1949threepence

I know some people like them, and I concede they very much have certain positive attributes, but they're not for me. I like the feel of the actual coin itself.

A new (for me anyway) and convincing way of recognition. Well done Jon, that's a real bargain.

The $64,000 question, Terry.

Yep, you're right. The one is definitely over a tooth. It just looked at first glance as though the P of Penny was to a gap not a tooth. I need to get me teeth and gaps sorted.

Jon, I know these are a sod to tell apart, but I think that may be a 177 - P of Penny to a gap and colon between GRA and BRITT to a tooth. I hope one of the experts corrects me, I'm wrong, and it's a 175 or 176.

14 years later I know, but I use the same method as the guy in this video

Very interesting. This particular variation is noted in the January 1971 edition of Coin Monthly. It's in an article entitled "Coin Varieties - pennies", by A,J.Braybrook, on pages 50 to 53. "1944 light toned, waves clear of exergue, Second 4 points to middle of waves" Here's a photo of the relevant bit:-

No problem - this is one difference I recognise immediately.

By the way, that's a cracking specimen, Pete.

Sounds a plausible explanation, Terry.

Definitely a 160, Chris. Here's a 161 - you can see immediately that the E of penny is tilted slightly clockwise and therefore out of alignment with the P. Yours is not:-

Sorry, that should of course be upright E of PENNY.

With the 160 it's PE - the upright P of penny points to a gap. The 161 is the EN. It has the E turned slightly clockwise, is now over a border tooth, and looks out of alignment with the P. The difference is clearly visible to the naked eye even when the two are not side by side. The scarcity of the 164A in high grade is relatively easily explainable. But with the rest, it's more complex. It may be something to do with the comparative scarcity of two or more year varieties in relation to each other. It might be connected to how many of the year itself have been collected in high grade, in the absence of collector knowledge at the time. If many, then inevitably, by random chance, there will be a few of the scarcer varieties amongst them. But I can't explain the 160 being difficult to find in high grade - it's got a C rating, so it hsouldn't have been as difficult as it was. Maybe it was just my personal experience which was out of kilter.

At the end of the day, Blake, it's up to each collector to decide and set their own personal parameters, which may, in each individual case, increase or decrease over time. When I first started collecting pennies seriously, nearly 10 years ago now, I never imagined I would develop such a completist mindset during the intervening period. At that point, I would have said that one decent 1908 (for example) would have been enough. But as my interest deepened, so did the completist side. I suppose if something is worth doing, then it's worth doing well - and you only succeed by relentless pursuit of your ultimate objective. With regard to the different types and their popularity/notoriety, the clincher is what has charisma, and what doesn't. As you say, the 1890 dropped 90, is arguably a type in and of itself. Certainly recognised by Gouby, as we know. But not one which attracts a lot of attention. Conversely the 1934 missing waves, creates a bit more fuss. Moreover, you only have to look at what brings in the big money. Compare and contrast the F90, 1877 narrow date penny with an 1881H Freeman 103. The 103 is probably rarer than the F90, but head to head at auction, we both know the F90 is going to draw in the greater number of punters and get the most money. Probably because it's instantly recognisable. If a die No 1 under date ever does appear, it'll no doubt fetch in excess of £20k. Although maybe there isn't a Die No 1. Perhaps they considered the normal dies to be "No 1" and started at No 2. All very interesting and worthy of discussion.

Again, found the 160 surprisingly difficult to get in high grade. 161 very easy.

Maybe not, but perhaps the mindset was different then. Besides which, I'd say that if it's an obviously intentional difference, or differences, such the the progression through four types, of the F164, 164A, 165 and 166, then they are distinct types, albeit the differences are slight, but nonetheless recognisable. This surely lends importance. If Peck had discovered and published details of the 164A in 1958, I'd lay odds there's be a lot more around than there currently are. Same with mules where there are obviously incompatible reverse/obverse pairings. There have been enough minted for us to know that the minting was intentional, whether due to a broken obverse/reverse die necessitating the temporary substitution of an out of date die, or other reason. Same again with overstrikes whether intentional as a result of "good housekeeping", or arising from operator error. They are all distinct types which have gained popularity over the decades. Where it starts to get flaky is with tiny unintended differences such as sloping final ones on the 1861 or the far 4 on an 1864 crosslet. Quite a lot of these minor variations around - of interest, but not so much as to warrant separately trying to categorise them.

Maybe he did, Richard, but wasn't too enthusiastic about including it as a distinct variety. I've just found this post made by Chris Perkins in August 2015, and quoting Michael Freeman's letter to him. In it, Mr Freeman states (extract):- So we nearly didn't get Reverse I by the sounds, which might have meant F69's and 76's being discovered by someone else - Gouby assigning a different number, perhaps.

Thanks, that's really interesting. Court's estimate of circa 55,500 examples minted, may not be too far off the mark. Clearly the overwhelming majority of these will have gone in the melt as I imagine not too many specimens would have been collected between February 1969 and demonitisation. Does anybody know of any evidence of them being sold by dealers, as a separate entity, at any point between 1969 and the 1971 demonetisation?

Yes, indeed. What is obvious is that the younger members are very enthusiastic, but also very naive. With the amount of unofficial trade that takes place on these sites (most of it tat to be honest) some could be ripped off by paying unrealistic prices for junk and/or overgraded items. This is where the older more experienced members, myself included, come in, with useful advice. Martin Platt is a member of one of the groups, and gave some very sound advice to other members - as might be expected from someone with his breadth of knowledge. Although I haven't seen much of him recently.

You can post as a guest here, but you have to have some vestige of interest to even look for the forum. My point with facebook is that it reaches out to a very wide audience - billions globally - and there are many coin groups on it. Not just in the UK but around the world. None of them are difficult to join. With many, the applicant is added immediately via robotics. You personally may not want to accept a FB invitation, but respectfully, you are of a different generation to the one I'm referring to. Many of them will join a given group, take a quick look at the contributions, and either stay, or leave the group immediately because it's of no interest to them. I do think FB provides an ideal platform, and by logical extension, ease of access to any interest, coins included, to the young people Terry initially referred to.

I'm not sure what was 'diversionary' about it. I was simply expanding on the very valid point made by Terry about young people finding their way into the hobby. People are either invited onto facebook groups by existing friends, or they are presented from time to time, with various options to join groups presented to them by facebook itself, and ask to join of their own volition. The point was about young people joining the hobby. Facebook helps to facilitate this and stimulate interest. As do other internet groups. There always have been and always will be, reclusive individuals. Actually the internet is great for such types as they can join in, but also stay anonymous. Or even just 'lurk' on a hobby site like this, and not participate as such, but merely observe and learn.

The really outstanding thing about coin collecting is that the rules never change. What you picked up as knowledge aged 8, will still be the same when you're 80. The coin you saved aged 8, will still look the same when you're 80. It's solid, real and long lasting. Unlike internet games which are transient and ever changing. Most will be forgotten in a few years. Judging by the coin groups on facebook, there are quite a few young people under 25 getting into the hobby, as well as some more experienced collectors. A blend of youth and experience, to use a footballing analogy - and guess what, pennies are popular !

Great point, Terry. Although more have turned up in recent years, inevitably the supply will soon rapidly dwindle, as the vast majority of existing 1908's will have been examined. Also, all the current specimens will have been bought by collectors and most of them won't re-appear for sale, for some considerable time. The comparative rarity can almost be assessed by the scarcity in high grade. Obviously there were many collectors pre melt, and stretching right back down the decades. Many of them will have collected high grade and UNC 1908's, of which a lot are still around and turn up fairly regularly. The fact that none of them are 164A's points to their rarity, as surely the odd one or two would have been randomly collected in UNC. Obviously, the vast majority will be 166's - even the 164's and 165's not being anywhere near as common as the 166.

Ah, I see there is something in the small print about the letter. Missed that earlier. Yes, would be very interesting to see it, Pete.

As far as the high grade examples are concerned, I meant their rarity as a percentage of the total No of 164A's. We know Terry's got one in about EF. But that's the highest grade I know of for a 164A. There's a few at about fine to good fine, but all the rest of the known one's (or the known one's we know about, if you see what I mean) are sub fine. Mostly just VG. So based on that, I'd say that the percentage of high grade 164A's in the extant population of 164A's as a whole, is probably <1% of the total. There probably are a few more high grade ones out there, but if there are, they don't seem to be visible. Given the passage of time, you'd have thought they might have shown up by now, given that virtually all high grade 1908's will have been earmarked and examined by now. Although admittedly Terry's was a recent discovery.