Rob

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't. Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies. But that's exactly what I said, Rob... that an 1860 copper issue was a rush-job, as they thought the bronze might not get issued in time. When it was (albeit in smaller quantities than anticipated) they might have felt able to melt down what was a very much larger copper issue which was being held in reserve, but then not needed. The precious few 1860 coppers that DID get issued might well have been souvenirs that evaded the meltdown, perhaps as thank you's to everyone involved in getting the bronze out just in time? A bit of topic drift here. The original point I was making was not the circumstances under which they were made, rather the differences between the normally seen coins and this inverted die axis piece. I still haven't seen anything to reassure me that it is kosher to date. It wil be interesting to see what it goes for and who is bidding in the room.

I'm a member of the South Manchester which meets in the Nursery on Green Lane, 1st and 3rd Monday of each month (Sept - June). Alternatively you have the Lancs and Cheshire which meets at Manchester Museum on certain Saturdays, but I'm not sure which ones.

Quite a lot of reds up Newton Heath way too.

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't. Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies.

I agree. Chronologically, the inverted one would have to be the later strike given the recutting seen, but the consistency of the teeth doesn't fit with die blockage as it is too consistent. The overall mushy hair worries me too. We need someone with a database of no.WW penny images to input here. The die clash ought to be known somewhere on an 1859 penny as all the 1860s show this as far as I am aware.

Agreed, but I'm not convinced it is (genuine).

The cleaned one is a later striking if genuine because the R of VICTORIA has been recut. The lettering is thinner in general on the good one. So if later, where did the second line on the fillet come from? If you were going to add that later, you would at least re-engrave the hair in front of the earhole which has all the attributes of a copy.

Mushiness of the hair in front of the ear, extra line to the back fillet, thicker lettering on the obverse legend, less clear hair detail in the bun area. All raise questions.

The raised dot below the ear on the left coin is not in the centre. On my screen the dot is 56mm from the bottom edge, but 65mm from the top edge. As the thicker letters suggest the left one is the later coin, there is no dot on the right one, so should be a rust spot if genuine.

It has definitely been cleaned. The worrying thing for me is that the teeth on the 2 obverses are nothing like the same. Given they both have to be derived from the same obverse die given the clash below the chin and the flaw below the bun, why are they so different when there is very little apparent wear? Does anyone know how many dies were used for this date, or are there any other examples with the features of the inverted axis coin? Chingford?

Absolutely, I agree that it is a poor term to use - but I think all the TPGs use it, not just CGS. With low populations it inevitably leads to silly situations, like this 1826 'finest known' 6d, which is graded as 10 (VG) http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=retailv2_details&uin=0028502 So presumably this was just another example of a dodgy coin on ebay? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-R2-1826-SIXPENCE-George-IV-Silver-6d-Six-Pence-coin-S-3814-Garter-522-/271567703887?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D23775%26meid%3D8807698347321956939%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D10165%26rk%3D7%26rkt%3D10%26sd%3D180734551614&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=Tv947VbiGYL8mqe7nGt%252BtQqHyqU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Anyone with any ideas on this? Given the anomalies and the hefty price tag likely, I thought there might be some interest. You see, this is what happens when people post a topic like this and don't include a link. I have Googled in vain and the only reference to LCN pennies auction is this thread which is first in the Google list. Nothing else. PLEASE people, if you're going to post things like this, POST A LINK WITH IT. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2666&f=o&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2666&f=r&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2667&f=o&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2667&f=r&s=l The lack of interest could be that pennies are old hat having been discussed to death.

Anyone with any ideas on this? Given the anomalies and the hefty price tag likely, I thought there might be some interest.

Thank you Paul for your kind comments. One thing I have always believed in is to sell a coin on the same basis as you assessed it when you bought it. I don't particularly care what someone calls a coin as it may or may not be in agreement with my own view. I just try not to move the goalposts. Accuracy and consistency are probably helped if you have emotional attributes of a brick. Society today virtually demands that the populace be nannied and controlled. Everyone has to have empathy with everything else. Laws are continually passed to regulate our behaviour because we are unable (apparently) to do this responsibly ourselves. In a little outpost of the universe called numismatics, we find that some people are brainwashed into insisting that only the views of an anonymous person or two (graders) who say that a coin is so and so good, count. To overcome any residual doubts we may have, an independent body says 'Hey, it really is that good'. The basic problem is one of personal inadequacy, whether perceived or real and the human desire to be loved/thought highly of in which an individual doesn't take a decision for fear of being wrong or being disliked, whether it be buying a coin in this case, or any number of situations that have hit the news over the years. Think major cockups and subsequent resignations after a healthy payout has been negotiated, brushing ineffectual leadership under the carpet etc, where a new broom taking over means that nobody is really held accountable and nothing changes at the coal face. Grade inflation is not only a problem of the unscupulous dealer or lenient grader, but also a problem of the individual who wants to own something that may not be easily achievable, and so we get 'for issue' appended to the grade. If everybody wants a mint state or uncirculated coin, then the market will adjust the grades to satisfy the demand by continuing to call an increasing level of wear mint state, such as MS60 on the Sheldon scale, which may not be as good as a British EF. It has long been obvious that the only way to get eyeballs to view a lot on eBay is to call something uncirculated. It is also obvious that an awful lot of people believe in what is said. Sellers are simply pandering to buyers' wishes. Rant to be continued.....

'And remember that all equally graded coins are not equal. What we really need is for CGS to form a relationship with WINGS so we can be sure that we're buying a coin we like. That CGS 85 just ain't doing it for me unless it's got a WINGS sticker on it mate. No.' What we really need to do is get people to connect their brain with their eyes and heart, then there won't be any doubt that we are buying a coin that we like. I get the impression that a significant number of people are buying a coin that they have been told they will/must like. Not the same thing.

Me too. So now I'm sitting on the Naughty Step. Wearing a plastic case of course I would have thought plastic mac to be more appropriate. I can think of quite a few naughty steps across the world where you would be very popular with this attire.

I can see that a dealer would accept a return within say 7 or 14 days if the customer is not happy and you will struggle to find a dealer who wouldn't, but it is an entirely different matter if the return depends on whether a TPG will slab something because they are not infrequently a loose cannon when it comes to grading or rejecting, though CGS are better than the US companies for British Coins. Bottom line is that if you want a coin in a CGS slab you can always buy it through their list as you will cut out the uncertainty.

I haven't slabbed a coin with them, but couldn't resist the temptation to look, despite your instructions. I would like to congratulate them on providing the easiest slab to open of all the TPGs, thus reducing the risk of damage to the coin.

I'm surprised nobody raised the question of the two 1860/59 pennies in this sale. One has an inverted die axis while the other is conventional. The inverted one is cleaned, the normal one is quite a good example with only the barest friction to a few high points, and by that I do mean only a trace of wear. The inverted one raises a few questions, not least, why does it exist? The reverse also has Britannia with an unusually full right breast as this is normally quite flat. The colons are a different size and the legend at BRITANNIAR is somewhat spindlier on one compared to the other. The earhole is a bit different. The obverse beads are a little bulkier. The obverse legend is thicker on the inverted one. There is a raised dot below the ear on the inverted one which is not on the normal one. If this is a rust spot then the inverted one must be later. The second fillet has a pair of parallel lines whereas the normal one doesn't. Not sure what to think other than it seems a little odd and flags up a potential problem. Are all these struck from the same die pair as far as is known? The two examples in this sale would appear not to be.

With it being a no WW coin found only on coins dated 1858 to 1860, there shouldn't be any underlying digit for an overdate. Any apparent overstrike will be a deeper punch cut slightly off centre to the initial one. Dies frequently had their legend and/or date reinforced when they became blocked through prolonged use. If a hardened die was repaired in this fashion, the repair is usually seen slightly displaced as the metal will be more difficult to work. Also, there is a relatively small chance the same punch will be used for the repair as was used to cut the die in the first place, so it may well have slightly different dimensions to the original. Not a variety in my opinion as it is just normal wear and tear.

I think the centre ground of English politics, which accounts for the majority of non-affiliated voters, will by and large move to ensure that neither side has more than a short term monopoly on power. Blair was a reaction to Thatcherism, Cameron is a reaction to Brown's/Balls economic mismanagement. In an ideal world you would give politicians the position but no power as they are rarely capable of using it responsibly for the masses, preferring to pander to their own supporters.

Unfortunately you are right. Only Coin News is indexed in the Guide to British & Irish Periodicals 1836-1995 pt.2

One might think that would be true, but apparently it isn't. Here's some analysis I found: The belief that Scottish independence would consign the rest of the UK to permanent Conservative government is one that inspires hope among Tories and despair among Labour. But both overestimate the influence of Scotland on general elections. On no occasion since 1945 would independence have changed the identity of the winning party and on only two occasions would it have converted a Labour majority into a hung parliament (1964 and October 1974). Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1945 (with a majority of 143, down from 146), in 1966 (75, down from 98), in 1997 (137, down from 179), in 2001 (127, down from 166) and in 2005 (43, down from 66). I think the demise of Labour governments is just wishful thinking. I would expect the prospect of more Tory governments to squeeze the Lib-Dems, who are essentially left of centre anyway and merge their votes with Labour.

<cough> I did once... But it was long time ago... And i almost forgot about it... I was referring to the grade/price combined with the problems. As we all know not all fines, VFs EFs or UNCs are equal.

You get a vote to leave the UK in November. I thought you had already done that? Rob, We left The UK in July...not November! LOL! Our General Election is in November. When does the Scotland vote take place? September 18th. Personally, I'm not too fussed which ever way it turns out. If Scotland decides to go it alone, then they will have to be treated as any other small foreign country. I think they are doing something for dogmatic rather than practical reasons. I take the view that the status quo is not worth changing unless you have a demonstrable improvement (say 10% or more) in profitability, living standards or whatever. The upheaval isn't worth a marginal increase, and if even that is in doubt then you should leave well alone. On the plus side, an independent Scotland will be self-sufficient in food for certain as Salmond has a large enough chip on his shoulder to feed the world - that's if he can overcome his own ego.