Red Riley

I feel 90% certain that it's genuine but 10% of me says it could have been whizzed. Having bought a whizzed coin some years ago and I didn't realise until the thing started to tone a couple of years later, I'm always rather cautious about these things!

That would almost be overgraded as 'poor'! Spinks themselves describe 'fair' as 'a coin that exhibits wear, with the main features still distinguishable, and the legends, date and inscriptions still readable'. Hmmmmm...

1882 'no-H' actually has the more common type of 1882 reverse (Gouby type r, Freeman type N). 1882H with the earlier type of shield (p or M) are themselves very scarce. There is a disagreement here between Michaels Gouby and Freeman, the former describing it as convex and the latter as flat (Gouby is right).

I hope you put an adequate reserve on it. I would be having kittens selling that on e-bay.

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...

According to Freeman 500-1000 1879 narrows. 1874 and 1874H with the early obverse are also quite scarce. 1874 and 1874H (later obverse), 1875 and 1876H are all common. Unfortunately the name by which the variety is known rather underplays the fact that these incorporate quite significant changes to the standard reverse and as such they tend to get lumped in with later coins which display infinitessimal differnces in date width and virtually no other peculiarities. It's a shame they didn't become known as '1874 (etc.) thin lighthouse' which sounds a bit more important.

1875 wide date, I would call it AU perhaps 80% lustre. Good coin. £200 or more?

I agree with what you say, but with the following observation: it strikes me that the price of scarcity in bronze pennies is now out of kilter with the rest of the market. I didn't make extensive notes at the auction, but it just seems that other denominations are failing to get anything like the interest that scarce pennies attract. As a penny collector, this worries me as it puts rarities out of my reach in whatever condition. My prediction is that ultimately this bubble will burst as and when the very few top end collectors in the market become satisfied or run out of readies. As we have said, there only needs to be two...

As I said, I was most interested in the 1860 penny prototype, effectively in the first couple of dozen or so of a run which extended to over 4 billion coins. Massive historical significance. I thought it was a snip at £2500. Cheese in my gasket Mr 400. Now I suspect you of over-indulging in the falling down water! Anyway 1887, can I welcome you to the mad house. What are your interests numismatic or otherwise?

I think he means whatever accompanied our lunch. Me, just a a cup of coffee to accompany my cheese sandwich. Spent most of the day changing a head gasket.

Which one is ......? You haven't finished the sentence. Another five years with hard labour...

Yes, see Rare Bun Head Penny Thread.

The answer unfortunately, is not as easy as you hoped because the coins could be worth thousands or next to nothing, it all depends on their condition. It is clearly not feasible to post a picture of each coin, but just as a taster pick one or two at random, and post pictures on here. A few guidelines though, generally speaking the post 1971 stuff is unlikely to be worth much, which generally applies to most coins of Elizabeth II. Anyway, just post a couple of pictures and we'll no doubt do our best.

You may not believe this but, no. My collecting is very much at an impasse and I'm unsure which way to go. Of course getting a job might help...

OK here's the lowdown - he had grey hair, wore a crumpled grey suit, the car in the car park was more likely to be a Toyota than a Lamborghini. From his body language I had the impression he wasn't acting for anyone else. I'm afraid he struck me as a typical collector. Perhaps of as much interest to you 400, the run of the mill bun pennies were a little patchy with some good ones selling well but still some bargains. These are typical: 1861 GEF/AU (this was actually a very good coin) £95(all +17% buyers' premium) 1863 GEF £65 1873 UNC £160 1875 UNC £220 1877 AU/UNC contact marks £65 1877 UNC £190 1879 UNC full lustre £280 1887 UNC uneven toning £38 1888 40% lustre £130 1889 35% lustre £48 1892 40% lustre £65

Went to the London Coins auction today. The 1877 narrow date went for a paltry £6k... The guy that won it was sitting quite close to me and was opposed by a telephone bidder. I got the impression he would have gone a lot further if he'd had to. Of more interest to me, there was an 1860 beaded border, ref. F8B (R18) in the auction in immeasurably better condition which went for 'only' £2,500. This is effectively a pre-production penny and of great historic value. Allright, it realised a reasonable value but why did the chewed up 1877 go for so much more? It struck me that rarity generally was selling far better than condition, although most lots went at the lower end of estimate. Wreath crowns however seemed to be selling well.

The official answer is that the initials, BM are further to the right on the ME but that's not how most people recognise them. Compare say, a 1922 with a 1927 - it is a completely new piece of work, is softer in line and far less angular. Once you've got it into your head, you will always remember it. Re 1927 reverse on 1922 coin; odd isn't it? The only explanation is that the design was, as you say prepared 5 years before. No idea why it wasn't used on the 1926 penny.

OK Scott, if my scanner was working properly I'd send you photos, but it's one of those where you need a ruler and the two coins side by side. 1) On the variety usually known as the '1895 2mm', the angle of the trident and the P of the word 'penny' are 2 mm. apart whereas on the standard issue they are 1 mm. apart; 2) The variety has a slightly lower tide, but on neither type is the tide a particularly prominent feature and on worn examples it may have disappeared altogether. This is what gives rise to the variety's other name of '1895 low tide'; 3) The word 'penny' is much more scrunched up on the variety and has noticeably smaller spacings than the word 'one'; 4) Britannia is actually very slightly smaller and neater on the 2mm. making her look slightly more elegant. Hope that answers your question.

I think we really ought to consider the 1902 low tide as a minor variety; trouble is that 20th century varieties are few and far between so it obviously got noticed. In the 02's defence though, I would say that the difference is much more evident as the tide has moved up to where the legs cross whereas the 97 has just moved a bit further up the shin. I guess the '97's shield is a bit more noticeable but perhaps not in worn condition. Who said coin collecting was logical! There are several dies throughout the series that appear briefly and then vanish again but I have no idea why this is.

Now that is a very minor variety and no mistake.

Photographs can be deceiving but it looks EF to me, especially the reverse. Is that wear on the beard or perhaps a slightly fuzzy strike?

The thing is the guy probably has a nice car and a nice house and a supermodel girlfriend; either that or he's a really sad recluse called Ralph... I could never defend £23k on a beat up minor, minor variety even if I were Bill Gates, but I could defend a four figure sum on that 1877 that London Coins have up for auction. Incidentally, is anyone going to their auction at Bracknell? I think most of the best stuff is on Tuesday. I might mosey on down and check it out, keeping my hands firmly in my pocket.

I think we are. A very rich one with no sense of proportion perhaps, but a coiny nonetheless. The chances of making any money on that 1863 are negligible having paid what, 15 times the estimate or whatever it was. No investment adviser would take that risk, if it went wrong the chances of them being sued would be close to 100% so it really can't be anything other than a collector. Sorry you're in the firing line this morning 400 must be last night's ESB taking its revenge!

But 400, you are a self-confessed 'grading Nazi'. There are other fascists out there who get their kicks from rarity, and personally I tend towards the latter. Dunno why, something to do with my genes I guess. Michael Gouby estimated 2-10 of these 1877 narrow dates in existence and Freeman 6-15. It is to my mind a fairly major variety and unlike the ridiculous narrow 3, the differences don't end there - the reverses are as different as the standard 1926 obverse was from the ME. For some reason - and I've never seen any explanation for this - between 1874 and 1879 the mint seem to have been using two master dies concurrently. Rob, I have studied two 1874s, one narrow and one wide. It may take a better eye than mine to determine whether different punches were being used, but I don't think so. As I said however, the differences don't end there. I wouldn't splash out more than a grand on that coin because I haven't got the money, but if I did, I just might. I am sure somebody will.

Freeman reckons it could be unique but Gouby doesn't mention it at all. This doesn't mean that he was unaware of its existence, but possibly that he didn't consider it to be of sufficient significance, on which point I agree with him. Clearly somebody begs to differ!