Test Jump to content
The British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

jelida

Accomplished Collector
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,824

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jelida

  1. jelida
    Is that the only difference in tooth alignment? Count the teeth. Jerry
  2. jelida
    I suspect that one of the ‘C’ punches in use had a little raised spike at its edge giving this mark on any dies prepared or reinforced using it. I doubt it was deliberate. I am sure the tooth flaw on Obverse 6 was present on the master die, from fairly early in its life preparing working dies. I suspect that in the later ‘60’s a fresh master or masters was produced to the original Obverse 6 design (whether from large scale cast or hub I have no idea) but this effectively removed the flaw from working dies from this master. Looking for other subtle changes in these ‘no flaw’ Obverse 6’s might be fruitful. Jerry
  3. jelida
    I agree. This coin looks like it has been in the ground, thick patina missing in some areas and raised due to underlying corrosion elsewhere. Jerry
  4. jelida
    The cannonball is rather higher on the wide date 1875 ‘cannonball’ non-variety 😜, but it does look similar otherwise, perhaps there was a piracy issue in 1875. Jerry
  5. jelida
    https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/the-stamp-and-coin-shop-online-limited Jerry
  6. jelida
    Yup, I would say F 17. The flaw on the last colon seems to appear on the latest 1861’s. Jerry
  7. jelida
    Quite true, unusual die pairings should certainly count, and are of course an act, deliberate or mistaken, of man (or woman). Jerry
  8. jelida
    I’d agree too. Mis-strikes may be of interest to some (not me), but to be a true variety it has to be a physical alteration of the die, whether a deliberate or erroneous action of a human. Failings of the manufacturing process alone , and even die wear and tear (ONF pennies, dot coins etc ) may merit comment in the catalogues but in my opinion not varietal status. The only reason Freeman listed the ‘97 dot penny is that it was initially thought to be a deliberate die identification mark. Jerry
  9. jelida
    Wow, well done guys, I would say that’s pretty conclusive. And they have been around for over a decade. They will be in a lot of collections. Who knows how many other coins are faked equally well, so far it seems to mostly be silver because of the difficulty reproducing copper patina, I’m sticking to my pennies, at least there don’t seem to be convincing copies of these. Jerry
  10. jelida
    An 1860 B over R would be very interesting. Jerry
  11. 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
  12. jelida
    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
  13. jelida
    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
  14. jelida
    Auction 152 lot 2434 has the pics. Jerry
  15. jelida
    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
  16. jelida
    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
  17. jelida
    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
  18. jelida
    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
  19. jelida
    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
  20. jelida
    Looks fine to me, can’t blame the coin for the blurry photo. Jerry
  21. jelida
    Yes, reverse I is a wide date.
  22. jelida
    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
  23. jelida
    Modern replica. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1797-Choice-George-III-Cartwheel-Penny-Coin/192520289731?hash=item2cd31a7dc3:g:Gj0AAOSw5m1a3ndd Please report. Jerry
  24. jelida
    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
  25. jelida
    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
×
×
  • Create New...
Test