jelida

The apparently thinner underlying letters and curly bases are often seen, perhaps as the result of partial die fill prior to repair, or a policy of ‘closing in’ or filling broadened or damaged letters on the die prior to re-punching them; I don’t think there is any evidence that different ‘thin’ letter punches were ever used on the bronze series. Also if the repair punch was not held vertically and the strike was shallow, the letter indentation on the die need not be full width. Jerry

These are all typical die repairs, I like the N over N! I think the letter punches were often held at a slight angle, perhaps aiding alignment, and only part of the letter is entered, other times the whole letter is clearly reinforced. They are really only true varieties if the wrong letter or number was used, or the wrong orientation, or perhaps if the repair is particularly botched, like the F10 ‘triple F’. Jerry

I have to say it looks good to me too, if it is fake then this represents a serious improvement and very worrying, but at this stage I would not write it off, I would not say the evidence presented is irrefutable. Jerry

Auction 152 lot 2434 has the pics. Jerry

I too too have one of these, mine came from LCA a couple of years ago http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=152&searchlot=2434&searchtype=2 Jerry

I think this coin is a valid new variety and would welcome members thoughts. I have already discussed it with a couple of others, who are in agreement. I bought the coin on Ebay a couple of months ago from Larry Gurney of the 'Mad About Art' charity. Larry frequently investigates coins under high magnification and had noted that the N had been 're-cut wrong' with 'the serif incorrectly cut on the lower limb'. He started the coin at £45, which is what I bought it for a week later as the only bidder. Larry spotted this coin several years ago, and has had at least two of these, and the final photo is from Larry, with permission, showing a close-up of the 'N' of that second coin. The coin is an 1861 Freeman 33 6+G with the 'N' of ONE on the reverse having a serif at the right base of the right upright, and a diagonal which is broadened and somewhat wedge-shaped. My interpretation is that this is an ' N' in ONE over inverted 'N ', i.e. the 'N' has been erroneously repaired by holding the 'N' punch upside down, I suppose really quite an understandable error. I think also that the repair strike was not quite vertical, leading to the extra serif being slightly above the base of the letter, and meaning that the new diagonal did not align perfectly with the existing 'N' diagonal causing the wedging of the diagonal on the end result. I am sure there will be more out there, but I have spent a lot of time searching the net over the last couple of months and not found any others. Jerry

Hello Larry, it’s good to see you on the forum. This is the place to demonstrate any other interesting repairs, overstrikes etc you may have spotted. Don’t be afraid to list, people may be forthright in their opinions on occasion but are always keen to help and we can generally reach a consensus. Several of the top penny people in the country contribute to this forum. Jerry

Hi Bob, from the new pic it is definitely not an * obverse, the eye line is horizontal, and the bust is clear of the normal thickness beaded border. It is definitely F6. Jerry

Hi Bob, I did ponder over this one when it was first listed, and decided that it was probably an F6. One of the problems I found was that the obverse photo is slanted, making the border rim appear quite thick towards the viewer, but it appears thinner away from the viewer; a 1* or 1** obverse should have an evenly thick rim. It may be slightly off-struck. The angle of the eyes is difficult to judge because of the slanting photo. The bust does not appear to touch the beaded border, and the linear circle is well defined. I am not convinced by the size of shamrock, but either way the other obverse 1* identifiers would have to be present. I will stick with F6, 1+B but if you can take a truly vertical obverse photo that would clarify the issue. Jerry

I had an email from Michael Gouby today, most importantly his eye surgery seems to have been a success, and he is making a good recovery. He also confirms that he considers the ( F33) N over inverted N to be a genuine new variety, which is a nice confirmation. Jerry

I would be interested Pete, if available. Jerry

Looks fine to me, can’t blame the coin for the blurry photo. Jerry

Yes, reverse I is a wide date.

I wonder whether it has been lacquered, all the rage in the ‘70’s. if it was moved around when the lacquer was only partially dry, you might get this sort of effect. Calls for a soak in acetone, wont do any harm anyway. Jerry

Modern replica. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1797-Choice-George-III-Cartwheel-Penny-Coin/192520289731?hash=item2cd31a7dc3:g:Gj0AAOSw5m1a3ndd Please report. Jerry

Interesting, but I’m afraid I’m not convinced either. The ‘Y’ in particular looks too close to the border to have originally had a vertical, and appears to be a solid triangle, rather than a ‘V’. The ‘O’ would also seem a little low, and there is other ‘stuff’ going on either side of the ‘C’. Not impossible I agree, but I don’t think there is enough evidence for a very unlikely ‘re-positioned L C WYON’ scenario here, and can only presume that the demarcation (Gouby G) and then removal (Freeman 5) of the base of the bust was indeed indicative of an intent to erase the signature rather than move it. Jerry

Comparing it with mine, NOT a Ja. This is a close-up of the helmet of my F72 Ja, quite different shape below the plume. Jerry

And finally for now a nice F28 from Dave Craddock, £470, nowhere nice as Richards recent one, but a decent upgrade.

1898 8 bisects Ebay £17.76

F98 narrow date 1879 Ebay £110 inc postage

1860 early beaded pattern F763 Ebay £17.50

1926 ME Ebay £570.55

1903 open 3 Ebay £2.81 inc postage.

These pennies have actually come my way over the last few months, mostly on Ebay, I have given prices to show that there are still (in my opinion) good buys out there! 1893/2 £42

Perhaps your site has been mentioned on a Russian forum. What numbers are we talking about? From sunny Vladivostok. Not. Jerry 😉