1949threepence

To be fair, it's a difficult one to get out of, legally. The companies running those schemes are caught between a rock and a hard place. From a wider perspective, equality is equality. You can't cherry pick the best bits and reject the rest.

Can't see it now.

The problem arising from allowing concessions to waspi women is that there will obviously then be a further knock on effect to men who reach 66 when the ages are supposed to be equalised - from next year I believe, only to find that their age has gone up, but women of exactly the same age are getting a financial concession. Nothing then to stop those men taking action under sex equality legislation and demanding they get a concession back to 65. Where does it stop? I appreciate the process was accelerated for those women born between 1952 and 1954, but it was for men too, to bring forward equalisation at 66 for both sexes from 2020.

£495 as per Jerry's post above. Not unreasonable given the rarity.

Well done Blake - I'm still trying to get a F24. Difficult one.

And yet it's been reported that in traditionally Labour areas, many householders have said to activists who were doorstepping, that they couldn't vote for a party with Corbyn as the leader.

Agreed, I'll have to wait until I'm 68, so I don't see why they should get any further concessions. Besides which, it would have a knock on effect to the age group just below the waspi women, who would then say they were being unfairly treated.

The London Labour elite badly miscalculated the mood of the country as it stood outside the M25. Of course, the elephant in the room is that with a more credible leader, Labour would probably have strolled it.

Live and let die more like, Blake

The ones that I've crossed out I now have. Still on the lookout for the others. Thanks.

Nor me - even the image is a collector's piece. It'll be interesting to see what it fetches at auction.

There are clearly two completely different marks, albeit in the same general position (although, not precisely) on the 1946 penny. The one referred to as a footnote in Peck, page 518 of the 1964 edition, states: "Some specimens of this coin have a small raised dot (flaw) on the rev, high up after ONE (specimen in BM)' Freeman, at point No 36 on page 75 of Bronze Coinage of GB book dated 1985, states "Some specimens have a small elongated raised dot in the field above the E of 'ONE', caused probably by damage to the die" - the operative word being "elongated" - thus highlighting the apostrophe shape. The confusion seems to arise from the fact that the apostrophe shaped mark is referred to as a dot, the same as the actual dot penny shown by Bob, with the later excellent photo from Mick - but of course that dot is in a different place and is a different shape to the much more well known one referred to by Peck and Freeman.

Or is he referring to the apostrophe type? He only mentions one, and that is obviously the better known.

It is. I note that NGC is free in this respect though.

Thanks Bob. New discovery as far as most of us are concerned.

There you go then, Bob. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to get that 1946 dot penny published as a variety.

100% agreed.

I think what I mean is that a coin exhibiting, say, a single dot, such as the 1946 penny possessed by Bob, with no other known examples, is never going to be collectable by a group of competing collectors, as a) there is only one, and b) it isn't going to spark that much interest.

There's a strange irony about that. The very rare and the extremely rare are prized. But the one off otherwise unknown variety, is not. It isn't "collectable by collectors" as only one person can ever own it. I say "otherwise unknown" because if an 1863 die No 1 or 6 were to appear, it would be a one off, but part of a known family - so the same rules don't apply (as it were).

Could send you dotty....although I'm carrying on whatever, full stop.

Indeed. Here is a specimen:-

Mine too, Bob. *Adjacent to the 4th tooth after the E, whereas the dot on the pic above is adjacent to the 3rd tooth after. ETA * which you'd already said yourself in the post before the one I quoted..

That it is. So are we looking at two separate phenomena (for want of a better word)?