terrysoldpennies

I wonder if they were not made for photographic use, but are just the result of a sand blasted die , as I see that they both seem to have a soft image , and not the crisp look of the proof like examples of other years ?. Maybe other examples will turn up. So if any of you have one , please let us see them. Terry

Richard , I spoke to you some time ago about my possible 1953 121 tooth matt finish penny, its below. Terry

Yours is slightly different Richard as the under A shows to the Left of the A. My one is on the right hand side. Yours my be a third Rev die combination . Terry

I must confess I don't collect variations on the copper pennies [as yet] concentrating mainly on the bronze, and on the unlisted date variations , which I think you have an interest in to. I bet there are quite a few unknown ones we have found between us . Good luck in your quest. Terry

Pic 2

No Ian , I knew mine was not a Bramah 2C, and it is not the same die before the botched repair on the F in DEF . Two differences on the reverse are clear, the E in DEF on the Bramar 2C is rotated anticlockwise, mine is not, and the A in BRITANNIAR on my coin is Doubled ,which I can see no sign of on the Bramar 2C. Terry

Yes Alf , its there, glad I was of some help, if there's any thing more , just shout. Terry

Ian , My 1841 no colon coin has your the wide date, no 10 in your list, if its of any use to you for a population count. Terry

hi Ian, This is my 1841 with colon, and with the same die crack. I note though that the crack only runs between the I and the T in Victoria , and it has no cracks at all across the date ,so it must be from an earlier strike . I also have a no colon 1841 which has absolutely no cracks on it at all, and must have been made from a different die. Hope it helps your research. Terry

My suggestion would be to bring up a genuine coin of the same year from a reliable source , such as L C A [ LONDON COINS ] archives on line and compare the two together on your screen . If its just pre.decimal pennies ,Secret Santa's site on this forum is a very good option. Terry s

Its Queen Elizabeth Shrek II . Terry

Yes, its difficult to tell, die clash or Ghosting , but Ghosting was much more of a problem on the George V pennies. Terry

I've been scratching around in my boxes of pennies, to see if I could find the 1909 penny Mr Cole describes as, quote. ' The upper portion of the area between the plume and the back of Britannia's head is raised up from the flan'. I found this coin in the box, and I assume its the one he is talking about. it appears as a line which runs both below the helmet passing through the plume , and above the hooked shaped part of the helmet. It looks to be a die clash mark, as it follows the same line as the Ghosting of Edwards bust, which shows through on the reverse side of this coin. Terry

That's great Pete . thanks again . Terry

Sorry this link is more direct.http://collection.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/?mwsQueryTemplate=%5B%7Bcontrol%3DcountryList%7D%7Bindex%3Dcountry%7D%7Brelation%3D*%3D*%7D%5D%5B%7Bcontrol%3DrulerList%7D%7Bindex%3Druler%7D%7Brelation%3D*%3D*%7D%5D%5B%7Bcontrol%3DdenominationList%7D%7Bindex%3Ddenomination%7D%7Brelation%3D*%3D*%7D%5D%5B%7Bcontrol%3DdateList%7D%7Bindex%3Ddate%7D%7Brelation%3D*%3D*%7D%5D&countryList=United+Kingdom&rulerList=Edward+VIII&denominationList=penny&dateList=1937&page=resulta

Great Richard, just pop me down for couple please. Just thought you might like the link to the Mints Edw. viii pennies http://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/Default.aspx?PageID=13601015&A=SearchResult&SearchID=2355145&ObjectID=13601015&ObjectType=1 Terry

Oh Richard ,you really should get out more ,as should I. Terry

It was easier in Freemans day , no on line flak then

I have to agree, Freeman, is the reference most used by collectors and dealers, and as such should not be changed to much. Changing the F numbers to year references was what Gouby tried , which was well meant , but it has not replaced Freeman. with the F numbers still very much in use. Adding a letter for new found dies as he did with the 164a I feel should be the way forward. and as Richard says adding an abbreviated description after that for various types , with maybe the date variations [8 over 6s etc narrow 3s ] with the date widths, expressed as a 13 tooth / 16 tooth etc last , but not as another set of numbers or letters, as this is where it is somewhat confusing with Gouby. But then Buggered if I know, yes Buggered if I know. Terry

Get well soon Pete, I think most of the NHS problems are just over exaggerated media hype . Terry

Terry

I agree with the A B C system for major variations, but I collect these plus date variations , now I know that its not most peoples area of interest , but there are some long established collectors like Ian [Alfnail] . I have come up with about eight differing unlisted date width types ,some extremely rare which have little value , but the interest in them is growing, as can be seen by the 189 6 extremely wide date penny in at best Fine condition sold on LCA for £200 . Now Goubys date width list is pretty comprehensive , listed as A B C etc and not as a say a 12 tooth narrow date or say a 16 tooth wide date ,which can instantly be recognised . With a numbered or Lettered system you find yourself having to refer to the manual all the time. I feel though, this would only be applicable to date widths. Terry

Yes we should not assume he would ,in a way that's why I for one would consider your judgment, as being measured and informed . One type in question would be the Hollow Neck , classified as Gouby X , which is of course a totally new found die. It really should be listed in Freeman as a F171a, in a similar way to say the F164a, but a coin like the VIGTORIA will obviously be a highly sort after type , but is only in fact an error coin, so where should it be placed. Terry

I agree with what you say Richard, but the using of two systems is already confusing , what I tend to do is think in terms of the year , and the major definition in freeman , and if its a sub variation of one of them , then add after it the Gouby definition. Of course a new type find I suppose should be give a Gouby classification , unless it is a new die discovery, then who decides where to place it, Is Michael willing to adjudicate, or would you . Terry

That's great Pete, thanks. Terry