Leaderboard

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

I'm pleased to share with this 1875H coin I have just purchased. (I think the seller missed the H) In your opinion what is the grade please of this coin, my gut feeling is GVF/GVF I'm inexperienced and am a bit lost when it comes to grading. There is rim damage and a few stains, you can also just some some luster around some of the legends. I know the following is only a basic guide but its difficult for me to be sure how the coins grades. 1) VF-20 We start to see all major line in the hair. The thistle and shamrock decorations starts to appear. Clearly readable but lightly worn legends, illustrations show good detail, rims are clean, but the whole coin shows moderate wear on the high points. 2) EF-40 Hair lines are mostly sharp and distinct except above forehead. The rose, thistle and shamrock decorations are visible. Legends are sharp, illustrations are clear with slight but obvious wear on the high points. 3) AU-50 Hair above forehead are visible and dress details are distinct. Sharp legends and illustrations show only a trace of wear on the highest points. There must be some remaining mint luster." Note inside the bottom of the Letter O in One the small flat part which does not appear to be damage. I would be grateful to hear opinions please. Thanks.

so finding this whilst sifting through the hoard and thought it worth a mention being that its in a good condition and ask for an opinion of its grade... however...! on closure inspection and magnifying the photo it looks like it was struck with a cracked die..... 👍 don't know about you ....its a real treat (for me) to find these faults...😁

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.

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.

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.

Its just a F82 for me.

Thanks again ! Il let you know if I win.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/147009740851?itmmeta=01KMKDV8RNEHQCJBB1GEVKHXY1&hash=item223a76a033:g:EKkAAeSwLENpMe6u

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

You mention dealers listing the coin in error, in my spreadsheet I have this image which I made which may help you id the type in poor condition and or poor photos in the sellers listing

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.

I paid $115 incl BP, tax and shipping, so I feel I got it pretty cheap, at least for over here. It has some wear and marks, but overall fairly good condition. It definitely felt worth the gamble to restore it. I think it scared off most bidders, which I was fine with. I am also surprised the grading company did not demand restoration fees, as sometimes I have heard they do.

Incidentally, when you did your initial experiment - 100 minutes at 90C - how did you achieve this temperature control?

There is also this one. The reverse is actually quite good.

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.

I would use WD40. Give it a good soaking and it will just lift away.

Another trial.

Some small coins that I've been checking this afternoon 🙂 we have an 1817 sixpence, an 1843 fourpence, a 1912 threepence and an 1876 third farthing. I think they're all pretty decent grade wise; the photos are okay but not amazing 😅.

I know we have had a lot of talk recently about grading companies and their abilities, and this is an example which I feel demonstrates that the companies in the US are great with US coins but not with UK coins. There is currently an auction on ebay for a slabbed 1860 mule, which caught my attention. The price looked reasonable for a slabbed 1860 mule which was showing signs of lustre, but it was difficult to confirm the variety from the existing images. I enquired about better images of the coin and in the sellers defense he provided them very quickly and courteously. The issue is that it is my opinion that this is a toothed/toothed border farthing which it would appear has been incorrectly slabbed by PCGS (a verification check on the cert number does show this to be in the PCGS database as a mule). It does not bear the signs of a beaded border reverse and the single rock to the left of the lighthouse confirms this fact. I write this post to try and inform potential buyers of my opinion, and I have written to the seller in the hopes that by showing comparisons he will agree with the error and pursue this with PCGS.

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.

I really did not want to weigh in anymore on this subject inasmuch as my purchasing and returning the coin speaks for itself..... However, I think some of the focus is being lost, although Bob C. (RLC35) has made an attempt to place this subject back on track.... The question is, as I see it, "Is the coin an Mule (TB/BB) or not... As the Royal Mint used ONLY Round Beaded Border reverse or Toothed Beaded Border reverse, and at NO time ever used a PARTIALLY BEADED BORDER reverse, the question to be answered is which variety this is.... Creating a NEW name of a reverse to address a specific situation does NOT resolve this question. Calling a duck a swan, does not make it so. In the interest of full disclosure, I believe there has been a recent discovery of a Mule (TB/BB) struck with an Obverse 3 die (instead of the documented Obverse 2), but with the same Reverse A... As the question regarding THIS coin involves the REVERSE, the subject is moot. This coin needs to be examined without the slab, by someone who specializes in this subject, and whose expertise is uninmpeachable. (Michael Freeman has been suggested, and as a impartial observer whose book is considered the BIBLE of Bronze coinage, is an excellent choice), If indeed, after the coin is examined, the determination is that the coin IS a mule, as PCGS has certified on two occasions, then the coin MUST be accepted as such by all, with apologies in order to the OWNER/SELLER and to PCGS..... More importantly, to both the current owner and/or any potential buyer; should, after EXPERT examination, the determination be that the coin is NOT the certified variety; WILL PCGS GUARANTEE THE COIN AND PURCHASE IT BACK????? If PCGS stands by its current assessment of the coin (certified as a MULE TB/BB) and an interested party purchases the coin and has it examined by ACKNOWLEDGED & RESPECTED EXPERTS (such as Michael Freeman, the staff of Colin Cooke, the British Museum, the Royal Mint, etc), and their determination is that the coin is NOT the certified variety; WILL PCGS GUARANTEE THE COIN AND PURCHASE IT BACK????? It all boils down to whether PCGS will guarantee 100% that this coin IS a TB/BB mule, or will PCGS attempt to create a NEW variety, "Toothed / PARTIAL Beaded Border", a variety that does not exist and was never struck, to explain something that is most likely merely the result of as worn die...... A decision that would be viewed as a "cop-out" or evading the issue by most collectors, and would not instill confidence in the numismatic community. Another question arises as a result of the dispute regarding this coin. Inasmuch as a severe doubt has been placed upon the accuracy of this certification and has therefore hindered the sale of an EXTREMELY RARE COIN IN EXCEPTIONALLY CHOICE CONDITION: Will PCGS arrange for an EXPERT ( or EXPERTS), knowledgeable in this series, impartial to the controversy, whose determination would be unimpeachable, to examine this coin, outside of the slab, AND to accept his/her/their decision as absolute??? And, should that determination be that the coin is NOT as certified, will PCGS stand by its GUARANTEE and purchase the coin back from the owner at its fair market value??? Or will PCGS stand behind its Grade Designation (not in question or disputed) and claim that the INCORRECT VARIETY designation was a "Clerical Error"??? Another decision that would be viewed as a "cop-out" and would not instill confidence in the numismatic community. At this juncture, I believe the time is right and the neccessity exists for PCGS to state, in public, in UNEQUIVOCAL and UNAMBIGUOUS terms, exactly what its guarantee is regarding this coin, so as to provide, ANY and ALL, past, present, and future owners of this coin the peace of mind that their investment in a RARE coin is secure as to designation......

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

Josie, I know how you feel, I was really unsure about what to do with this item. Do you ignore it and let people bid on something that is not what it appears to be with the view that it is buyer beware. The problem with that is that it is a lot of money for someone to invest into something when it is not what it seems. I sympathise with the seller because they are stuck with the item and the error is not theirs. I sent a polite e-mail to the seller stating my view and explaining the features that are found on a beaded border reverse and referred them to the coins in Colin Cookes collection and the comparisons on my site. I even offered to put something in writing if they did want to take the issue up with the grading company. I am not interested in trying to bad mouth sellers and I have no problems with this seller who has been courteous and efficient in their response throughout the process, and I have to admit if I was in their position I would probably treat my e-mail with a bit of suspicion and would want to check it out before deciding what to do, but I feel as a member of the numismatic community that I should advise people of my opinion. I also would not put this opinion forward unless I was sure of my comments.