1949threepence

Outbid. Too rich for me. No way. I'm skint for the rest of this month anyway, as far as coins are concerned.

There's no attempt at grading, in coin books, with exceptionally rare coins. Just a line saying "very rare" where the grades should be.

Just as a quick addendum to the above, when azda showed us the 1875 coin below,at post No 65, on the rare bun penny thread, a few days ago, there was something about it which suggested, instinctively, that it was the real McCoy. Yet that looks damn near perfect. Maybe just not quite as mirror like flawless as the 1878.

It's one of those you have to see in the hand before you can finally pass judgement.....and even then..... Yes ~ I mean how often do you see a bun penny, even in UNC, where the lustre is mint perfect. The coin would have had to be hermetically sealed for well over a century, surely ? It's re-lustre-ing a coin ~ click here I've no idea how it's done, though. But I do have a coin which I think has been re-lustred. A silver one.

That's the trouble. It looks almost too good to be true

Interesting that Gouby doesn't actually seem to have an otherwise very high regard for variant date spacings. Gouby & date spacings

Thanks Tom. I'm inclining to the POV that it's genuine lustre, as there appears to be almost no wear whatever. Of particular note is the shield, which looks well nigh perfect. Yet those produced between the latter part of 1861 and 1881, had a slightly convex shield which wore very readily. Just wish I had the money this month to make a realistic bid for it. (unless, of course, it's a fake. Where's Falmer Palmer when you need him ?)

Is that a verified 1882 London Mint? (I.e. the obverse and reverse types are correct, as far as you can determine?) I have to disagree with your assessment of popularity. The London 1882 is a long-established and greatly sought-after rarity. As far as I know it is VERY rare (yours is the only one I've seen in the wild). Although it can be faked, it's a more distinct variety - i.e. a complete absence of the H mint mark - than simply the spacing of the date numerals. I'm prepared to bet it appears in more catalogues, going back a lot further. Yes, it meets the criteria necessary to be the NO H variety... See the image of the tuft of hair behind Victoria's head.... See information regarding determining the correct attribution of this variety on Tony Clayton's website...Link to Pertinent page on Tony Clayton's Website The 1882 penny without mintmark is particularly rare (and not in Peck), but watch for worn coins where the mintmark has been worn away. A variety with the bar missing from the H is known. The following is a description of how to tell a genuine 1882 no H from an 1882H penny, as kindly related by the Penny specialist Bernie: The identifiable features of the genuine non "H" 1882 penny are a flat shield on the reverse, NOT convex. Victoria has an apparent hooked nose, caused by a weak die strike in the area of the eyeball. The "R" and the "I" in "BRITT" should not be joined; a very small space should be visible with a magnifier. There is a tuft of hair protruding from the back of the neck, left of the ribbon knot. This tuft of hair is always visible on very worn specimens. The "H" variety can be clarified by examining the space encapsulated by the inner ribbon, as if the uppermost section forms a point in this triangulated section, then it is the common variety. The rare non "H" does not terminate in a point because of the tuft of hair mentioned above. I should add that there are two types of obverse and reverse for 1882H pennies, and that the 1882 No H penny has the less common types - having these characteristics does not ensure that it is a No H, but having the characteristics of the other types confirms that there was an H even if worn away. As a additional note, Spink has a specimen of this variety in it's next auction... Lot # 402 The bit I have emboldened, is a very useful piece of info. Thanks for posting it.

Although in fairness, we were talking about the 1882 no H in EF or better.

To be fair, it was rather better than that, the slab describing it as 'fine', although IMHO it was no more than a moderately adequate Fair. Still, I've seen worse, but not at £6k... Yes, you're right. I was perhaps slightly over egging the pudding there, by calling it a flat disc. But seriously, I am surprised anyone would pay that much for a badly worn coin, even a very rare one.

Unreal......why would anyone want to shell out £6k on a date only flat disc ? If he wants to sell it, he might have a pro9blem shifting it for the same price. Now that would be a nice purchase for £6k ~ an 1882 London Mint penny. Neat & re-saleable As far as collecting die coi8ns goes, I have sometimes thought idly about collecting all the die numbers possible from a given year in the 1867-79 shilling series. Maybe one of the commoner years, such as 1872.

Absolutely no surprise. It's a gorgeous coin. I'd have paid that for it, to be honest.

From my experience, collectors don't tend to look like flash Harry's.

It is mostly down to personal motivation, but at the same time, this is often aligned with collective imagination in terms of what particular varieties achieve widespread notoriety, and interest. Quoted for truth

Good point. Though I'm thinking of one Sunday recently when azda got into an enthusiastic verbal exchange and there were around twenty or more posts to go back through (including a change to an earlier page, just to add to the general hassle). If it had been the last topic posted to in that forum it wouldn't have mattered ,as I could have got where I wanted from the top level, but sadly it wasn't. I'll try messaging Chris as you suggest, but it's possible it's just a "feature" of this software. It could be. Many forums these days, use V bulletin, which does have the features you are after. But that said, I don't dislike IP Board. It does have some useful additions lacking on V bulletin.

For me personally, for a coin variant from the mass production for a given year, to be classed as a significant variety, it has to be:- 1) More than a die error 2) More than one or two letters pointing to a different dot or bead, which is only visible through a lens anyway. 3) More than just a tiny handful in existence. That's not really going to generate anything other than a very minute specialist market. 4) Frankly, more than the odd letter or so in the legend being elogated or curled, or whatever. Again, few of them are widely recognised, and they don't hit you in the eye. There are significant and well recognised varieties, such as the 1895 2mm, the 1902 low tide, the 1926 ME, which are easily visible to the naked eye, and of which enough were produced to generate a reasonable market amongst rank and file collectors. But once again, it's down to personal opinion and the collectability factor. Some coins have it, others don't. Whether, for example, the mainstream collector of pennies, will bother with anything from 1860, other than beaded and toothed border, or whether they will feel it's necessary for them to chase separate 1864's for plain and crosslet 4's, an 1865 5/3, an 1882 no H, an 1863 with die No, or an 1841 no colon after REG, is up for debate.

Just as a rider to what I put above, I have to say that on the whole, I find this forum very easily manageable. It's not ultra busy, so it's generally fairly easy to find where you were before, simply by going into your own profile and clicking on posts made. I've been on some very heavily trafficked forums, where there are hundreds of posts every minute of the day: threads can be created and drop right off the front page within a few minutes, if they get no replies. Now they can be tough to find your way round.

Seriously, I agree with you. Although as it doesn't massively inconvenience me, I'm not too bothered. Might be an idea to e mail Chris & see if he can organise a software update.

When I saw the thread title on the home page, it seemed to read "Infuriating forum behaviour by Peckris" minus a comma after the word "behaviour" I wondered what the heck Peck had been up to

Seems we might be heading that way anyway mate. Huge interest at the moment in date spacing and numeral form. Now I've typed that, makes me wonder if all the scary money for minor varities is coming from across the pond ? Well, what I thought was a relatively innocuous remark about the 1879 narrow date penny being, in my opinion, a "minor variety" certainly caused a bit of a stir, for whatever reason. At the end of the day, however, it has to come down to personal opinion. For example, I don't see the 1902 LT penny as a minor variety. I recognise that others may. So be it. What you say above about interest coming from across the pond, may well have an element of truth to it. I cannot imagine too many collectors in this country wanting to pay out a 4 figure sum for what is essentially a clear date only flat disc. That said, sustained interest in these types from the States, can only drive up prices here. Whether that's a good or bad thing, is debatable.

That was my assessment as well, Bob. Superlative example of the coin.

I absolutely couldn't agree more with the principles you espouse there, 400, and I also agree that no sane genuine collector, who collects for the love of the hobby, would shell out that kind of dosh for a very worn example of a minor variety. That said, of course, if there are individuals fool enough to part with large sums of money for what is little more than junk, then there will be no shortage of coin people willing to offload

Agreed. I think that's eduard's best bet for a higher price. I'd grade at about NEF, with obverse and reverse being very similar.

Dream on

There you go......Lot 2034 as referred to above. Not especially impressive IMO