Leaderboard

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

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 😆

That's an amazing stroke of luck to find an Freeman 90 unattributed. I've been collecting for twenty years and have made some fantastic finds , but have never seen an F90 for sale any where other than in a specialist auction . I have though had the luck back in January to find an 1897 F148 in AU condition after searching all that time. Examples turn up but normally in poor condition . My example is pictured below. But good luck with your quest to find an example of all Victoria pennies as some are thought to be unique , such as the F19 1861 2+F

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.

For me the new posts are at the top, below any ‘sticky’ posts so it must be possible. Or you can always click ‘unread posts’ top right. Jerry

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 have added the F90 to my website - let me know if you would like a personal attribution.

Ah ! So prompted by Paddy I delved back into a box of duplicates, high grades & oddities that are to good to part with, I wasn't sure if I had any variations of the 1887 Shilling, I don't have the young head, only the second portrait.....none in the duplicate box...aha I did find another 1872 this one has the Die No 29....Memo: this was kept as at some point you could be assed to move the coins to create a space so Die No 29 will slot in with the other 1872.....!?!? it also has a deformed N in Britanniar .... ....Yes a Rabbit Hole...but its a ocd world I seem to be living in.... 😟

What the heck, Im just going to share it ! So pleased it's the reverse which is in better condition. I know on these rarities grade is kind of irrelevant but what is your opinion please? Thanks

I see. Thank you very much for your insight. That makes a lot of sense. Very cool indeed

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?)

Should be ok now. Some internet nasties were attacking the old predecimal site that I kept online in a secret place.

Good result. Well done.

Here is what I plan to send to PCGS I believe this coin to be improperly attributed as High Tide/ High Sea Level https://www.pcgs.com/cert/56163554 Distinctive markers to determine variety correctly: Center of the upright part of P in Penny should point to gap between denticles, not to a tooth. Shield at bottom should basically be touching denticles, whereas there is a gap here in this coin. Tide on right side of coin should reach next fold up in Britannia's dress, closer to where legs cross. For comparison, this one is correctly identified: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/82915544 I can also provide more pictorial proof upon request.

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.

Agreed; not high tide.

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!

I am delighted to share with you my most recent discovery ! I still cant believe it. I search to the point I literally become so sick and tired and just as I'm about to have a break as I cant take no more....... I find something like this, then the motivation is completely replenished. £16 with postage.... I feel a bit bad if im honest, I wouldnt call the seller a dealer but looking at the inventory not sure how they missed this one. I have only included part image of the coin as I would like to let the dust settle, I dont want the UK seller to get wind of it. In time I will share the complete coin.

Thanks for that. I just checked and it seems that the posts are now showing new posts first. I must have clicked something I shouldn't have. Thank you.

I know, it's embarrassing that there hasn't been one for so long. Ideally I think I'd like to hand the reigns to someone else to do that and just be the publisher, if you know anyone!

Congrats. That's a great win. I have similarly been spending hours over several years looking for some varieties, such as high tide 1897 penny. With those, even some attributed (in TPG slabs) are incorrect, let alone dozens of dealers who list it as such, erroneously. With so many bad listings of it, I feel even less likely to find an actual one unattributed. But I keep looking, in madness, haha. I may break down and buy a correctly identified one, even with the markup. I feel aside from maybe 1902, most of the rarer tide variants will just be too tough to acquire, otherwise, esp where I am located.

Using a bain-marie and a thermometer. The temperature fluctuated between 85 and 95°C.

This experiment was with 5% sesquicarbonate at room temperature for 6 hours. The green spots have gone but the coin looks stripped and cleaned. I'm going to try 2% at room temperature with a shorter contact time.

Olive oil classically treats verdigris, without damaging the rest of the coin, so maybe it will soften and loosen the tape glue, agian without doing any real harm. On the other hand, if the tape has been stuck on for a while, it is possible that it has already damaged the surface, and removal will simply show this up. You pays your money and .......

Don’t be afraid of acetone, it would be my first port of call unless the adhesive is water soluble. Acetone won’t alter the coin in any way. Jerry

I see no reason not to start with just warm soapy water. Most sticky labels use water based glue. If that does not work, my next try would be alcohol - rubbing alcohol I believe it is called in the US, surgical spirit in the UK. Only if both those failed would I move on to Acetone.

found in my box amongst the other unidentified hammered silver coins... yet to be identified...!?! is its possible that this could be .... Medieval Crusader Coin Bronze Denier or Follis... issued by Tancred of Antioch 1101-1112....?

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....