Martinminerva

Spot on - just die fill, and very common.

It is definitely 1859 (1839 has the 3 in a very different font to this as does 1869 with its 6) and the date has been dinged - a gouge upwards from south -west to north-east as it were, of the 5. Zoom in on the 5 and it's very clear. The "ghosts" on the letters you mention are just signs of letter repair on the die. Nothing numismatically significant here, sadly.

Corrosion spots often are raised as chemical changes break through and push up from below the surface. Essentially what is the question is: is the dot original metal (caused by a recess or incuse mark on the die and thus "proud" metal when transferred to the coin), or the product of corrosion. Given the number of other marks, I do fear it may be the latter. A gentle pick with a SOFT object (eg. dampened matchstick, or a fingernail) may remove or scratch through a corrosion deposit but won't affect solid metal. Hope that may help...

Looking at the whole obverse, especially all the bits and bobs in front of Victoria, I think these might be corrosion blobs on the flan itself, rather than transferred from the die which is perhaps why it has not been seen before ?

Yes, just a circumferential die crack. Victorian bronze was very prone to it, and around the legend letters especially so as these were points of weakness. Nothing numismatically significant here, I'm afraid.

Yes, correct on all three! Numbers two and three are quite scarce die pairings.

Just see the furore that has broken out on ebay about this! In just one day, over 150 negative comments and counting... https://community.ebay.co.uk/t5/Seller-Central/NO-LONGER-SELLING-DUE-TO-SIMPLE-DELIVERY/m-p/7813888#M717338 As I said above: And I absolutely rest my case. I will not be selling any of my duplicates on ebay any more. Perhaps I will indeed put a few things on the for sale and wanted threads here and just maybe in time we on the forum can build our own marketplace??

"Rear coins", my arse! Never a truer word spoken, ironically!💩 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335864676756?itmmeta=01JPFXGTJTN1RG45Y420E50A97&hash=item4e33184194:g:z6YAAeSw3gRn1tFb&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA4MHg7L1Zz0LA5DYYmRTS30mrq7ZxPzDEwuz8dTR9vNwPjzLW%2FuMX5XltgQFtpMHHmnRKnKSwHS2EHGaBuZZTzeAyo7vBCaNXWE7rC0eUs1a3UAPqSfoxMXUhGYBRxRctI1SzZkz%2F87wmmn7PLVuqilJL2Hnpyum2FXPyagkamcmyk19tRXQ1uYhivX%2F%2BQ5MpVwJR4wrVH884T3OqmdtYRy%2FMBYuL99oc2ot7nkkIQkglog9iV0i6hktsrzfkuOT9Vj8D4SESULXQdPk7VyUd5VA36awsPuW0yS638Fe%2BmT45|tkp%3ABFBMyKnD_bNl

I am sure they did as it was an auction listing rather than a buy-it-now (I saw it too and took screenshots also, so you're not going mad, Terry). Changing the image and the title is a way for the seller and buyer to avoid others noticing - though they did - and to avoid a hefty eBay fee to boot. Wonder who got it and for what actual price??

Curious... If you look at this screen grab I've just done (at 8.55pm today), the page still exists and works - highlighted in red, but at the END of the list of links. The one bracketed [2] in its usual place is a dead link. Copy the one that works while you can!!

Indeed, really bad. It was working earlier today fine - I saw the new uploads of the 13#+L's of Bernie's and Bob's. One thought - does your web host not have a facility for undoing recent changes, and returning to a previous state where all worked fine? They usually do for exactly this reason. Fingers crossed.

Very true, but websites have a habit of vanishing when the person behind it no longer supports it for whatever reason. Web archiving eg. The Wayback Machine does not seem to preserve pictures, and for coin varieties, they would seem to be essential. We have been talking about Joe Lee's farthingshalfpennyerrors.com recently, and also the about farthings website and others that are no more. Many years ago there was a brilliant website about threehalfpences and groats, but again now totally gone. A book gives permanence, even if outdated in time in terms of new discoveries. We still refer to Peck and Freeman as something of "bibles", and rightly so, the originals of which go back fifty plus years. And likewise, Gouby's has decades of pedigree. The best bet for me is both media - a book for a permanent record and ease of ready reference, and websites for latest discoveries etc. When appropriate, the latters' findings can then be incorporated into revised editions. ESC is now onto its 7th incarnation, I think, and still going strong. Website only research and publication will become totally lost in time, which is just a terrible waste.

First one is mdccclxxiii, so 1873. Second one is mdccclxxxvi, so 1886.

There was talk on here a few years back about an official re-write of Freeman (maybe either by Michael himself, or under his auspices?), incorporating all the new findings, whether the appendices in the reprint of that book, Satin's work, Gouby and also those discoveries now published on this forum by various members. And with the advent of digital photography, much better images. A monumental undertaking, but it would assemble everything into one place. But I have heard no more about it. Maybe just too big a job...?

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.