Leaderboard

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

Inherited some coins, would be great if someone could give me insight into the value of these coin!

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.

You have done very very well! Edward VII halfcrowns in high grades are worth good money. Let me get the least valuable out of the way first: the two 1902 coins might just about get £100 each, the 1910 perhaps £250, though more to the right buyer. All but two of the others - 1906/7/8/9 - would be worth at least £300-£400 each, maybe more if we could see bigger pictures (the difference between EF and Uncirculated is the difference between e.g. £300 and £700). Now for the best news: the 1904 - if nearer to UNC than EF has got to be worth well over £1000. The 1903 is the rarest (after 1905 which you don't have); it may have been cleaned, but should still be worth between £1500 and £2500, though it would be good to see bigger pictures. Can you post a larger picture of each coin? You'll need to make several posts to get round the size limit for each separate post.

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

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 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

Not an error mentioned in Withers for your Edward I - there’s an unbarred TAII mentioned for Edward II, but that’s all. I can have a look to see what North has, but that’ll have to wait for now as I’m off to work.

Welcome @D.Urra, Unlike your lovely EVII half crowns, these Victoria pennies are almost worthless. Even in great condition they are only worth a little, and those 3 have pretty much had it.

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.

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.

Its just a F82 for me.

I am no expert on these but by comparing with @secret santa's site I would agree, this is not High tide. I see there is a link on the PCGS page to report errors - is that worth a try?

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.

I found another graded example (PCGS this time), which i believe to be misattributed. Can other please confirm or deny my suspicion? https://www.pcgs.com/cert/56163554

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

The 1887 shilling is the commonest of the Jubilee head shillings as it was the first year of issue and many were put aside as souvenirs. The lower one is in much better condition than the other. There are variations to watch out for, which I am not up on, so I would leave it to others to identify if you have any there. Value is better than silver value (0.925), but I have not watched these dates at auction for some years, so hopefully someone else can chip in.

These are fairly standard low grade GV florins. I don't see anything scarce in there. Value is basically the silver value - they are 50% silver so around £65 total for the 7 on todays silver price.

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

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 .......

Another trial.

Ever since Michael Freeman gave a degree of "validation" to this sort of flaw by recording the 1897 Dot as F147, more and more examples have been found. The following is an excerpt from the page on Dot pennies on my rarest pennies site. https://rarestpennies.wordpress.com/scarce-dot-pennies/ There are many examples of pennies with small raised circular “dots” on either the obverse or reverse, now thought to be caused by a rust spot on a working die which eventually is removed by successive strikes leaving an incuse area which produces the raised flaw when creating the coin (see my article in Coin News June 2022 quoting Paul Holland's investigations into the cause).

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 😅.

Gary, I have to say I agree with your comments, and would add that by definition a "mule" is an obverse and reverse that were not intended to be paired, however due to some reason (probably an error) during the period of transition, some coins have been produced with a mismatch of intended obverse and reverse die pairings. If PCGS are defining the beaded designation by some partial beadings on the border then this does not constitute a mule. Whilst the labelling on the slab, would be interpreted by many collectors as detailing an example of the established mule variety, the labelling on the slab does not indicate it as a mule whilst the accompanying letter certainly does. They can call it what they wish, but it should not be clearly described as something it is not.

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 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......

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

I sent him a note, when I saw he had purchased the Mule. Bob C.