...... It's up to PCGS now state in open forum exactly what their guarantee will be... For the protection of the OWNER, if he is unable to sell the coin due to this controversy.. And to any potential buyer of this coin, should someone take a chance on the coin and trusting in PCGS stature....... This coin has a significant value, and I;m sure was originally purchased with PCGS's attribution factoring heavily into the transaction....

I counted the tooths(beads) on the reverse of the coin (picture) provided by Bronze and Copper, that he had obtained on ebay, and the count came to 136 teeth on the reverse of the coin. This is not consistant with the 130 beads on the normal beaded reverse, of the mule. It also has the teeth closer to the outer rim than the inner circle. The beads on the mule are closer to the inner circle. A couple of other things are... that it has the single rock, more like the toothed type reverse, and the zero (0) of the date touches the inner rim, which it does not on the mule. I would think a differant designation would better clarify this coin, than to be classified as the classic mule of 1860. I would agree with Colin... that this would better identify the classification of this coin. I think it would also help clear any misunderstanding about this coin variety. Bob C.

Hi, First a warm welcome to this forum. As a contributer to the 'Darkside' PCGS forum I know you have a genuine interest in 'World Coins'. Your reasoned argument is also welcome. You have obviously spent time on a relatively small $ coin - to preserve your companies reputation. If I ever decide to slab my collection it would be with you. However (you knew there was going to be a BUT) I think you are wrong to designate this coin as a TB, BB mule. Peck, Freeman, Colin Cooke (not Goode) have all described this type - a particular rev. die as very rare < 100 known. You are introducing another rev. die - quite common - that they would have seen many times, and giving it the same description. Beaded border means full beads all round. My toothed border 1860 has most of the same characteristics as the PCGS mule. Including the 5 o'clock beads. If you stay with this stance you will be slabbing a LOT of 1860 TB/BB. So if it is all semantics, why not call this TB / 5 o'clock beaded look border. Without the lighthouse rock and bead count of a beaded border. Just wrong to make people think they have a high value coin, even if us Brits need to re-appraise how we designate border types. Again welcome to the forum - and thanks for posting. Teg

Teg, I can appreciate your comments regarding the owner, and maybe their appeal could have been worded a bit less aggressive, but I can also see their concerns. They are going to be selling a coin which they have had double checked by the "experts" and negative comments in relation to the coin could affect the sale price. It is not their fault that there are differing opinions on this coin, and at least they reacted to informed opinions the last time the item was put up for sale and sought confirmation before attempting to resell. At the end of the day the issue will be passed to the new owner, but so will the potential for recourse against the grading company. I thought I needed a better social life scanning every farthing that passes through my hands , but I have to admit, I have not yet started counting border beads That will give me something to do on Sunday afternoon

Yes... The son definitely follows in his father's footsteps.... He was a highly respected coin dealer when he was in business

The rocks to the left of the lighthouse was the factor I used in determining the authenticity of the item, and this is what I explained to the seller. The single rock is clear on the larger images, but I am hesitant about posting someone elses images on a forum. If you ask the seller for the images, I am sure they would send them to you.