alfnail

Excellent, pretty sure that a pedant would want that correcting!!

D & H has the YORK Number 70 as 'Scarce', see bottom of first attachment. But I have found another reference by S.H. Hamer (second attachment) which says that only 200 of these were struck. Is that a printing error, because surely the rarity could not be just 'Scarce' if only that number were struck. I would have thought it would get an R rating, probably RRR. Thanks for any education offered.

That's excellent thanks Paulus, your help is much appreciated. The 3 coins I bought all seem to look even better 'in the hand'. All the best, Ian

Many thanks for this information. May I ask if numbers 63 to 67 which you have shown on this page are the only York tokens documented in this book, or are there more following on the next page? I did buy a couple of James Carlille HP tokens just the other day which I would have expected to see, these are pictured below. Thanks again,

Can anyone help with more information on this coin please? I do not own the coin; it is a picture I put into my reference notes many years ago when I bought a YORK Clifford's Tower + Minster 1795 Half Penny, but I don't think I have ever seen another York Minster one paired with QUEENS BAYS Cavalry...………….. so think it must be a rare piece. Not my area of expertise, but think I may now want to collect the YORK (my home town) Tokens as a bit of a side-line to Victoria Pennies, so if anyone can help improve my knowledge of those pieces that would be much appreciated.

….and here is a close up of the overdate on that coin. The 4/4 more convincing, with the front of the underneath 4 quite clear...………..as highlighted (red arrows)

One I picked up a few years ago. Don't really collect this series, so would sell to a serious buyer, plz PM me if interested.

Thanks Terry, another forum member has also contacted me and said 4/4, looks like plain tail 4 corrected to new crosslet 4

Any thoughts on what's going on underneath the numeral 4 on this 1854 penny?

I often don't trust the 'colons pointing to whatever' method; in my experience you can get fooled by pictures taken at a slant........and many of them on ebay are low definition and/or not sufficiently in focus in the vital areas...…...at least with the teeth count you can miss (or add) the odd one by mistake and still be fairly sure...…..same goes for checking rose and bust area imo

The "detached at top knuckle index finger" variety perhaps?👈 I sometimes have to count the teeth to tell an F10 and F13 apart...….always annoys me when I have to resort to that!

Did I miss something on this penny, clearly NOT the rarer obverse 5 (as advertised), and with reverse scratches surely not worth anywhere near final bid:- https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1860-QUEEN-VICTORIA-GREAT-BRITAIN-BRONZE-PENNY-1D-COIN-/362439705234?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m43663.l10137

Thanks for comments, doesn't look like been in acid, but does look like weak strike as Rob suspected. Pictures now attached; seems to be half the weight of the proper 2p at 3.56 grams as opposed to 7.12 grams.

I picked up a 1971 2p which weighs only 3.55 grams, almost exactly half the normal weight. It also looks half the thickness, all obverse / reverse features look correct to me although I am no expert on post decimalisation coins. Anyone seen one of these before, is it worth anything over and above the norm...…...….don't expect I will keep it?

It gave me options of +1/2, +1, +2 and +3 and I foolishly trusted it to work as explained in their drop down box; I expect the auctioneer didn't see my increments in the heat of live bidding and/or their system didn't alert him to them. Annoying, because was a coin had been seeking for quite a while and in far better condition than I have ever seen before. Live and learn!

I left a proxy bid of $450 + 3 increments (i.e. to stop a single bid from a live bidder outbidding me). Thought that meant that my top bid would then be $450 + ($50x3) = $600, but see this morning that it sold for hammer of $500, with my top bid of $450 having being placed but unsuccessful. Have I misunderstood and messed up or is this the fault of Heritage.

Thanks Richard, it would be surprising if no other examples of this type have been found since Michaels book was published

For reference, pictures of my 1854HP with V over inverted A. Clearly a full bar on this type, but I do see what Pete means about the 1860JB penny, looking at the close up picture top right on Gouby Page 34

Agree with Pete's thinking, but now that nearly 10 years have passed since MG's excellent bronze penny book, can I just ask if anyone found another example of the penny variety 1860JB (V over inverted A in VICTORIA)? I have seen a dozen examples of the same error on the 1854 Half Penny since that was first discovered a few years ago, but never seen another 1860JB penny.....despite looking almost every day! I would have expected a few lower grade pieces to have appeared by now.

Many years ago when still a bit green I bought an alleged 1876 No H penny, sold as such, and for all the world looked like it was (pictures attached), but when held at a slant to the light the H was definitely visible.....beware tricks of the light! 🧐

Hi Cliff, I emailed the 1853 date pictures to your private email address first thing yesterday, think was around 8Mb in data. I haven't had an undeliverable, so it's possible they are sitting in your 'junk'. Just thought I would check as haven't heard back. Cheers, Ian

My initial study was to split counts as per my spreadsheet column headings, so I wasn't particularly looking for dots in the fields. I will have a quick scan if you send me a picture example. My experience of 'dots in fields' are that they are either part of a 'progressive' die flaw or a damage / rust spot picked up later in life through wear and tear. Additional / repaired colon dots I find more interesting e.g. the 1841 REG:: or the extra half dot seen after FID on the 1853OT

Hi Cliff, Nice 1853PT. You are correct that your 1853PT is a narrower date width than the Gouby Style C example shown on his website. When one examines the last two numerals of the dates on the Victorian YH penny series under high magnification one finds that there are many minor variations in date widths, numeral alignment and distance to the border teeth. It is rather like the reverse where Bramah said:- “Another prolific source of minor variation is provided by the colons on the rev. Probably every die creates a colon variant…..” To date I have recorded 8 variations like this with the Gouby Style C font, your PT date is amongst them, and has the exact same features as your E of DEI which confirms. You will note on MG’s site that for his italic Style A font he goes on to give additional examples as Aa and Ab, where the last 2 digits are differently located. So I think your piece IS a Style C, but just with variant last two digits which could have been recorded as a Ca or other sub-suffix. Indeed, in hindsight, I would have preferred the example (my coin) which you will see as his Style D to have been recorded as a Style C variant………as it is the same C font, not a new one. Hope this helps; I have pictures of the 8 variations if you would like them, but they are over 3Mb so unable to post on the forum without first reducing definition…….which kind of defeats the objective!

Re. my 1853 penny study, the other interesting thing which I noted was that none of the Plain Trident pieces were above a GVF grade, and only a handful around VF...….most were complete tat. My italic 5 piece which I pictured earlier was found outside my 5 year study period. There are some better grade pieces around, because a handful have been sold, for example, by London Coins in the past few years...………….. including one with the italic 5 date in June 2017 for hammer of £400:- http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=157&searchlot=2969&searchtype=2

Common one Mike, many more border teeth than F114