1949threepence

Ian, I'm not convinced that is a dot on your 1897. It's very tiny, and typical of any number of minor faults seen under magnification in the fields of a coin that age. The 1909 dot is similar to the 1897 (main) dot, although personally, I think it's just a co-incidence that it's in the same area of the coin as your 1897. I very much doubt that it's the same die, 12 years later. The above is only my opinion and I appreciate others may differ considerably.

I agree. CGS75 is about MS63 on the Sheldon scale, so nice, and a very reasonable price.

I'd say near VF. There's a lot of contact marks on the obverse, and on the whole it doesn't look that brilliant. You might get a collector who'd want it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Really, I think bullion value only would be a realistic way of looking at it.

EF+ Copper, I'd say 1853, 1854 or 1858 - probably £80 or so. GEF + Bronze Viccy, as you say 1901. But as far as buns are concerned, probably 1890 or 1891. Maybe also 1887, as they don't seem too scarce in high grade. I reckon you could get one for about £100.

Thanks Bob, that's incredibly useful correspondence.

Well yes and no. Firstly I totally agree with Jerry's remarks above regarding this specific point. I'd also say that "die errors" arguably include such worthy items as the 1862 penny from halfpenny dies, the 1860 beaded border/toothed border mules, and certainly include the 1861 and 1862 8 over 6, plus 6 over 8 types, which were doubtless a result of the die repairer forgetting that the figures should be the other way round on the die. They may be errors, but they are very obvious and tangible errors, which have attracted a huge premium. Conversely, differences arising from worn and filled/clogged dies, have not - one exception being the 1897 dot between the O and N of ONE PENNY. Freeman lists this as a unique variety (No 147), and as such, it too, attracts a premium, despite the fact there is evidence to show that it was the result of a die problem, and that some specimens show only the merest trace of a blemish in that area.

Theoretically it could have have been either scenario. When such a penny - from a worn or filled die - was first minted, it might have shown faint traces of the H which did, as you say, wear out completely over time. Or, less likely, there was literally no trace at all to the naked eye. At any rate, I think we can safely assume that it was never the intention to produce the 1876 penny minus the H, as no 1876 pennies were struck at the London mint. They were all struck at the Heaton mint.

Just as a rider to the above. In his book "The Bronze coinage of Great Britain", Michael Freeman says that the lighthouse is believed to represent the Eddystone Lighthouse (which is about 12 miles SSW of Plymouth Sound), and the ship is thought to represent "The Golden Hind" (Drake's 16th century ship which circumnavigated the globe).

"Britannia rules the waves" - in the Victorian era the British empire was truly at its height, and we actually did "rule the waves". The reverse design of the bun penny features Britannia seated and the accompanying ship and lighthouse reflect the ruling the waves sentiment (fact as well). That would be my theory at any rate, although I must confess I can't find too much written down about it.

It was listed as a curiosity. A tooled ordinary narrow date I suspect. This is how London Coins described it:- 01/06/2014 Auction 145 English Coins Lot 1921 Penny 1875 Freeman 80 dies 8+H a curious piece with an H mintmark skilfully added below the date (the Heaton mint coins were all produced with Reverse J, the wider date spacing) , EF and lustrous, the obverse with uneven tone £46

I agree with both of those gentlemen. Of course, the nearest we get to a filled or worn die on the higher grade 1876, is an unbarred H. The only examples I've seen of those are on the commoner narrow date specimens.

I can now - displaying fine.

I've only recently started re-posting on here after a long break of well over a year, and to my surprise I haven't seen hide nor hair of Peckris, who used to be an absolutely prolific poster. Would it be impertinent to ask what's become of him - if anybody knows?

....but issues on my Sony Xperia M4 phone. Can't see the link on there at all....

The link to Catawiki on this site, and the Catawiki site itself, both display perfectly on my Android powered 2013 Nexus 7 tablet, now operating on Android v6 - Marshmallow.

Well done Matt, it's the same as that 2007, and therefore obviously a fake. But unlike the usual types, it's clearly imprinted and not an obvious botch job like most.

Can't see it

Nice one - well done !!!

I reckon Cliff's probably is a Bb, as is mine, pictured here, although the diagonal stroke of the three from the top of the five, is pretty much absent from mine.

Congratulations on your new role, Matt - well deserved

Yep, and thanks to David RJ for adding me. I'll have a proper look tomorrow

I'd go for GEF/UNC - disappointing carbon spot in the O of FLORIN. Nice coin generally, though

That doesn't surprise me at all. It's a superb item, and I doubt a better one exists. Far from a lunatic, more a very wise investment. Not to mention the kudos of holding such a high end piece.

Not a problem, just sound business sense and exactly what I would do if I was him.

It's obviously (and understandably) causing confusion, so hopefully it will be better signposted in the near future so that the difference between the two functions is crystal clear and hits you in the eye as soon as you see them.