secret santa

here's Laurie Bamford's example.

Can someone please tell me how to produce this overlaid picture ? I can flip the reverse photo in Paint but don't know how to superimpose a rotated picture onto the obverse.

Pete sent me the following picture which nicely illustrates the source of the "crow's foot". It's interesting that, although the crow's foot is always in the same place, it's caused by a clash with another coin's reverse at an angle of around 30 degrees whereas I would have expected the reverse to be vertical.

This particular clash on Victoria's neck occurs quite often on coins from the 1860's and 70's and has been referred to as a "crow's foot". If you search the posts for this you will see several mentions and examples. I have one on an 1877 penny. As Rob says, almost certainly caused by the folds on Britannia's dress.

I actually bought it from Michael Gouby 14 years ago.

The trouble with early bronze coins is that date width differences occur so often that they are too numerous to catalogue and, because the final date numeral was often hand punched onto "blank" dies, the actual die variety does not differ between coins of a particular year and therefore does not, arguably, constitute different coin varieties. Michael Freeman didn't record date width differences within a given die type (with different Freeman numbers) but Michael Gouby did allocate different identifiers for a few "select" years with date width variations in his first book "The British Bronze Penny", e.g. 1889 narrow date, but then went on to record further variations in his follow up book "The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1901". Collectors often collect these different date width variations but shouldn't really expect them all to be given different reference identities. But arguments as to what constitutes a "variety" will continue ad infinitum.

I believe that Michael Gouby helps with the cataloguing of bronze coins for Baldwins, for example.

If we keep it open, can we rename it more appropriately - "repos" is pretty meaningless.

I mention this in my description of Gouby Obverse R on my pennyvarieties website (see below).

Here's a decent one.

There are probably previous topics on this subject but I don't want to spend hours searching for them. I have coins slabbed by PCGS, NGC and CGS in my collection. I have a blue PCGS box which the PCGS slabs fit nicely into. NGC slabs are a little higher such that the lid doesn't fit properly, and CGS slabs won't go in at all. Have members found any universal boxes which take all 3 types, or can anyone tell me if CGS sell their own slab boxes ?

This week I emailed Semra at CGS/London Coins to enquire as to whether they can supply CGS storage boxes and, if so, how much they would charge. Semra, without prompting, sent me one free of charge immediately, albeit second hand. Excellent service !!!

Nice penny........... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/one-penny-1898-/222665783839?hash=item33d7ea3a1f:g:3ygAAOSwEkhZvY1C

I've looked these pictures a few times now and I have to say that I don't see any difference in the engraving on the bust (rose, leaves etc), or any real difference in her head. I have seen minor differences to the fabric rose and also that "missing" part of the bust quite a lot over the years on F10 pennies and assume that these small differences are due to the many working dies that were produced for the new coinage and the hard work that they went through producing coins. I certainly don't think we're looking at conscious design differences here.

Many thanks to everyone for their replies.

Thanks Pete. I'll ask the lovely Semra.

Paul Holland sent me the following comment on the origins of the 1862 over 1 penny: I don't think it occurred from ablundered repair attempt. If I had to guess, I would say that itarose near the end of 1861 or the beginning of 1862 when final datenumerals were being punched into working dies. A Mint worker mayhave placed a numeral 1 punch into position and started to 'set it'with his hammer, then realized that with the date changeover, anumeral 2 punch was called for instead, then completed dating thedie as 1862. To me this makes more sense that the other way round...although we may never know for sure. This would also help to explain the origins of the 1862 2 over 2 that have been spotted, with a mint worker trying to correct a slightly misplaced 2 when entering a 2 on a working die. But, as Paul says, we may never know.........

Absolutely right Gary - nothing bargain-like about mine !

All attempts to contact him were ignored (to his detriment) and I got it through a 3rd/4th party.

As a matter of interest, I've received a request from Wordpress that user "lspenny45" would like access to my collection website but I have no idea who this person might be. If lspenny45 reads this, please PM me so that I know who you are and I'll almost certainly grant access.

You probably saw this on Ebay recently. The route to getting it was tortuous but I just had to have it - it's stunning. It's far and away the best of only 4 known examples (1862 over 1).

My experience exactly.

When I eventually checked my emails again, there was one from Baldwins at 15.43 confirming my registration. So I guess we're OK for next time ?

Got home about 3.30 and tried to watch the auction but found I couldn't log in although I'm sure I've bid before in their auctions. Then tried to register only to find "registration pending" like you. A little later it appeared that I was able to bid although I received nothing to tell me that registration had been successful. Luckily I wasn't intending to bid but agree with you that it's pretty disappointing.

Nice specimen, Mike. With reverse D* too (mine is plain D).