Martinminerva

I see what you mean, Terry. How curious... Would they really have made two dies for this experiment?? Just to add another spanner in things, here's a picture of a normal (albeit missing waves) 1931 reverse (from Richard's site) which also seems to have the smaller Britannia, longer teeth, thinner thumb, bigger gap from trident to teeth etc such as Richard has identified for these trial pieces. Are there actually BOTH subtly different Gouby reverse d's known for all dates 1927 to 1936, perhaps as a result of hubbing variations, and so this could after all be a doctored 1927 piece???? Or is it just for 1931? I'm going to have to trawl through all my GV pennies later!! If anyone on the forum did buy it, PLEASE have a good look at it through a microscope!

Hi Richard. I saw it at the time and was considering putting a bid in but concluded it was a doctored specimen: the 6 on the LCA specimen is surrounded by lighter coloured metal consistent with it having been transplanted from another coin onto an original 1927 coin. Quite apart from that, it would have to be a different die too as on your ex-Freeman one, the 6 is over a gap between teeth and rotated slightly clockwise, whereas on the LCA one, the 6 is bolt upright and over a tooth. I can't believe two trial dies were produced striking one coin each! Happy to be proved wrong if anyone here did buy it and microscopy eliminates my suspicions...

You're seeing things. Another classic case of pareidolia, methinks. On a genuine die 5, the die number is much larger than your "blob" and also slightly to the right of a border tooth. Your anomaly is to the left... See below:

Isn't it a brockage? No. Just a die clash - see original post at top of thread. This picture immediately above is an overlay / superimposed, not what the coin actually looks like.

Oh no it hasn't! I see it's back on for the same price, ( https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/358587103022 ) alongside a load more misleadingly described pennies including allegedly an LCW below foot (it's not) and some central cut fishtails from years or obverses when they don't exist! Whoever this is seems to have a lot of knowledge about rare penny types in principle, but then talks out of their arse in practice. Utterly bizarre... a well-read incompetent, or a sophisticated chancer?? Or create your own label...

Fortunately with his (or her - Linda??) outrageous prices, most people are fly enough to not fall for such bull, but I do see this one has sold: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/358558956337?itmmeta=01KS30XZG90WV7QVHWDYHQTRTW&hash=item537bc77b31:g:74IAAeSwAllqBx9t Obviously, post mint damage. Part of me thinks if some idiot has £500 to throw away on this sort of rubbish, more fool them, but I do take the point that naive people might get burnt. Don' know what the solution is. Ebay aren't ever interested in reporting items like these...

For what it's worth, I do not think this is a very rare thick flan 10+J but rather a normal flan one where the rim has been "rolled" in machinery and slightly compressed thus, and so makes the edge look wider. My evidence for this is a) this was commonly done with many, many bronze predecimal coins, I guess as people were just playing around with lathes etc in workshops, and I personally have many such examples of all bronze denominations and several monarchs, and b) from your photo, the rim itself next to the beads appears to be thin or non-existent, when in reality there should be a distinct rim edge surrounding the beads (see photo of obverse 10 below, taken from Richard's halfpenny website) which is basically where the rolled metal has gone from to form the "thicker" edge. c) The genuine thick flan is R20 for rarity, so VERY few known indeed. Of course, that is not to say another one wouldn't ever turn up, but mathematically one is more likely to find further specimens in the R17-R18 bracket, as you proved with your 1877 narrow date. But of course, one can only be sure when in hand and can be weighed, measured etc. But if you ask opinions from vague photos, be prepared to get vague answers, or indeed an absence of answers in light of the absence of evidence! I wish you luck with this purchase, just as you have had much luck already, but equally you must expect disappointments too... Also, give things a bit more time for feedback: you only posted on Saturday morning - I am replying Monday afternoon!

It's good. I have recessed ear 1915 pennies both with and without broken tooth. Without seems rarer. Haven't yet seen a 1916 without broken tooth though.

Spectacular, but not a die clash. This has been completely struck twice and rotated in the dies between striking.

Looks like it might well be LCW below foot. If so, well done, and what a stroke of luck (again) for you, especially as you thought it was something else completely - these are seldom seen, especially and ironically in lower grades. Took me years to find one!! Do you do the lottery?? 😄

Both of these are examples of classic pareidolia !!

Definitely NOT an H. As you can see from Secret Santa's post above too, the H if present is smaller than the smudge/toning/anomaly you have where the H would be. Many times we all wish the presence of something and convince ourselves from a humble picture that a smudge or blob just might be the magic thing! I myself must have bought over the years half a dozen 1863 pennies with "something" perhaps below the date which just might possibly have been a die number with a fair wind behind. Needless to say of course, none of them were!!

Just out of interest, when is the next Collectors' Coins GB (the pre-decimal one) likely to be coming out? The last one was 2020 ! I know bullion price volatility will be affecting values significantly, but even so, it'd be great to have an updated and revised edition soon!!

Just one of the ubiquitous modern replicas... Not even good enough to fool anyone except an idiot. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/406789410745?_skw=406789410745&itmmeta=01KMAVAFKDNTTGCHV256D0YB2K&hash=item5eb689cfb9:g:95IAAeSwS5ZpvvKF&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAA0GfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xBUXE%2BOaPHIv8uZXkMDusPtlLW3mKOT4AlbEkZlhYUSQf3ssm3Ki9cgqJyg%2FRy0CFuTTQ%2B27w6xt%2FDJHPkYlLSOUmbK2SYJqHN89UMFJvkaC%2BbtCI9b%2FdOAqtk14AxXA%2Fr1tEoxf3UHg04Jouny2X02ErsROqmKw3lh8h3eW645zAiFS0kEbugMTlsMpMQf1YE6rgBNnkuzLi%2FDevGJQ%2FH7bOyzmpQR3oK6TuV%2B6Q0mBaRRMZksZwNGHusaKSdlB3M%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR-L5qduiZw

No. All have the same size font digits. What you might be getting confused about is that some 1849 specimens (not yours above) have the small WW initials next to the date obliterated by the linear circle. These ones are taken from an 184(8) pattern matrix which has had the linear circle re-engraved (and the 9 added), thus obscuring the original WW initials. Or possibly a confusion with 1849 halfcrowns, which are indeed known with both normal and smaller date digits (latter is rarer).

Standard 8 over 7. Yours looks like type Da in the varieties noted by Gouby in screenshot from his website below...

A solid Fine for me.

A well known variety. See screenshot from Michael Gouby's website below. Typically a master die in the Victorian period had just the 18.. pre-entered on it, and from that working dies were made that then had the last 2 digits hand entered. (This is behind all the date width varieties for example on Victorian bun pennies). For 1857 shillings, one working die had the last two digits entered with numeral punches from the wrong font thus causing the example above.

Have a look at Gouby's (brilliant) website if you want to learn more about all the various types of coin varieties, and specifically at this page for this die-clash ribbon issue: https://michael-coins.co.uk/cp1848 ribbon.htm I also insert a screenshot of some of the subtly different clashes that have typically been observed by Gouby based on the impact pressure and transfer of detail for separate clashes.

Just because someone has made a random claim on eBay that this is a "rare variety" does not make it a documented fact of any substance. And herein lies the whole problem of so called "AI" - it just regurgitates superficial stuff trawled from the internet with no discernment or discrimination and presents it as gospel truth. Alfnail's quoting Gouby regarding die clash damage above is proper scholarly documentation, actual fact, and derived from many years of human expertise, experience, analysis and real intelligence. Yet AI couldn't manage to reconcile that internet based evidence...

It's a farthing. You are probably being misled by the size which is only a bit bigger than decimal pennies today. Victorian copper pennies were huge!

Yes, definitely a contemporary forgery (very common) of a silver skin clad onto a base metal core - the core is corroding and bursting through in places which is causing those greyer-looking patches and random protrusions through the silver skin. So, no scrap value at all to speak of, but an interesting bit of social history and probably worth keeping thus.

I'm afraid that this coin is basically just scrap - 1723 SSC is a very common piece (unless it is one of the rare varieties like French arms at date or C over SS in the third quarter, which this isn't) and pieces in much better condition don't cost the Earth. With the recent rise in scrap price, yours would be worth way more as a lump of silver than its recent "collector" or "book" value for a coin so poor (and I doubt anybody would want to buy it as a coin to collect), so, sadly, scrap it and put the money towards buying a better piece, be it a nicer one of these, or anything else that takes your fancy.

I see London Coins sold this piece below a decade or so ago, concluding it was a doctored piece (is it???) with the H presumably added post-mint. Maybe this is the one Freeman saw and then had second thoughts? Did any forum member buy it, perhaps? Seemed a fair price for such a curio!

Not quite all, though... Eg. the mule 1860 halfpenny listed above as 260A does not appear in the 1986 or subsequent editions, instead there the one given 260A is the missing knot 1*+A, but non-mule, and 260B its proof. Wonder why he never mentioned again such a mule piece? I believe a few are now known?