Accumulator

My friendly note to him: Dear jsp69jsp, I suppose you've noticed that the picture you've supplied is not a 1940 penny, but one of 1900?! Also, the 'penny' has been in circulation since the mid-900's AD, so 1940 isn't exactly old! - cerbera100 His reply... Dear cerbera100, so this isnt a question about the penny at all, just you telling me pointless information thanks - jsp69jsp So apparently informing someone that their title, image and description are utterly wrong is 'pointless information'... Do wonders never cease?! Question is, do I reply, and if so how?! Why am I not surprised. You could turn it into a 'question about the penny' though. How about, "Why is this nice penny owned by an idiot who believes it to be from 1940 when a poorly trained monkey could tell him that it's dated 1900? Moreover, why does the same brainless moron advertise it as the 'oldest on eBay' when the most basic grasp of numeracy would indicate otherwise?" Or something along those lines. Anyway, hopefully he will get his comeuppance when it sells at auction for 99p rather than the £75.54 BIN price! So he has no "sarky get out" I've messaged him asking simply "Is it 1940 as in the description or 1900 as in the photo?" Let's see how he gets out of a straight question. Wonder whether he replied Peckris? Anyway, he's updated the listing and it now reads "the picture says different but the penny is a 1940"! Still the oldest on eBay and "as seen on Antiques Roadshow" though. Twat!

Anyone with a spare £600 knocking around would surely be temped to invest in this gem.

I always wondered what the H stood for?

Agreed. I don't think it's a ding, nor, to be honest, a blocked die either. Looks very "anomalous". It's hard to tell from the photo as it gives no idea of relative relief. There's clearly a problem (I would guess damaged die) with the vertical stroke of the 'E' but as far as I can tell the horizontal strokes and serifs are unaffected. It's only the precise position of the damage that coincidentally creates the impression of something more.

My friendly note to him: Dear jsp69jsp, I suppose you've noticed that the picture you've supplied is not a 1940 penny, but one of 1900?! Also, the 'penny' has been in circulation since the mid-900's AD, so 1940 isn't exactly old! - cerbera100 His reply... Dear cerbera100, so this isnt a question about the penny at all, just you telling me pointless information thanks - jsp69jsp So apparently informing someone that their title, image and description are utterly wrong is 'pointless information'... Do wonders never cease?! Question is, do I reply, and if so how?! Why am I not surprised. You could turn it into a 'question about the penny' though. How about, "Why is this nice penny owned by an idiot who believes it to be from 1940 when a poorly trained monkey could tell him that it's dated 1900? Moreover, why does the same brainless moron advertise it as the 'oldest on eBay' when the most basic grasp of numeracy would indicate otherwise?" Or something along those lines. Anyway, hopefully he will get his comeuppance when it sells at auction for 99p rather than the £75.54 BIN price!

Dare we ask why?! The reflection part I mean, I'd suggest that the disappearance is due in part to the 'common' man believing inflammable to mean 'unflammable' rather than very flammable! As my 6th form Chemistry teacher once joked - 'this asbestos stuff is wonderful, completely inflammable'! Or as your 'common man' might correctly say: Inflammable? Well it ain't never gonna catch fire!

Then there's this"oldest on e-Bay" and "worth a fair bit as seen on Antiques Road Show" 1940 penny (which it clearly isn't) that would set you back precisely seventy nine pounds and fifty four pence! Check out his feedback including the gem: "Lights didnt work panel had lots missing screws and was filthy but Fast delivery". So that's ok then!

That'll be the one with the pages stuck together then?

Why?? I was showing off my 1863 so Dave could see how shabby his really was :D It was a joke!!

You might want to think about upgrading that 1863 Dave

Both the Crocker and Workman pieces are pretty poor making the ebay one much more desirable. I believe there are at least a couple of very high grade examples around that would be far beyond the reach of us mere mortals. Here's another picture of mine, definitly better than both the Crocker and Workman. Yours is very nice! You're right about there being better one's around though, someone on this forum has an AUNC example!

To put it in perspective, the Crocker 164A, which was in awful condition and buckled went for £500 and the James Workman 164A, which was also in a poorer condition, went for £800.

I was out tonight so had to bid early and really didn't want to lose out. Didn't expect it to go that high though!!

In hindsight, I wish I'd gone higher and I believe you got a steal at £330. I think up to £500+ would still have been worthwhile. The main thing I notice with eBay is that 'expensive' (i.e. genuinely rare and/or in outstanding condition) coins generally go cheaply, while 'cheap' (i.e. less rare and/or poorer condition) coins are often expensive. If that makes sense?

Definitely an open 3... I was the under bidder at £310 and rather hoped to get it. Now I wish I'd gone more as it's the best I've ever seen too, especially the obverse I'll be putting a run of the mill fair up for sale soon, well once the new one has arrived Congratulations! I have a fair open 3 in the collection already, hence my interest in this better one. Looks like I'll have to start digging deeper as I've lost out on a few coins recently!

Definitely an open 3... I was the under bidder at £310 and rather hoped to get it. Now I wish I'd gone more as it's the best I've ever seen too, especially the obverse

Gary, I have found another auction result you might be interested in, described as "BMC --. F 164A. As Dies 1+C. Gouby B. Fine, extremely rare". It went for £800 with 15 bidders. Dont agree with the grading though! F164A James Workman Collection We discussed the F164A a while ago on this site... Here's a really nice example from a fellow member.

You're right John. I never noticed that! The coin I received was the 1911 pictured on the left then. I wonder what the other coin was then? I've not had a chance to check but didn't think any other George V pennies had Gouby X look-alike obverses? I'm really not that upset. The purchase was more about saving a scarce coin from further ignominy

As far as I can judge, you are quite correct. That sad and sorry specimen is indeed the Gouby X or hollow neck type. In that condition for wear, worth £30 -£40 based on recent sales. As it is, well £0.99 looks about right if you can live with it. Well, I bought the penny for £3.20 and guess what? It arrives and it's clearly not the same penny as in the photo! The received coin is so worn/buffed up with a wire brush that the majority of the teeth on the obverse no longer exist. So I emailed the seller (a Polish gentleman it would seem) and he states that there can't have been a mix up because he only had the one coin dated 1911! Yeah right! Anyway, he eventually refunded my money and, even though I told him the coin was one of the worst I had ever seen and worth nothing more than scrap, insisted on having it back! I should have known he was a waste of space. My search for a Gouby X continues.

Ok! I know Micheal Freeman lists it as an R5, 50,000 to 100,000 in existence! Gary, where did you get your figure of less than 20 known from? Have checked it again and yes definitely 1*+ C, Colon after BRITT to tooth and single strand to plume. Have also checked alignment of legend at other points just to make sure and there are various other differences compared to the normal F166 and 164 types. I'm not sure whether R5 is a fair estimate, but I've been looking for a while and have yet to come across one. Admittedly I've only been checking VF and above coins. I'm going to have to start looking through poorer coins though to fill the gap! So yes, a good find!

"the writing on the back is writen backwards. " Gary said that the back was the wrong way around... so this means it doesn't rule out the brockage - or confirms it? Your square 5p is interesting, my theory is that as they fed the srip of metal into cutting machine and cut it to the right size, then fed it into the stamping machine, it for some reason failed to stamp out the blank and it was struck in it's odd square state. It's a miracle it got through quality control (or maybe it did and a sneaky mint worker took a bag of dodgy ones home instead of to the melting pot ) You guys can be really slow sometimes...The other side is seen in a mirror, mirrors alway show things in reverse hence the writing is reversed. Where's that shaking head sadly emoticon when you need it. I didn't see the picture... and I was quoting you on the "written backwards" bit. If you're referring to "a brockage should have the reverse facing the right way in the mirror image" he was referring to the terminology for the tails side of the coin. Or am I being slow again? No, you're not. What's the evidence for that even BEING a mirror? The front image (right way around) is casting a shadow on the surface of the "mirror" which it certainly couldn't if it was an actual mirror. It looks more like a lightbox to me, than a mirror, showing the coin design struck reversed. It really is a mirror and it really is a threepence with two 'heads' or obverses, both the correct way round. Honestly! But... it's been carefully created from two coins welded together.

The value of each penny will entirely depend upon three things; date, variety and condition, with condition generally being the most important factor. You have given dates but are probably unaware of varieties and not able to objectively judge condition yourself. So that we can help, I would suggest choosing a couple of the best and earliest examples to scan or photograph. Post these and we will be more than happy to give you an informed opinion.

Heres my not even once in a lifetime opportunity to own a unique and rare and scarce and probably very scarce desirable special mule double headed two obverses extremely rare threepenny bit half a tanner very rare found in the attic of my great great grandmother who died many years ago but we only just cleaned out all her things but havent sorted them or had this valued and its from a pet free smoke free home so may be worth millions!!!

I've been looking hard for a better one but, as has been said, they are all typically Good to Fine. Not particularly proud of mine, but here it is anyway:

You're looking for I of BRITT pointing to a tooth, not a gap.