jelida

Found one in 38 1964 pennies, but none among 39 1965's .

If it is a striking issue, it will probably be found with other dates. I will check more of mine. Jerry

Is this collection for you, as a hobby and pastime, Pete, or just to put away and forget, as an investment? If the former, the world is your oyster and buy what you like. Personally I like a well documented series where there are plenty available but also great rarities to be sought. Larger silver would appeal if I had the money, or gold hammered, wonderful. Or with beautiful designs and the hope of finding something new, maybe Celtic or early Anglo Saxon sceats. If for investment, whatever top quality material ticks the rarity , provenance and visual appeal boxes, less of a challenge as there is always something about if outlay is not a big issue. Go to a fair and have a wander. Good luck! Jerry

The alloy of the planchet 'flows' into the die under pressure of striking, and sometimes the high relief of one side draws more metal than the other side, weakening the strike on that side. In this case I suspect that the alloy has not 'flowed' fully into the die along the exergue, a slight differential being due to some alloy 'flowing' into the date digits causing even less fill locally and giving the wavy appearance. The digits might have appeared sharper and narrower ( ie greater depth, with the slight tapering of the section becoming manifest ) had the die been fully filled. The finding of coins of intermediate 'waviness' might support this, if the appearance is due to to a (variably) reduced striking pressure. Possibly. Jerry

Metal flow issues are all part and parcel of striking a coin, and strange effects do occur with some die combinations, take 'ghosting' on the earlier George V pennies, for example, an issue that took the mint years to resolve. Differing die striking pressure and therefore 'depth' of strike would also cause different patterns of flow and degrees of die filling. Under the high powered microscope this does not look like a sharp, re-engraved edge change to me. And the digits do not actually seem larger, though if they had been, the date digits could easily have been inserted a fraction of a millimeter lower in the exergue when preparing a working die from the master without the need to re-engrave the die. We would really need an opinion from an expert at the mint to clarify what might have happened here. Jerry

I have been through my curry container of 52 1963 pennies this morning, and only found one with an exergue as wavy as Terrys. However there were four more with 'waviness' distinctly greater than the norm, but less than Terry's one. I wonder whether this appearance is due to differing striking pressure, which might also fit in with the less sharp digit tops, perhaps with a degree of metal migration into the high relief shoulder region of Elizabeth's portrait on the obverse? The concavities of the exergue on mine do seem to be associated with some loss of definition of the edge. I dont really see it as a re-engraved die, but what do others think? Jerry

That's a weird one, Terry, I wonder how that arose. No other differences to be seen? Jerry

True, and I was taking Europe to include the UK, as it will continue to do despite Brexit; it is the European Union we hope to leave, tectonic plates are altogether more stubborn. Perhaps if we also left the European Court of Human Rights and repealed the associated legislation we could start to deal with the undesirables currently acting with impunity within our borders? Jerry

Very sad, and I'm glad you're safe. Assuming he was not an Islamist, but a disturbed youth, how does an eighteen year old get hold of a gun? Unless legally held, which I presume in Germany is unlikely, he must have made an effort to source one which implies a level of planning. I dare say in time the influences and pressures he was subject to will be known. Whatever his motivation, the fact that he is perceived as of Middle Eastern origin is not going to help community relations and the immigration issue. And I am afraid that Europe probably has more mass shootings,killings and bombings to come. Jerry

What date and reverse is it? It does look like obverse Gouby E, which is Freeman 3. Whether rare or not depends on date, whether 1860 (common) or 1861 (very rare). Jerry

That is very convincing, Ian, could well be the same reverse die after repair. And super close-up photos. Jerry

Colon after DG to gap, brooch complete....looks like an F13 to me, but a really nice one! The reverse die filling is interesting, would be nice to tie it to a repaired example, but would probably need die cracks etc to demonstrate continuity. Jerry

But it would still be possible to take a note of all the F10's that appear on Ebay and dealers lists, even a sample of a few hundred would be a start. Perhaps I had better start counting. It is a strange coin. The die looks well used, some loss of definition in the hair above the ear and of course the pretty terminal cracks. There are also numerous letter repairs, note the doubling of the serifs of several letters in Victoria. Mine is from the same die as yours. Could it have been from an experimental phase of the bronze penny development, perhaps using inadequately hardened die or greater striking pressures? There ought to be greater numbers struck from the die in its un-repaired state, but this doesn't seem to be the case. And I dont see it as the first F10. The reverse is also a multiply repaired die. Altogether a puzzle. Jerry

Possibly, but there are many varieties that can only be identified in reasonable condition, and Freeman's rarity estimates take that into account as they were based on study of worn, ex circulation coins, ie they reflect what was identifiable at the time of his study, rather than the absolute numbers struck. I think the new F10 should be identifiable in grades above VG, as there are several letter/tooth relationships that could be used. As well as the A of Victoria, the colon between F:D to a gap, rather than tooth for example. Either way, it would be nice to have some accurate ratios based on the current population of F10's. Jerry

The only way to get an accurate rarity with respect to the Freeman estimates will be for an individual to review all the (individual) F10's on the market, past present and future, and extrapolate the proportion of 2* coins identified. I feel that I must have seen 2-3 hundred since I started looking, searching the bay, LCA past sales , dealers lists etc but sadly I did not keep a record for accuracy and to avoid duplication. This exercise could still be undertaken, though the highlighting of the five known examples might skew the figures, perhaps excluding them and starting afresh would be most accurate. Hovever say one in a hundred F10 had the new obverse, the new coin would have a rarity of R15. One in two hundred would give R16, and one in a thousand would be R17 to R18. My own feeling is that it will end up R 15 to R16. Still a scarce coin. Jerry

Well spotted! I must have looked at hundreds , and haven't spotted another one. I wish I'd kept tabs on how many, did you? These will remain quite rare, I think. Jerry

Not discounting '9's, the above comments apply to all digits where variation has been noted. From steamy Kyoto, where we have just walked miles to see red arsed monkeys being fed peanuts. Jerru

It is true that there are minor differences between individual digit punches, even where the font was the same. This is inevitable, as are date spacing variations, in the days before technology was microscopically precise. I suppose it is a question of degree as to whether we recognise them as different, and collectable. Judicious work with a micrometer (or hi tech equivalent) could possibly differentiate all the individual dies used in the era where date digits were entered by hand, but I do not feel this would make each die a different 'variety'. However there are collectors in some series particularly hammered who will collect different dies. There is nothing wrong with this approach, nor collecting differing date spacings, some of which are clearly rare. It is a question of terminology as to whether these are considered true varieties, or in numismatic terms something else such as minor variants. I dont think we disagree . Jerry

Changes in font are legitimate differences, as in the varieties of 1864 penny, also the 1863 open 3 and 1898 second 8. It is not obvious (to me at least) where these fonts came from, whether a deliberate trial, or inadvertent use of a number punch destined for some other coin, perhaps for an overseas issue. There are differing spacings of 1864, probably an officially sanctioned '4' change, though not to my knowledge in the others, presumably products of a single 'accidental' die. Jerry

I would say it was of much greater interest if there was any actual change in the design of the master die, rather than minor inconsistencies of application of date digits to a working die prepared from an undated master. Erroneous or erratic repairs of a worn working die are also of great interest, but the effects of normal wear and tear much less so. While unintended date variations are of interest to some, I doubt they will ever command the top prices unless associated with other design changes. Jerry

France 2 Portugal 0 , 42nd minute and Ronaldo to be sent off for slapping the referee with his 'I love Iceland' handbag. If I am wrong, may be tempered by my wife having drawn Portugal in her work sweepstake at the start of all this. Well done Wales! Jerry (from the strange country of Japan)

Thats right, and he had found it in a dealers 25p bowl! Jerry

?

Quite so Pete, but I'm following the tracking with this one?! Jerry

It certainly beats my previous specimen, a fine example that cost me twice as much! I doubt the other will arrive before we leave for Japan and my boys wedding, so here is the Ebay link. An F25, really quite scarce in this condition, and better than my one that I paid a couple of ton for. All for about £14 inc postage. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331890976914?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT Jerry