Martinminerva

Thanks! It's not the same coin. On this one above, the stop is significantly bigger and in a different location. Also, the coin above is more heavily worn than the coincommunity one.

Can you post a link to it as I'm not on that forum? Thanks.

Well, I take it all back! I have now seen this one. The seller states that 3 are known (not sure where that data is obtained from though). Just to clarify - this is not the type with the last i re-entered directly over a much lower i - I have one of those! The stop (or blob ?) is significantly offset from the final i. So, is this what the cataloguers meant?

Hi Richard This is a die clash rather than die crack - the mirror image of Victoria's face is what has transferred to the reverse die and all subsequent coins then struck, due to the dies coming together without a blank in between them. Nice and clear, but very common.

It's a half groat - two pence.

No - a short cross penny of Henry III as Coinery states above. Groats are much larger!

I have noticed this on the ebay FAQ page about this new system; the last bullet point would seem most relevant: Sellers funds will be made available to UK-based private sellers after the order is considered delivered or complete, which is determined by the delivery method: For tracked deliveries, the seller will receive payment 2 calendar days after eBay receives confirmation from the tracked delivery service that it was successful. For local pick-up, the seller will receive payment when you exchange the 6 digit code or QR code with your seller. If the item includes Authenticity Guarantee, the seller will receive payment after the item is successfully authenticated. For items sent via the Global Shipping Programme, the seller will receive payment after the item is delivered to the UK Shipping Centre. For untracked deliveries, or tracked deliveries with no delivery confirmation, the seller will receive payment 14 days from the order date. So, perhaps not as awful as it first sounded, but still pretty awful. And, yes, the Royal Mail has an appalling record regarding updating its tracking pages. I reckon about 50% of the things I have bought and sold over the last couple of years were never fully tracked by the Royal Mail, so I guess a lot of people will be enduring this two week wait for their money. Also, the buying fees are likely to put off a lot of potential customers. Ebay really has been going down the pan for many years now, especially after every "improvement" they choose to make without any consultation with its members... Perhaps we should all start to make much more use of the buy & sell threads on this forum?!

I agree. There is clearly damage with the die crack and resulting blob of metal in the O so it is likely that the E has suffered damage too, maybe abrasion? Again, it is just possible a partial hand-repair has been done as was mentioned on one of your halfpennies, but can't be conclusive from this pic. A high resolution enlargement, if you can do one, might help, but Peckris is right that an actual F punch would have a bottom serif. I think your 1854 halfpenny on the previous page is just the result of corrosion - maybe a cleaned detector find out of the ground. Acids in the soil cause all sorts of pits, blobs and effects to the metal. As an occasional detectorist myself, I have found many once-nice coins sadly similarly affected.

I have seen a fair few of these and have a couple of my own, so not particularly rare even though not in Gouby's book. The die pair is 6 + G. [Freeman's notations] The reason why the H is displaced is because the 7 has been entered closer to the 8 than on other reverses (the master die/matrix had just 18_ _ on it and working dies had the last two digits (and mintmark) hand entered, explaining the great variety of date widths and anomalies seen) and keeping the H central to these digits means it just ends up over a gap. Not to be confused with the very rare reverse I with wider, low date digits and H over gap.

And to you, Terry, and all forum members!

This one I think is just die fill or die wear - also visible on the F of FD. It's the sort of thing that leads in time to die repair and the occasional doubling of letters that was discussed in another post, but it is always possible that here the E has already been repaired with an L, but just can't tell from this photo whether it is just the top bar of the E that has gone or if strengthening has already been done with an L. In the Gouby book for pennies, look at the entries for 1860 and 1861 in particular and you'll see all sorts of repairs and part-letter repairs; the same thing happened with halfpennies, especially in these early years.

Check out page 24 of this thread: https://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/12819-halfpenny-id-check/?page=24 It tells the story of the discovery of the E (rather than F) over B. Also, on the previous page or two is lots of stuff about 1860 beaded border combinations. Bob (Zo Arms) found the first, a 4+G and then I found a 6+G. Yours is exactly the same as mine, a 6+G, as proven by the matching die crack! You've done it again with a smashing find! I wish all the junk lots I bought had all the varieties yours do! How do you do it?!😖

I have now got hold of one of these, in pretty presentable condition too, and can confirm the high final 6 and a date spacing of perhaps 10.75 beads (definitely narrower than Gouby BP1866Aa.) Interestingly too, this one has a dirty big die crack through the ship - maybe that's why the die was discarded soon on and not many specimens escaped?

Hi again, Richard. These are actually repairs to the die rather than a true double striking. Most conspicuous is the linear circle repair around REG - the new circle touches the tops of the letters whilst the vestiges of the original circle above the letters can still be seen. Similarly, just before BRITT the new linear circle isn't actually circular, but rather undercuts what's left of the original. Interesting, yes, but of no huge significance - die repairs in the early years of the Viccy bronze series are rampant! Looks like the R in REG would be the next letter due a repair! A true double striking would see consistent duplication rather than scattergun.

Brilliant! Thanks, Chris! @Chris Perkins Everything appears to be working again! Phew!

@Chris Perkins It has now returned to exactly the same error as back in January with the same code: Sorry, there is a problem Something went wrong. Please try again. Error code: EX145 Curious that smartphones seem to have no issues, but I have now tried three different PCs, four different browsers and two different locations. PLEASE can someone fix it!

Here's a couple of screenshots to show what is happening. Much like what happened at the top of the post back in January, only a slightly different error code:

No - still all wrong. It was working fine last night, but not at all today. As I say, I have tried two different computers and three different browsers. What about that error code EX1032 what does that mean?

It's happening again today to me on all my computers and browsers. Same "low graphics" homepage and similar error message (server or configuration error has occurred) but a slightly different code : Sorry, there is a problem Something went wrong. Please try again. Error code: EX1032 I have sent an email to Chris Perkins @Chris Perkinsto alert him. Anyone else experiencing this?

I've sent you a message. Hi Richard. I wonder if you could be really kind as to send me too your spreadsheet of prices realised? I'll PM you my email address now... Cheers!

The 1874H penny above is a standard Freeman 71, namely 7+G by his die pairings. However, your 1861 halfpenny is much more interesting - it is a Freeman 282, coincidentally also a 7+G pairing by his halfpenny die pairs, BUT the 1 over 1 to the left was only recorded by Iain Dracott back in 2004 in his series of halfpenny articles in Coin News magazine, and not many are yet known. As halfpennies tend to be less focused on by collectors, I bet there are a few more around and unnoticed, but once again you have nailed a pretty rare, if not especially (yet) sought after, variety! Well done again!

Thanks, Bernie - I live and learn! I knew there were 2 die pairs A over A and not, but didn't know "not" was R over R instead! That's what you've got, Bee ! Ignore all my nonsense about dings then!

Yes to the first (well done again!) - and the A of Victoria may well be over another A but can't tell from the resolution of the pictures (N over Z is known both with and without A over A in Victoria.) I think no to the second - looks like just a nick and consequent metal displacement, going along with all the other dings, bashes and nicks that the coin has sustained. Compare the base of the first T in Britt for example for similar damage.

Thanks indeed, Richard - that works great (and for part two, just change I for II in the url !!)

I can view the catalogue lot by lot, but can't see where one downloads the two PDFs you refer to. Can you post a precise link for a numpty like me ?!