secret santa

Ummmmm, I see what you mean Jerry - the photo of obverse D in Gouby's Victoria publication is exactly the same as your new D, with those areas "missing".

Perhaps I do.

For me, the other significant difference is the apparent missing chunks below the fabric rose and Victoria's cape (on the new D) when comparing the "new" obverse with my own F10. See pictures, Ooops, I've just discovered that I don't know how to attach thumbnails....... Help !!!!!!!!

Michael Gouby is currently in Paris celebrating his wife's birthday. He will get back to mundane matters like this exciting new find when he returns !

F19 - as far as I know there is only one (disputed) specimen - others may know better !!!!! I hope that there is no dispute regarding the one Freeman 19. Unfortunately not good enough grade to count the border teeth. Brilliant, Terry, for your new discovery !! Bernie. sounds like you own that F19 - picture please - I've never seen it. Richard

F19 - as far as I know there is only one (disputed) specimen - others may know better !!!!!

Yup, I agree with I an that the Heritage coin is a standard Obverse D/Freeman 2. The key indicator is the A of Victoria which points to a tooth on the "new" obverse. There are other such differences but this is the most obvious differentiator.

I have already sent details to Michael, but with Terry's photo as Jerry's hadn't been put up at that stage. Richard

Terry, could you please either confirm the reverse variety and date or preferably post a photo of the reverse. Thanks, Richard

As an avid tooth counter (!) you've got me excited . As you say, no other obverse has 145 teeth and yes, I've counted them and I agree with the number. I shall spend tomorrow examining this coin in great detail. I may not be able to sleep tonight.............................

I've had some useful feedback on this. It does seem that Heritage display the actual price paid for the item and the customs charges are calculated appropriately. This does mean that buying from Heritage can incur commission (17.5%), sterling conversion fee if paying on a UK credit card (~3.5%), shipping (1%-ish) plus customs fees (~6%). This can all add up to around 30% of the hammer price so do take this into account when bidding at their auctions. Richard

Croydon Coin Auctions is perfectly reputable - many of my own collection came from there, and only 5% buyer's commission too ! But I agree with everyone else that a little knowledge is best required before entering the auction arena. Nothing wrong with going to watch though. Don't always take the cataloguer's opinion on grading as sacrosanct !!!!

Thanks Nordle - didn't notice the date - I 've got the book in question.

Can you give me details of David's new book please. Ta.

Hi Loose, there are decent photos of all the Freeman varieties on my collection website (see below) and if you click on an image you get an enlargement which should help you with identifying varieties.

F10 vs F13 - Check the last colon of D:G: - points to gap on F13 and tooth on F10. Fabric rose (near V of VICTORIA) is complete on F13 but bottom half missing on F10. As last resort - count the teeth ! (143 on F10; 138 on F13)

Anyone out there an expert in recognising the laureate head obverse types ? Peck and Freeman use the same small black and white photos to illustrate the fairly esoteric differences between the 4 obverses and they're pretty subtle. I've attempted to show close-ups of real coins (from my own collection and from other online sources such as LCA) in the Patterns section of my penny website to show these differences and I'm not sure I've got it right. If they are, they sure as hell didn't come from coins that were correctly identified because many of them are labelled as different obverse types (derived from their Freeman number). Some of my own few coins are clearly not correctly assigned regarding Obverse type/Freeman number combinations. This looks like a real can of worms to me.

Dave, I wouldn't say I'm a collector of this series - I've bought a few on a bit of an ad hoc basis but, as you can see, I'm pretty ignorant about these coins compared to the circulation coins. I'm certainly going to be a lot more wary about buying them in future.

Lots of things are misdescribed and the mistake inevitably perpetuated because many collectors have blind faith in the literature and don't question inconsistencies. As always, it pays to know what you are buying, because when the time comes to sell you can rest assured that someone will point out the incorrect listing if wrongly described as a rare variety (but are usually more reticent when a rare type is catalogued as a common one) . Buyer beware applies to each and every purchase. It doesn't matter whether the mis-attribution is intentional or not, just that one day the owner is likely to meet up with someone knowledgable. It could be very expensive. For anyone interested in these patterns, a copy of the Magnay or Adams sale is a useful reference. Both collections had large numbers of them. All three of the above images were from the Adams collection. Rob, I've got the Adams catalogue (I was there) and I can get their low resolution pics from their archive - do you believe that Spink will have described them correctly ? Hopefully a bit better than their efforts in last week's Andy Scott sale ! It seems quite risky to collect these patterns without being able to check the coins out in the flesh beforehand - the differences in these 4 obverses are far more subtle than the currency Victorian pennies. And then again, there is no reference against which to check values against variety. They are all "rare" but what makes a coin worth £200 as against £1000 ? Is it just the difference between R17 and R20 as estimated by Freeman ?

Thanks, in that case several of my coins have been wrongly classified - I agree with you that the 3 and 4 look alike and the 1 (non-gilt) definitely isn't a 1. I wonder how many other coins have been wrongly catalogued and purchased in ignorance over the years ? Definitely a case of buyer beware !!!

Rob, do you agree with my labelling of the 4 close-ups ?

Sadly I do - that way I discovered the pattern QEII obverse which Michael Gouby now calls C*. It also makes identification of some coins more precise. And it comes in handy when I can't get off to sleep.......

Steve, we met at LCA at Bracknell a few years ago and you showed me your website - that was what set the spark that has finally ignited !!!!

Echoing the sentiments of others - indescribably good. You should write a book. Any more details than what we got in the thread about it? Michael sent the coin to the Royal Mint in 2011 and they had it for 5 months before replying. Their reply was that the shape of the 6 was not consistent with UK coins of this period and that they consulted the die records for the 1920s and "nothing came to light which could have given rise to the striking of such a piece." That clearly is questionable given the variety of coins and die combinations that have emerged from that period. Michael suspects that they may not have spent much time investigating the coin. I think that he may well be right in that they are not much interested - when I wrote to them about my 1922 penny with M.E. obverse and 1927 reverse, they never replied apart from the initial promise to get back to me. Further prompts brought nothing. I guess they get many requests like this ??? Michael also sent it to Steve Hill at Baldwins who recommended the Mint enquiry. Stephen Lockett got his cataloguer (Paul Redford I assume) to examine the coin under a microscope and he said there was a trace of a number under the 6 but it was NOT a 7. Michael made many other points that support the view that it is not a 1927 penny that has been "doctored" after issue from the Mint. He wrote back to the Mint but there's no mention of a further response from them. It was enough to convince me that the penny is an experimental piece that was produced along with the other anomalies that I mention on my website. Heaven knows how they all "escaped" !

Spot on! Well done Rash, works like a dream Thanks everyone - Chrome was the answer !