jelida

Really not too bad, approaching fine. Would have bid into four figures, so a little peeved. He did have a reasonable offer by the look of it though, as it was sold as a bin at £500. Making bin offers to these auctions seems to have become endemic, I think I have to join the crowd. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GB-1D-1881H-VICTORIA-BUN-COPPER-47C-BY-COINMOUNTAIN-/382268761123?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=B5h3PvKqT3%252FWuBUFtwQ%252Fe7T12A0%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc Jerry

The first images he showed were of an 1860 mule toothed/ beaded penny, but the obverse was Freeman G, which wasn’t used until 1861. He had obviously mixed his images. In fact his 1870 had the beaded obverse. He has now been informed, and added the correct obverse image. He did meantime get a couple of bidders though. A bit of a penny thing. Did anyone see the F103 1881H early obverse penny that was on the bay last night, but pulled this morning, and sold (still much too cheaply) as a bin, presumably after behind the scenes discussions? I am going to have to start doing this, I have seen a couple of real rarities pulled in this way recently. Jerry

This one could catch some-one out. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bun-Head-Penny-1860-Beaded/122793415080?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 I did a double take, before I realised it couldn’t exist. He also has an impossible 1870 penny, which does clarify the situation. ? Jerry PS I see he has now corrected the listing, shame, I was hoping for a bit of fun.

There is a Pac-Man on the chest too. Jerry

Don't forget this thread is for NON British coins, there is another one for UK coins. But both nice coins above. Jerry

Actually, I learnt it on this forum! Too many intellectuals around here! Also after 52 years, I now reside 2 miles into England! But most of the names are Welsh, so it’s not all bad!? From beautiful South West Herefordshire ? Jerry

The RM keep the alloy within very close tolerances, erroneous variations are unlikely, but of course they don’t necessarily announce deliberate changes, though these would probably be somewhere in the annual report. As regards the angle at the front of the bust, while it could be a deliberate change, in which case I would expect others, it could as I suggested earlier be a slight rounding (splaying of the edges on the die) of that angle due to wear, or due to die fill of the tip. You would probably have to get some yea or nay from the RM to know. Best view metal as a very solid liquid, not everything stays in its place if subject to extreme forces. Jerry

Shillings aren’t my thing either! ? But I think we are looking a differential wear and damage, and pareidolia here, with typically low res Ebay photos. Jerry

Could one be the first coin struck with that pair of dies, and the other the 50,000th when the dies are worn and dulled? Jerry

I’m afraid I can’t see any of what you describe. I know that a couple of bronze pennies of the early 1860’s have been found struck over Italian centissimo (?) coins, but I understand they were struck at the Heaton mint, and the foreigners were probably conveniently to hand when checking die alignment etc, or perhaps fell into the blanks bucket as the mint produced both. I have never heard of Victorian silver- struck at the RM- being struck over foreign coins. You would need far clearer examples to be definitive, and rule out post mint damage etc. Jerry Amazed at what the scuffed, plugged coin is going for though. But sixpence are not my thing.

Remarkable! Well done! Again you can reference the LCA site for value, one in poor condition recently sold at auction (from a forum member) at over £1000 , if my memory serves me. Jerry

This looks like a fairly normal die repair where the letters of a worn die were re-punched. The repositioning of the letter punch was often rather erratic, giving the appearance you show. Jerry

I am aware of five, including yours. I dare say there are a few more out there, but it remains an excessively rare coin. You might get a better return from a specialist auction than Ebay despite the difference in sellers premium. The LCA coin you reference gives you a rough idea of the value, though the provenance of that coin, being I think the Laurie Bamford example, might have helped. As always, the final price is governed by demand. Jerry

Certainly appears to be a 2 over 1,well done, rare coin. I must admit the top spike under the arch of the 2 doesn’t show on mine, or Richards I think, but I suspect probably the same die. Jerry

He uses the same obverse pic for his 1954 sixpence lots, I really wouldn’t get too excited about rare die combinations here, just look at the information available. Jerry

We seem to be discussing the open 3 on two different threads at the moment. As stated elsewhere, I don’t think we can directly compare these photos, different cameras, different parallax. There is definite foreshortening of the LCA images compared to Richards, apparent by measuring on the photos the heights etc of other numerals. Jerry

Just had a look at the LCA coins, that one does look dubious compared to the rest, but then look at the proportions of the 6 compared to Richards photo, I think it is a case of a poor resolution image and a photographically squashed exergue . As it is LCA I am sure it is OK in the hand, though I don’t remember if I looked at it at the auction. So I am back-tracking on this one, which goes to show how difficult to judge from poor quality photos, I have been caught out before on the bay, though for less than a tenner. The Ebay coin above though is as Rob says simply die wear or fill taking away the tail of the 3. Jerry

Gosh! Well, I hope I am wrong, photos can lie both ways, and LCA are not usually wrong! Jerry

I don’t think so, it’s another photo illusion. Jerry

I don’t think it is, the diagonal is the wrong shape, and the top left serif is not slightly indented, as it is on an open 3. Jerry

The vendor is Shelly, who has featured on this forum several times before, and I am afraid is prone to misattribute , over grade and overprice, and whose coins often turn out to have been cleaned. Photography is not a strong point either. You can get a lot of spatial distortion when using some lenses, especially fisheye types on mobile cameras, and I suspect we have some of that here. My feeling is that we are looking at normal F10's, showing the results of differing die pressure and wear that Richard alludes to. Jerry

If it were not a blundered repair late in the life of a die, but a mistake in the actual preparation of a working die from new, is it not likely that there would be many more examples? The new 2/1 reverse does show at least three early die cracks, so it had clearly been in use for some time, and by 1862 most of the issues with premature die failure had been ironed out and a production of perhaps several tens of thousands of coins would have been expected. For this reason I personally prefer the likelihood that it was an erroneous repair quite late in the lifetime of the die, though I cannot see any other repaired letters or digits, the presence of which might be supportive of this. Scarcely proof either way. Jerry

I suppose in the case of 1865/3, as there are a number of different overstrikes of the 5 over 3, thus a number of re-used 1863 reverse dies, a 'good housekeeping' policy might be interpreted. The 1882/1 is somewhat similar, fewer different overstrikes but still a couple and used with earlier obverse dies. There are also a number of different 1893/2 dies. The others seem to be single die varieties, and perhaps therefore less likely the result of a mint 'good housekeeping' policy. But it has to be a question of probability, in the absence of contemporary records. Jerry

It is beautiful, and I'm pleased it was you that bought it (I had already spotted it on your site). The vendor, a regular for criticism on this forum, seems to have acquired some genuinely nice coins lately, but his initial pricing was way out of my league. So my 2/1 is relegated to the second best known. Ah, well. Jerry

And me.