mrbadexample

Righto, I've got to 1873 now! Can you tell me if you think this is a 7/7 please? The (only) reason I suspect it might be is the thickness of the top bar of the 7.

Hurry! To cap it all I'm confusing myself. The above defects are on an 1861 (Obv 2), not an 1862. I expect you knew that but were too polite to say.

Make no apology! In fact, thanks for taking the trouble to pen such a detailed reply - it really does help. From my own point of view, I started by collecting the date run 1860-1956. Having done that, obviously I needed a 1860 beaded border as it's quite different to the toothed and to my mind, clearly a different coin. Heaton mint marks? Of course - they're still clearly different. Large 9? Hmmm... Close sixes? Maybe... And so it goes on. Personally, I don't much like my 1862. The imperfections to the C and T, and lack of a second stop in the colon detract from the coin. It means I need a better one with all the detail intact. Each to their own, of course, but it is difficult to know where to draw the line, and I haven't quite decided yet either. As for reverses C&D - I'll let you know when I get there. I've only got as far as 1866. Flippin' USB microscope - now I've got to examine every letter and every number of every coin. It makes everything look worse - look at the state of the date in what I previously thought was a half decent 1860BB - I need a new one of those now!

So Colin, to continue (just let me know if you get bored!), what makes a mis-strike / defect / weak strike of interest? For example, you have on your site an 1862 with RFG instead of REG. Is this cause by a filled / clogged die, or the wrong letter on the die? Why is it important? When I look at my 1862, I'm (mostly) missing the top of the first T in BRITT, part of the C in VICTORIA and it has only one stop in the colon after the D in F:D: Is any of that significant?

Incidentally, my 1865/2 in the above picture was sold to me (years ago) as a 1865/3, something I declined to mention when asking the question. I've not previously had the technology to look at the detail in good close up, and I have to say I'm happier with the 5/2 verdict (especially having seen your first picture of same).

That first picture's great, thanks. Even shows a similar break in the top right of the underlying 2.

Thanks for the positive ID. Yes, you've a few on your site I see. Is it just experience of many examples that allows you to be confident? (To me it's a "that might just possibly be a 5 over something")

I'd always thought that was the remains of something like COMMODITA.

Cheers, I'll give them a try.

Next question then please Colin, do you think this is the 1865/2, or is is too worn to be able to say?

Thanks. Have I got that first picture upside down then?

Or perhaps a better example, the 1879 reverse C with large & small nines?

Colin, am I right in thinking that the differing reverses don't take into account the date? i.e. you can have an 1875 reverse C, with and without the Heaton mint mark (and thus different numeral sizes).

Right then, if I'm getting the hang of it, this https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBRenK8v0n-RFpzTjJLNE00QWs/view?usp=sharing is obverse 2, and this https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBRenK8v0n-OURSY051c0lJU0U/view?usp=sharing is obverse 3. Both 1861. Seems the easiest way to differentiate between these two is the linear circle under the bust.

I can't argue - nothing else seems to make sense.

Thank you Colin. I had just about convinced myself that it was obverse three, but those pictures help, especially with the location of the berries.

*cough* That's a VERY thin coin.

Yes, they meet up. I'll see if I can get some kind of shot of the edge.

https://goo.gl/photos/aTu1shXRxQ6h3oEJ7 How about that one?

Is this 1947 penny of any interest?

Hopefully this will link to some better photos: https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipOeTuMiwcDLbv3q8YGwwPmVahlrK4nQq0HsLALL