Martinminerva

I have done another one of my image plays as best I can, making the image a negative and tweaking a bit, and I think one perhaps can just make out vestiges of the LCW (ringed in red in the top image), plus the lighthouse top also does look way too sharp. Non-inked negative image also attached so you can form your own opinions...

Whoops! I meant to say a bog standard F29 6+D of course!

Glad it's not just me who has serious doubts over this. I considered posting a similar query when it finished; over £300 for what I believe is just a bog standard, if nice, F33, 6+G. Like you, happy to be proved wrong if the buyer can post better pics (the eBay photo is properly poor), but I think two potential buyers have convinced themselves this is something it isn't... Where's the narrower helmet to plume gap? Where's the little vertical extra bit of dress near Britannia's shin? Where's the rounded lighthouse top? Etc etc. Or are we all missing something else??

Is that not the same coin as the London Coins one?? The diagonal scratch from north west to south east from the exergue line above the second 8 would suggest so...

I'd not seen that - many thanks for the link. Really interesting.  Richard Hear, hear! Thanks for that link. I shall print it out and store it in the back of my Peck !

Had a bit more of a play using the original London Coins image... There does seem to be something there, even though I agree it's not conclusive either way. But I wouldn't be happy to have paid a large sum for it. My money would still be on removal or die fill.

I thought these were a famous Peck "miss" ? Certainly not in his original book - 1882 he logs as numbers 1726 - 1729 and all have an H mint mark. Or did he pass comment in a later work??

I agree that this is NOT a no ' H '... If one inverts the image to a negative (often a good way of revealing hidden detail) IMO there is a definite vestige of an H - either removed or not struck up well due to die fill. Does anyone have pictures of the two specimens @VickySilver mentions above? Surely VF condition would be good enough to be conclusive?

So, currently at £620 with a day and a half left... A fool and his money, eh? Or is it deliberately being bid up with no intention of paying?? ETA: just gone up to £940 in last two mins since posting... The world is mad! EETA: and now £3000 in another two minutes... I despair...

Smells decidedly of fish!! Think this is another seller that should join the 'bunch of our souls' club mentioned on previous page! I will watch the item just to see how much some poor sap is taken for...

@jelida. Posted September 2, 2011 ?? Dracott, not heard of this reference before David Coin News, April, May and July 2004. Quite interesting and detailed study!

Think the seller should be called "Our souls"... As in bunch of... 😄

Here's another laughable item... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284457713181?hash=item423b003e1d:g:QoUAAOSwZrthRxe- Wrong on so many levels. (It's a farthing and as for "proof" and "about as struck"...) And yet, with all the (wrong) extra blurb, details, rarity allegations etc below, it could mislead. Would anyone willing to spend £1500 on this washer just go ahead and do it without any knowledge or checking things out?? I'd hope not, but just up above someone spent £100+ on a threepence worth about 50p. A fool and his money and all that!

Yes it is. I was watching that for a while (it's a USA seller), but thought the price had gone too high for it. 1861 7+D is much less rare than 1860 7+D... Were you the winner?? Well done, if so - good Freeman number ticked off!

And here's the eBay one... Quite a difference!

Here's what a genuine 1853 threepence should look like (sold by London Coins a few years ago). The larger and fewer reverse beads are the most diagnostic, whilst the obverse has a very different portrait, plus there is a distinct gap between the D:G: and BRIT that is not present on the later obverse 3 ( I got the die pair wrong in my above post - it's actually a 3+B which is right for 1873 ).

Just seen this finish on eBay... NOT an 1853 threepence, but an 1873. The die pair is 2+B rather than the 1+A it would have to be. Certainly an honest mistake by the seller as the third digit is blundered/worn/damaged and bears a resemblance to a 5, but you would think someone willing to spend over a hundred quid would know their stuff! Hope it wasn't anyone on here who bought it! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/British-3-Pence-1853-Rare-/353646172040?mkpid=0&emsid=e11002.m43.l2649&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=21b00d5cd5a8478089b047bb7bd97776&bu=43098541495&exe=0&ext=0&logid=nqt%3DAAAAAAAAAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAACAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAEAAEA*%26nqc%3DAAAAAAAAAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAEAAEA*%26mdbreftime%3D1630857662908%26es%3D3%26ec%3D1&osub=-1~1&crd=20210905091455&segname=11002&sojTags=ch%3Dch%2Cbu%3Dbu%2Cnqt%3Dnqt%2Cnqc%3Dnqc%2Cmdbreftime%3Dmdbreftime%2Ces%3Des%2Cec%3Dec%2Cexe%3Dexe%2Cext%3Dext%2Cexe%3Dexe%2Cext%3Dext%2Cosub%3Dosub%2Ccrd%3Dcrd%2Csegname%3Dsegname%2Cchnl%3Dmkcid&nma=true&si=G8MMtpNLMSH%2FzVDr1pcX7gtwdUs%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Blimey! Why is the link so long?!

Shame about the fingerprint, but it's great for minimal wear and lustre... @secret santa Richard - feel free to add this one too to your penny website if you like!

Really happy it went to a forum member, and so glad you're pleased! I managed to get an upgrade for it at a good price too (see below), so karma has worked out brilliantly for all concerned! Still got some other things for sale!!

Ha ha! 😝 If this is proof aFDC, then my collection is beyond proof or must be MS120 !! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265257478771?hash=item3dc293ea73:g:LcMAAOSwEqphDn3w

I have got listed another batch of rarer stuff on eBay if any forum member might be interested... Includes an 1860 Freeman obverse 1*, a 1913 penny Freeman 176 in reasonable grade, plus a few complete Whitman folders of pennies and halfpennies. link: https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/m.html?item=284397983318&_ssn=1970kit&_sop=10 Cheers!

Thanks, Richard. Greatly appreciated!

I remember reading years ago, and goodness knows where (but might have been in an ancient Coin Monthly), that there was a conjecture that these open 3s might actually have been overdates on a 1902 die due to the matching curve at the top of both 3 and 2 and some hint of a flatter straight at the bottom of the open 3 to match the remains of the horizontal of the 2. If so, perhaps a numeral punch was not in fact used at all, but rather the open 3 was skilfully hand-cut into the die, by a meticulous engraver. Such hand cut digits do exist elsewhere in the UK coinage series according to eg. Davies and others. Just a thought - perhaps a punch search might be in vain!!

Iain Dracott says in his 2004 Coin News articles that he discovered it, but doesn't mention when. No references I can find that pre-date that, but only Iain would know for sure. Don't know if he is a member here, or if another member is in contact with him?

Obviously not a lot of halfpenny collectors out there... ! I know it's crappy, but how many of this type do exist??