jelida

Lacquering was common, Lindner sold a kit, I had one back in the ‘70’s. It was meant to help preserve the coin by excluding oils, moisture, salts etc, but was prone to varying thickness and dribbles.(sounds like me on a Friday night!) I don’t think it did much harm, though the ‘coin cleaner’ dip that one was meant to use first can’t have been good. It should come off easily with acetone dip, though whether your coin is lacquered I can’t tell from the photo. They usually look pretty obviously varnished. Jerry

Yup. The signature can be seen as well. Jerry

Santa's pic is of the new obverse, which is referred to as D*, there being no suitable sequential letter to allocate to it! D* is very rare so far, and has two extra teeth which alters the letter/tooth associations. First described on this forum by Terry Eagleton a couple of years ago. Jerry

Actually I should revise my statement above; obverse 3 post DG colon points to the right of a tooth, not fully to the gap. But the illustrated coin is still obverse 2, with the colon pointing to the tooth or slightly to the left. Jerry

It is obverse 2 with the incomplete rose and the colon after DG pointing to a tooth, colon is to a gap on obverse 3.

The weak area is variable, as it depends on the depth/force of the die strike so not always present, but when it is present it seems invariably to be found on obverse 2. Jerry

What I see are tonal differences in the photograph that give a false impression of a wider gap, and anyway don’t detract from the probable presence of the signature, visible in both obverse images but particularly the first, and the Obv 2 type indentation half way along the lower bust line that Mike’s post photos show clearly. Nor can the point made above about the R in BRITT be ignored if stating this to be an F28. Unless it is a new obverse, and allowing for wear, the visible identifying features have to be all or nothing, not pick and mix. I hope this coin is soon in the hand, Mr Badexample, so we can have some photos we can agree around, though this debate is rather fun. Jerry

True Pete, we had fun with that one. It is a nice example. I haven’t sent pics to Richard yet, will do so when I can get at my PC 😣 , furniture stacked everywhere and dust by the bucket😡. Jerry

I think that impression may be a photo issue. I certainly get the impression of a signature along the lower border of the bust, and the slight ‘recess’ mid way along the lower border is characteristic of obverse 2. I also don’t see the cut away section of bust margin on the right that would be compatible with obverse 5. Another issue is the slight misalignment of the R in BRITT. I have seen this on some obverse 2 dies, but it does not feature on the F28 obverse dies so far noted (refer Richards’s site). If it is F28, it would have to be a different combination of Obverse 5 plus Reverse G dies than the others so far found. I stand by F20. At the very least this topic demonstrates how we all see different things in the information presented to us. As noted before, I would not be sorry to be wrong, time will tell. PS I see Bernie agrees with me, that gives me some confidence ! Jerry

I’m going for F20, 2+G, I think there is a signature on the bust, and the lower margin of the bust and rose looks right, and the colon after ‘G’ of DG points to a tooth. But I won’t be upset if it’s F28, fingers crossed! Either way a rare coin. Jerry

It’s a livery button, it has the remains of a loop on the back. The makers marks and address are usually on the back around the loop. Late C18 to mid C19. Jerry

I know there was a lot of machining of normal coins to create spurious ‘mint errors’ going on, but it is difficult to comment on yours without photos. If they were machined, they will be slightly underweight so an accurate scales might be revealing. Jerry

Likewise a bit non-plussed to see that 1860 penny on LCA already! The prices of your offerings were generous, and I am sure most of us (myself especially) were very grateful for the opportunity to add to our collections. Obviously in time all collections do get dispersed, but the impression here is of simply taking advantage. Jerry

Pretty much the same for me, also the 1860 proof and the first 1919H. Bit put off the 1919kn by the weak obverse strike and absent beading in places. Might be able to afford one, unlikely to be more. Big house renovation costs ongoing, though not unexpected. Jerry

I think that is near enough, given that your coin has more flan around the portrait than the one we are discussing. Also the dupondius and As are much thinner coins as well as smaller, both being almost half the weight of a sestertius. Where are you Guest Dan, you could give the diameter and perhaps the weight? Jerry

Almost crosses two fingers? I don’t think so, though measurements would be helpful. Coins like this turn up a lot, have handled dozens, and few sestertii are full flan. Unless the hand is small, when the coin might be a little too small, an As or dupondius would be possible, though the thickness seems too great to me. My two equivalent fingers measure 40mm across at this level, the average sestertius is 32 to 34 mm in diameter. Looks right to me. Jerry

One for you guys ‘down under’, I’m sure you’ll be rushing to get your bids in! https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MAJOR-ERROR-1923-AUSTRALIAN-ONE-PENNY-COIN-LOOKS-UNCIRCULATED/112797146647?hash=item1a433bde17:g:FG4AAOSwdTBaeB8C I did wonder if the seller had intended an ‘n’ at the end of the first part of his user name🤔. Jerry

Looks like a sestertius of Trajan to me, will be made from a brassy copper alloy, hence the patina; the area that you think shows gold is probably an edge scratch, as a gold coin would not have corroded. Do not attempt to remove the patina, or you will lose what little detail the coin has, and end up with a rough brassy disc. Jerry

I agree. This whole forum has gone dotty....... Jerry

Even if others were to be found, I really don’t think it makes much difference. Most dies became somewhat battered, worn or cracked towards the end of their lives resulting in coins with extraneous raised marks, and this includes dies damaged by grit. This does not make them new varieties and should not increase their value, other than in a small number of cases that I have alluded to above. A true variety, as we have discussed elsewhere on this forum, should really be due to a physical change to the die (rarely flan) made by a human. I appreciate that some do collect mint errors and flaws, but these are beyond the remit of catalogues of varietal status. Jerry

We need pics of the reverses to confirm the denominations. Jerry

We were talking rarity values here, rather than published mintage numbers. Freeman was undoubtedly the better reflection of rarity in circulation, by date, and I agree there was some date overlap in the published annual mintage figures, particularly in the early years and so the two need not entirely coincide. I must admit that I have never looked at the mintage figures for this very reason. Freemans rarities did not equate to published mintage, neither do Gouby’s. The 1875H of course is well known and easily recognisable, and low grade examples have been kept in their thousands while low grade examples of F79 have not. Some coins are excessively difficult in high grades but common at low grades for no obvious reason, such as 1864, while others are disproportionately common at high grades, such as 1860 or 1902 because the public kept them safe at the time as keepsakes. The same will apply to easily recognisable decimal issues which are made to appeal to collectors due to frequent design changes. I wouldn’t get too hung up about either published rarity or mintage figures. The key issue for a collector is availability, ie the difficulty encountered when trying to acquire a particular coin. An accurate assessment of grade specific availability might well throw up a few surprises! Jerry

The most accurate relative rarity estimates remain Freeman’s, the sheer numbers of unsorted coins from circulation can never be replicated, and will be an accurate reflection of respective rarity of all but the rarest of pennies. But in terms of the coins you list the problem is selective hoarding of coins considered rare, while the rest went to melt. Thus the pool of coins now available to collectors does not reflect original mintage figures. To achieve equivalence you might for example have to look only at coins in the top grades, where survival is unlikely to have been affected much by modern collecting trends. Thus, my own experience is; I agree that F17 seems scarce rather than rare, perhaps overrated. 1867 is more difficult than the preceding 2 years, perhaps underrated. F76 is excessively rare by comparison in any condition, I have no problem with R8. Much rarer than F69. F79 is perhaps on a par with F17, scarce but can be found. 1875H remains difficult, on the same sort of level as F17 and F79 in the top grades, though vastly commoner at low grade for the reason given above. Stick with Freeman estimates. Jerry

I think what Pete is seeing, and I can too, is the mass of fine parallel hairlines in the fields, indicating that the coin has at the least been ‘buffed’ with a cloth at some time in its life. The flash does accentuate these. Jerry

I don’t normally look at the ‘Non British’ section, but in view of recent trends I am going to have to change that policy. Nice coin. Jerry