Accumulator

Cheers, Paulus...there's a fair bit in there you'd like I reckon!Just looking through it now! Me too. For example he has a simply gorgeous 1806 penny : priced as a Proof; looks like a Proof; but strangely not described as a Proof. Certainly their prices are reasonable Peck 1350, a Taylor restrike (R97). Common, so wait until one comes along without the lamination flaw in the obverse field. I'd noticed this penny earlier but been put off by the flaw… shame, it's nice otherwise.

2.00 in the morning and a rather succinct answer... A heavy night, Rob?

I'm glad you didn't say beaver! Obviously I made a typo and meant to say something completely different, but it's too late to edit now you've quoted me! I believe you - millions wouldn't! I'll get my coat...

For merde?

I'm glad you didn't say beaver! Obviously I made a typo and meant to say something completely different, but it's too late to edit now you've quoted me!

I'm glad you didn't say beaver!

Snap, David! We're in danger of reaching a consensus.

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion. With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion? Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading In the case of pennies, the so called 'narrow date versions' of 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1879 are from totally different dies to their normal or wide date counterparts, with other design changes being incorporated too. I don't think these can be considered in the same way as otherwise identical dies, where just the date position is altered. The former are separately listed in Spink and, I believe, should be included in any reasonably detailed price guide. The latter are for specialist publications like Gouby. Edit: I think Rob has just said the same.

I'm sure we'd all appreciate some pictures, if you were able to post these

It sounds like you might have some nice coins there. I'm sure, however you choose to sell, there will be members here interested (I'm always looking for pennies ). Good luck.

I kind of agree with you on many of the micro varieities, but I think the O'NE should be included. It has been in Sprink for a long time, and has a value of 100-1500 pounds! I concur with Vicky. Whilst the collecting of serifs present or not, digit wide or not quite so wide etc has a place in die studies, including these varieties is a very long piece of string. You could probably have a volume the size of Freeman just to list the bronze post-1860 even after cutting out the blurb. I also think that it should be restricted to genuinely intentional design changes or mint corrections as these are deliberate mint actions. Filled stops and the various states of these are nothing more than general wear and tear, which whilst not infinite in number, would rapidly feel so. The O'NE flaw is one such variety and I don't think value should have any bearing on whether it is listed or not. That it is so highly valued is a complete mystery to me, as is the midge's narrower 3 in 1863. IMHO, nothing resulting from die use should be included as a variety. I completely agree about the O'NE (and any other damaged die 'varieties'), but you both seem to be talking at cross purposes about any micro-varieties which aren't due simply to wear or damage. Are you saying that the Gouby X, to take just one example, shouldn't be included Rob? Vicky clearly is.

I completely agree. As well as helping to avoid counterfeits, provenance adds significantly to the history of the piece.

Nice coin Benny! Beautiful coin!

If you ever need a hand to produce a list of the main collected varieties of 20thC pennies, do let us know?

NEF for me too

I seem to have been lucky then! Sent by carrier from the US for free. I know I've spent some money with them over the last year, but not that much!

Just ordered mine. Thanks Chris!

You're right Nick, I was rather fortunate, especially as the survival of early parish records in many areas is perhaps only 50%. There are, of course, many other records, manorial rolls, hearth tax returns etc, etc. but linking these to specific ancestors is often very difficult indeed. It did help that I stuck to researching only the male line (i.e. followed my surname) rather than branching off down any maternal lines. One big tip is not to rely on indexes, but to check original records wherever possible. It's amazing what contemporary pencil notes and anecdotes you can find in the margins or parish registers that help to add context to the bare facts.

There's definitely a transitional obverse between (Freeman) 2 & 3, which has been discussed in depth here before, though I can't find the thread at the moment. I did notice the fishtail, but put this down, possibly, to the damage to the coin (heavy scratch).

Sorry, I should have clarified, I meant I don't share the information on the internet. I made copies of my research many years ago, which were freely distributed amongst the family, and I've corresponded with distant branches, from time to time, and shared the same information. I've found a few stories, nothing too horrific though! Actually, putting together 'a tree' is one thing, but adding detail, which makes the whole thing interesting is a far larger job, and one I still need to return to (something to keep me busy in retirement I expect).

Doh...I only just got that one... Do share the joke! I was being quite serious. I've stopped using my mother's maiden name on most sites ever since my sister started doing genealogy on ancestry.com and posting family details that anyone who had quite basic details could research. I thought you were joking about the fact that if you were using your mothers maiden name on a genealogy site that it may not be the best security question...I should read more thoroughly However you have reminded of another issue, just because you may be happy for your tree and the information within to go public, do not assume that all family members will feel the same. Family history can be an emotive subject and it highly possible that you may stumble across information that needs handling with discretion. Invite family members to it by all means but I would never publicise my tree. All very valid points, and I'm certainly not about to publish mine. Most of my work was completed about 20 years ago… all the way back to 1560, so an awful lot of data! I've found that, much like coin collecting, the younger family members really aren't that interested in their ancestry. Maybe when they're older?

Link Absolutely stunning, I have just got back from A & E as I stumbled and twisted my ankle while gazing at it's beauty on my iPhone. Stunning is right. The doctor diagnosed severe concussion, so I have to take it easy for quite a while now. One side is almost mint, while the other is dirty and worn. Nothing that a bit of wire wool and some elbow grease won't cure. Beautiful coin otherwise. One that would sit proudly in any collection.

I've never gone for them myself, but the cased proof/vip year sets always seem to sell well at auction. Apart from the common ones like '37 & '53 they get a little pricey though!

Hmmm… it's not easy, but I favour obverse 3, based mainly on the shape of the bust profile, where it adjoins the border, and the rose overlaying the border circle. Here's one (not a great pic as it's in a plastic tomb, but it is UNC85):

As a lad, I collected date runs of most denominations. I still have most of them, though many are not in the best condition! I did rather majored on pennies and half-crowns, so these were better. Since returning to the hobby I've focussed solely on copper & bronze pennies from 1797 to 1970, though I have played with the idea of building up a crown collection too.