Accumulator

Saved gif images using Paint.NET by reducing top layer's transparency and combined these images using unFREEz. I do agree with you for the rim. Thank you, if I create other animations, I will increase the delay. This is the first time I present differences in coins using gif animation. It was easier to see how the denticles approaches the land near Britannia's foot. There are other small differences between them, but I am waiting to see if other members are able to find the long denticle. In my case, I only have one long denticle 1936 penny out of 17 coins. Very impressive indeed! It looks certain that the two coins display different length denticles and also a difference in the wave below Britannia's foot. That's yet another year for which I need to look through my old pennies - and for 1936 it's likely to be lots! Unfortunately, with holidays etc. it may be some time before I can do this. Another excellent candidate for your animation would be 1905. Dies B & C are subtly different, with the position of the 'E' in penny being the main change.

I didn't think to check the London Coins results, thanks! That second example of the F.76 is beyond awful. I can't imagine trying to examine a coin like that for anything!

There are very, very few coins that would save you having to find an honest day's work for the rest of your life. Possibly a Petition crown might relieve you of toil for a few years, otherwise you need to find something exceedingly rare from the US. Your coin might just pay for a pub lunch.

Welcome Kris, Its impossible to be 100% certain from the photographs, but the second picture suggests what I would immediately assume to be true. One side of a 1962 halfcrown has been hollowed out on a lathe and a second coin, also reduced on a lathe, has been let into the first. The join is just visible in places along the rim. I have a couple examples of this and I suspect many collectors do. They have no value except as a curiosity. Good for 'heads or tails' though

If you had time, and a few high-grade examples to hand, it would be interesting to look at the range of busts which are classified as Reverse 6. Here's some of the differences I've picked up in the past, with the help of a others on this forum: Different orientation of neckline rose More curved/straight line to rear of neck Berry in front/behind leaf of wreath Additional detail to hair in from of bun Double edge and extension to ear Larger gap between B of BRITT and hair Sharper nose Slight double chin These could be retouches to the die, of course. The following examples are from 1863 (on the left) and 1861

Pick up the tab, just the same?

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only. You have nicely summed up George VI brass threepence collecting in one paragraph. As for Elizabeth II, just to complete the list, I've added the 1953 type 2 obverse and the standard 1958 which seem to be scarcer in true BU than their mintage numbers would suggest. Perhaps the availability of the 'plastic set' gave a false impression that BU specimens of the '53 were fairly common and hence were not worth hoarding. But of course it was only the type 1 that came with the sets. As for the 1958, these seem to be weirdly scarce in true BU despite a mintage of over 20 million! My only guess is that they were issued in numbers sufficiently high as not to be perceived as worth collecting, only to then fall victim to the big meltdown after decimalisation. Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939, 1948 and 1953 type 2 obv. Not so easy to find - 1945 and 1958 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 The 1958 3d is one of those weird inexplicable cases - it was actually identified as a scarcity in BU before decimalisation, as was the 1946 halfpenny, and other strange items like the 1957S shilling (the 1957E is really common in UNC) and the 1958E shilling. Not forgetting the 1958 sixpence and who knows how many others too. I guess we may never know why some dates are scarcer than others - it may be a combination of factors, e.g. time of year issued, whether any were held back, demand for certain denominations being greater at some times, a shortage in one denomination causing lower denominations to circulate more, the hoarding of certain dates more than others for different reasons... One thing's for sure, the great meltdown should have evened out those weird discrepancies more than actually happened - there's a kind of inertia to price guides that is resistant to reality at times. Interesting that the 1958 3d and the 1958 sixpence were identified as scarce in BU even whilst they were still currency. I really wouldn't have guessed that. If anyone who worked at the Royal Mint between 1957 and 1959 ever comes across this discussion it would be very interesting if they would share their insights into the mystery. I wonder if large quantities of certain coins were shipped out to colonies that then become independent in the late '50s to mid '60s and whether, in some way, this had an effect on subsequent scarcity. I personally have always found it slightly remarkable that collectors resisted the temptation to spend their BU coins. I mean, pre-credit cards if you were out of cash then your nice shiny 1958 threepence that you'd stashed away would suddenly seem like an expendable luxury! I well remember in the years leading up to decimalisation that my gran and mum, along with many others no doubt, kept a little list in their purse showing the dates worth keeping. They all knew about the H's, KN's pre 1920 silver, etc. and so I'm sure there's proportionally far more of these coins laying around, though mainly in no better than fair condition. The high grade coins would have needed to be pulled from circulation at the time when very few people were looking for them.

In fact, I am using a digital microscope, that I built. It is based on the following telescope project. The optics comes from an old logitech handheld scanner (puchased at flea market) and the body from a microscope toy found in garage sale. It has its strengths and weaknesses but I love it. I can compare, in real time, about 30 to 40 coins in one hour. http://ghonis2.ho8.com/lifecam/lifecam1.html Very impressive! I often wonder how much more Freeman and his like would have discovered with a good scanner and high-powered image-comparison software. To be able to place, say, 20 1860 pennies on a scanner, in any random orientation, and immediately receive close-ups of all the differences (larger than a specific number of microns) would be an incredible tool.

I vaguely recall a previous discussion on your 1966, so just did a search and found a line drawing with the wave marked in red. I suggested going through my 1966's at that time, but never did! Michael Coins listed a Gouby X for several months but I note he has now sold it. I had a look at the coin but just couldn't live with the grade. I'll probably live to regret that decision if I can't find another! VR Court found 37 out of 4,542 checked by him, so far from common. Mine probably isn't even quite Fine. They're not common at all, and I don't know what the "best known" is. Just out of interest, what was Gouby asking for his Gouby? £80-90 I believe. His was more like Fair.

I vaguely recall a previous discussion on your 1966, so just did a search and found a line drawing with the wave marked in red. I suggested going through my 1966's at that time, but never did! Michael Coins listed a Gouby X for several months but I note he has now sold it. I had a look at the coin but just couldn't live with the grade. I'll probably live to regret that decision if I can't find another! VR Court found 37 out of 4,542 checked by him, so far from common.

Yes, I'm a sucker for lustre and it certainly has more than mine!

Are you sure?

I'd go along with that. Anything you have to look that close at, and is not rare, doesn't float my boat in any way whatever. But then, I stopped being a completist some years back (though I would like a 1903 open 3). The well-known 'big' varieties, especially those listed by Freeman, tend to go for big prices so it's nice that the micro-varieties can still be found lurking on eBay, or with dealers, at rock bottom prices. The eagle-eyed can pick up the rarer 1944 for about £25 in UNC on eBay, for instance. Whatever floats your boat, of course, but it does allow the collector with a lower budget to get in on the action, which is great. Peckris - Ages ago I said I'd send you my 'open 3' as soon as I find a decent upgrade (VF or better - if anyone knows of one?). I haven't forgotten! The 1913 varieties are worth having (the two mules, anyway) but it needs some experience and expertise to spot them. The 1905, 1921, and 1937 variants are equally common and equally minor so are probably ignored. The 1940 is a recognised variety though you have to look quite close, and so is the 1946 die flaw. The 1908 and 1909 rare varieties are probably too rare for eBay, while the 1915/16 recessed ear varieties are obvious when you know about them, but probably not to the casual observer. It's 1966 for the 'tidal wave', and yes I've got one, but I probably wouldn't have bothered except I was at a fair and one just happened to be there! 1965 or 1967 Britannia helmet 'stalk', anyone? Do you have a photo of the 1966 tidal wave? I still need to look through the hundreds of 66's that I must have. A job for a long winter's evening methinks! Having already admitted to being something of a completist, I'm collecting all the Freeman varieties plus more and more of the Gouby varieties too. I still have a few gaps but, like many others, keep scanning the never ending lists of eBay coins just in case! Often there's more satisfaction from a 'find' than there is from paying top dollar for an admittedly beautiful coin at auction. The 1909 and Gouby X still elude me though.

I thought you sold it!

Enjoy!

I'm still not convinced there's a difference that can't be explained by the damaged 4s. Below is a comparison of single and double exergue examples. It's true that the single exergue is 'faintly doubled'.

It's all about being a completist. As soon as a variety is found, everyone has a gap in their collection to be filled. As Peck says, they're not that rare (VR Court estimates 6:1 in favour of the more common variety) so can be picked up by the eagle-eyed at a very reasonable price. There's always a good feeling from paying standard money for a rarer variety.

That might be due to damage to the top of the '4' on the other penny, as it appears to have a less-pointed top. I have a fair few 1940 pennies stored away and will try to examine them over the next few days.

I guess that would depend on the comparative rarity of the one 1940 against the other! I think the modern micro-collector is a growing animal, and books like David's can only fuel the fire! For example, if you HAD one, and I didn't...well, you could still keep it anyways! It would only command a premium from someone who knew what they had, and advertised it as such. I've found a few but it took a while to get one in the condition I've pictured above. It's not for sale unless I find a better example

Certainly there does appear to be a difference, though the grade of the coins are poor for the year making it hard to be sure. It is still possible that the observed difference could be accounted for by damage to the the '4'. I have many 1940 pennies so will take a look when I get the chance. I presume that you are aware of the single and double exergue varieties for 1940, listed by Freeman?

Welcome to the forum and thank you for taking the trouble to post clear photos. The 1944 date variety is reasonably well known. Here are my examples (as displayed on my website - link below signature). The first shows Freeman 229 and the second is the unlisted variety:

Nice Penny, it looks similar to some tickets I have that I think are Ex Dr E.A.Johnstone, but I am sure Rob will be able to shed some light on it The G looks right for Johnstone as do the 2 and 8. It's a shame there is no lower case m as this is quite distinctive, but on balance I'd say it is a Johnstone ticket. If ex-Peck, then Johnstone must have bought it from Spink in the 1960s when Peck's collection was dispersed, but the presence of a provenance in Johnstone's hand dating to 1940 suggests that Peck doesn't come into it. There are two possible names for the 1940 sale; J McPherson or George Wight. Both had collections of English in the sale, but M & R doesn't say whose lots were which. I'm sure L282 will be the lot number which was on the second day, so that would suggest Wight as the provenance. Unfortunately I don't have the catalogue. The purple number may well be a Baldwin reference. Johnstone was a Baldwin customer and they acquired his collection post-mortem. It is possible the VICTORIA 1868 1d Bronzed writing is that of the 1940 vendor. If so, I'd like to know who it is for future reference. It looks like both sides are in the same hand Rob. The e and g are both quite distinctive as is the the loop coming through the base on the 6's. The word Copper looks to be the odd one out and by a different hand to the rest of the writing, which would suggest that somebody post the 1940 sale thought this? The differences between the inks on the two sides led me to the suggestion that the coin description wasn't by the same person as the acquisition details. You would have thought that both would be written at the same time and so the most logical solution would be recording the acq. date on the reverse of the ticket acquired at the time of purchase. Copper is probably written by someone at Baldwins. It isn't Peck's handwriting. Rather enigmatically, Peck's handwritten notes for BMC note an 1868 copper proof farthing added as an afterthought, but it doesn't appear in the Second edition listings or the addendum published in the BNJ (1967). There is no mention of a copper proof penny or halfpenny in these notes. Freeman includes the penny and farthing as proofs in copper, but not the halfpenny. Rob, John, thank you for your input! I should have mentioned that the main description is written in black ink. The "Copper?" is in bold pencil, and the reverse in feint pencil. They clearly seem to have been written at different times. It would be great to get hold of the 1940 Glendinings catalogue or refer to it, so I have emailed Baldwins to see if they have anything in their archive or can help further. I'll let you know if I find anything!

Here is the ticket:

Bit late to the party, but here's my twopence worth on your tuppence I'd grade at GEF, touching AUNC. Shame there's no lustre as this does seem to be required for the higher valuations. Really tiny edge knock, small excess metal on edge and scuffing to Britannia's knee but a very tidy coin. Edit: Just noticed you said 'lots of lustre'. It doesn't show in the scan but an even nicer coin then!

I watched the men cycle past nearby then popped back to see the Box Hill section and finish on BBC. Close to the end, the commentators were still claiming that TeamGB were riding a perfectly planned race... hmmm, I don't think so! As has been widely reported, timing info was hopeless. Off to watch hockey later in the week.