The 1926 ME penny

[1949threepence 3,367]

Having now been collecting bun pennies for well over a year, and over halfway through assembling my collection, I am struck by the fact that despite very few being more common than Freeman R4, and all either over or approaching 100 years at the time of withdrawal in 1971, it is still possible to obtain the majority quite easily, albeit expensively, in high grades.

The same cannot be said of the 1926ME. A total of 4,498,519 pennies were minted in 1926, and the ME's were included in that figure. Whilst we don't know the exact separate ME mintage, we do know they are classed by Freeman as R5 ~ ie: no rarer than many buns, which from experience we know we can get in high grade without too much of a struggle. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that the 1926ME apparently has the same degree of rarity as many of the buns, it is a whole different ball game when it comes to getting one. They are difficult to obtain even at grades below fine, and virtually impossible at grades above VF. Nearly all the ones we see for sale are obviously those plucked from circulation in the late 1960's, with 40+ years of wear.

I wondered if anybody had any theories regarding what I call the 1926ME paradox ~ paradoxically very difficult to find but with only an R5 rating. Why is it so tough to get a decent one, and just how many of the 4.5 million minted, actually were ME's ?

I hope some of you are as intrigued as me about this enigmatic penny

[azda 979]

Perhaps because George V Penny strikes were shite at the best of times?

[argentumandcoins 70]

You have to remember that when Freeman compiled his books he based his rarity levels on a dip sample of 70000 or so coins. I don't have his earliest book (it's held by my father) but the exact numbers of how many of each date he had are in there. His estimated rarity levels are therefore quite often totally inaccurate, but they were the best that he could come up with.

He may have been lucky enough to have had 12 donated from 8 collectors, 4 of whom may have had both types and the other 4 only the ordinary effigy. The fact that they were collectors means that they will have noticed the M.E. and kept/bought it because of that reason. This gives the impression that it was relatively common. If the 8 people that donated were men on the street you may well have found that all 12 were ordinary effigy? The figures I have quoted are only for illustration purposes!

The 26 M.E. is undoubtedly a rare coin, as is the 1909 F169 etc etc, quite often much rarer than Freeman reported.

As for condition, I can't answer. Any 1926 in UNC is quite scarce, whereas an 1862 in UNC is quite common. A paradox indeed.

[Rob 3,152]

Given that nobody knows the exact number produced and all Freeman's (as are every other's) estimates of rarity are numbers based on conjecture to some extent, then maybe the R5 is not a true reflection of reality. Comparing various writers' attributions of rarity values for issues over the past few hundred years, I would say that in general there is a tendency to underestimate the numbers of older coins in existence, but possibly also to overestimate some of the modern rarities. It is quite possible that R5 (50-100K) is in fact an optimistic estimate of the quantity in existence. Given that nobody has a crystal ball or the ability to oversee the entire market, all rarity numbers must be treated with a degree of scepticism. If the market place doesn't bear out the quoted numbers, then it is probably wrong.

Freeman based these assessments on his pile mostly accumulated from circulation, but it is equally possible that he was not averse to picking up small batches from markets stalls etc just as we all are today which could bias the numbers somewhat. What I am saying is that there is no guarantee that the sample of approx. 60000 pennies was entirely representative of the numbers in circulation.

A parallel conundrum is that of the F465A 1953 proof halfpenny with the 2+B die combination. Mintage of the 1953 proof sets was 40,000. Freeman gives the F465A as R14 (251-500), but apart from my own example I only know of a handful of people with one. I would expect to see a number appearing on ebay, but they don't. You don't see any in auctions, yet they are rare enough to warrant a separate lot.

I think you would have to do your own survey and generate your own data to arrive at a rarity with which you feel comfortable. Above all, question anything that is written elsewhere. Whilst there is not likely to be any intention to deceive, the market wants to be given an indication of rarity and the author will attempt to fill the demand. That's human nature. Do your own work and draw your own conclusions.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Rob

[davidrj 194]

You have to remember that when Freeman compiled his books he based his rarity levels on a dip sample of 70000 or so coins. I don't have his earliest book (it's held by my father) but the exact numbers of how many of each date he had are in there. His estimated rarity levels are therefore quite often totally inaccurate, but they were the best that he could come up with.

Freeman's 1st book (1964) with numbers he collected only covers Victorian pennies. Not aware he ever published actual counts of any pennies post 1901

David

[Peckris 579]

I doubt the 1926ME is as rare as you're making out, in Fine and below. I found two in circulation when it was already an established rarity. Ok, not a very scientific poll, but I never found a 19KN or a 50 or 51. It's in VF or better that its rarity truly bites.

[scott 144]

i would go on a limb and say that 1/4 were ME's. they do appear more often that say 1869 and 1871, maybe the reason no one kept them was because money was tight around that period so were more likely to be spent.

[Peter 615]

I have 3. 2 from circulation and 1 for £4.99 (bit better than fine).

I can't say they are very rare..at least not against other coins which just don't appear on Ebay or lists or fairs...we all know what they are don't we.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Peter

[VickySilver 830]

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

[1949threepence 3,367]

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

[Gary D 76]

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

Surely rarity figures are all nonsence now due to decimalisation. I would guess only 10% of pennies exist now and all the so called rarities were stripped for circulatiion beforehand. The playing field is much levelled now a days and H and KNs are as common as 1967 pennies.

[Red Riley 2]

The best estimate I have seen (and I have no idea where I got it from) was of about 400,000 ME's. I have to say that although I collected avidly from change for maybe 2 1/2 years, I never saw a 26 ME, but at the same time must have encountered 18-20 1926 ordinary effigies, so read into that what you will.

I think it is fair to say that if the only 1926 pennies issued equated to the small number of ME's then they would be far more common in higher grade. People (especially kids) used to put aside an example of each date and for 1926 this was most likely to have been an ordinary effigy. Variety collecting was in its infancy then and most collectors would be either unaware of the variety or just weren't that concerned. Added to this the fact that being produced from new dies which were presumably only brought into use when the old ones were worn out, the ME's were likely to have been issued last and quite conceivably not until 1927 by which time most collectors already had their BU 1926.

A fair bit of conjecture there, but it does seem to make sense and give a reasonable explanation of this coin's rarity.

[scott 144]

if it is an obvious differance then maybe people would keep them back, hence the H and KN's

[1949threepence 3,367]

The best estimate I have seen (and I have no idea where I got it from) was of about 400,000 ME's. I have to say that although I collected avidly from change for maybe 2 1/2 years, I never saw a 26 ME, but at the same time must have encountered 18-20 1926 ordinary effigies, so read into that what you will.

Assuming your next one had been a ME, and your collection at that point having been pure chance (which from change it obviously would have been), that might indicate 5% or less being ME. The 400,000 estimate is less than 10% (about, what...8%)

I think it is fair to say that if the only 1926 pennies issued equated to the small number of ME's then they would be far more common in higher grade. People (especially kids) used to put aside an example of each date and for 1926 this was most likely to have been an ordinary effigy. Variety collecting was in its infancy then and most collectors would be either unaware of the variety or just weren't that concerned. Added to this the fact that being produced from new dies which were presumably only brought into use when the old ones were worn out, the ME's were likely to have been issued last and quite conceivably not until 1927 by which time most collectors already had their BU 1926.

A fair bit of conjecture there, but it does seem to make sense and give a reasonable explanation of this coin's rarity.

Maybe conjecture, but that actually makes a lot of sense. Obviously not every single UNC unearthed will have been part of a collection, but many will have been.

Edited February 27, 2011 by 1949threepence

[RLC35 288]

The best estimate I have seen (and I have no idea where I got it from) was of about 400,000 ME's. I have to say that although I collected avidly from change for maybe 2 1/2 years, I never saw a 26 ME, but at the same time must have encountered 18-20 1926 ordinary effigies, so read into that what you will.

I think it is fair to say that if the only 1926 pennies issued equated to the small number of ME's then they would be far more common in higher grade. People (especially kids) used to put aside an example of each date and for 1926 this was most likely to have been an ordinary effigy. Variety collecting was in its infancy then and most collectors would be either unaware of the variety or just weren't that concerned. Added to this the fact that being produced from new dies which were presumably only brought into use when the old ones were worn out, the ME's were likely to have been issued last and quite conceivably not until 1927 by which time most collectors already had their BU 1926.

A fair bit of conjecture there, but it does seem to make sense and give a reasonable explanation of this coin's rarity.

Derek,

If you still hadn't seen a ME in 20 examples, then the best estimate from that ratio (4,498,519 divided by 21) would be 214,215 ME's minted. I would believe the mintage would be somewhat less than 214k though. Just my humble opinion! <gggg>.

[Gary D 76]

The best estimate I have seen (and I have no idea where I got it from) was of about 400,000 ME's. I have to say that although I collected avidly from change for maybe 2 1/2 years, I never saw a 26 ME, but at the same time must have encountered 18-20 1926 ordinary effigies, so read into that what you will.

I think it is fair to say that if the only 1926 pennies issued equated to the small number of ME's then they would be far more common in higher grade. People (especially kids) used to put aside an example of each date and for 1926 this was most likely to have been an ordinary effigy. Variety collecting was in its infancy then and most collectors would be either unaware of the variety or just weren't that concerned. Added to this the fact that being produced from new dies which were presumably only brought into use when the old ones were worn out, the ME's were likely to have been issued last and quite conceivably not until 1927 by which time most collectors already had their BU 1926.

A fair bit of conjecture there, but it does seem to make sense and give a reasonable explanation of this coin's rarity.

Derek,

If you still hadn't seen a ME in 20 examples, then the best estimate from that ratio (4,498,519 divided by 21) would be 214,215 ME's minted. I would believe the mintage would be somewhat less than 214k though. Just my humble opinion! <gggg>.

How many pennies would you get from a set of dies?. If it was a first run of a new observe would they have run more than a dies worth to see how the die stood up?

[Accumulator 52]

I doubt the 1926ME is as rare as you're making out, in Fine and below. I found two in circulation when it was already an established rarity. Ok, not a very scientific poll, but I never found a 19KN or a 50 or 51. It's in VF or better that its rarity truly bites.

I have several thousand pennies purchased in several bulk lots from penny arcade operators in years gone by. I know they were not generally sorted through as I found some very obvious rarities which would have been pulled out (1950s etc.). The number of 1926 pennies, though was relatively low as overall mintage was low. I have only around 10, amongst which I found one ME. Not very scientific of course as I also found some very rare coins but missed some relatively common ones altogether. My gut feel though, would be perhaps 10% for an ME.

[RLC35 288]

I have 3 rolls of circulated 1926 Pennies, I bought 40 years ago, from a Mail order dealer. Recently, after I found out how to positevely ID a 1926 ME, I looked at the coins, and did not find a single ME! I have however, found a few over the past few years, at local coins shows, in the .50 cent box!<gggg>.

[SionGilbey 1]

I think the dealer probably knew how to identify them too!

[Red Riley 2]

If you still hadn't seen a ME in 20 examples, then the best estimate from that ratio (4,498,519 divided by 21) would be 214,215 ME's minted. I would believe the mintage would be somewhat less than 214k though. Just my humble opinion! <gggg>.

I would have to say that this is over 40 years ago now and my 18-20 is not much more than inspired guesswork. There was a pal of mine who also used to wade through his coins and I know that he never found one either, so perhaps they really were that rare. Fair to say though that a disproportionate number would ultimately have been taken out of circulation by collectors but whether this was significant or not, I just can't say.

[Accumulator 52]

I would have to say that this is over 40 years ago now and my 18-20 is not much more than inspired guesswork. There was a pal of mine who also used to wade through his coins and I know that he never found one either, so perhaps they really were that rare. Fair to say though that a disproportionate number would ultimately have been taken out of circulation by collectors but whether this was significant or not, I just can't say.

It's easy to confuse the two issues: the rarity of 1926 generally and the rarity of the ME as a portion of that year. 1926 was an extremely low year for production of pennies anyway, so wading through coins generally is not going to turn up many. To put it in perspective, there were less 1926 pennies produced than those dated 1919H and there were 15 times as many pennies minted in 1927 as in 1926. My own experience turned up no more than about two 1926 pennies per thousand 1960's circulation coins searched.

So if ME's represent, say, 10% of the output you would on average have to search 5,000 circulation pennies to find a single example. On that basis, it's probably correct to describe them as rare, although not actually rare in terms of just 1926.

[Peckris 579]

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

In 1926 there had been no pennies issued for 3 years. Then demand must have increased enough to warrant an issue, even though the modified effigy must have been close to readiness. Assuming the normal run of casual collectors who habitually put a BU penny aside, the first run of 1926s must have satisfied that urge. By the time the ME came along (at the end of the year?) would people have readily seen the difference between the two types anyway? By the time they did, the 1927 pennny would have emerged in large quantities so those got put aside instead. I'm really thinking the 1926ME 'slipped beneath the radar' as far as being noticed.

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

Surely rarity figures are all nonsence now due to decimalisation. I would guess only 10% of pennies exist now and all the so called rarities were stripped for circulatiion beforehand. The playing field is much levelled now a days and H and KNs are as common as 1967 pennies.

That's a very good point, though I'd hardly claim parity between H & KNs with 1967!!

The best estimate I have seen (and I have no idea where I got it from) was of about 400,000 ME's. I have to say that although I collected avidly from change for maybe 2 1/2 years, I never saw a 26 ME, but at the same time must have encountered 18-20 1926 ordinary effigies, so read into that what you will.

I think it is fair to say that if the only 1926 pennies issued equated to the small number of ME's then they would be far more common in higher grade. People (especially kids) used to put aside an example of each date and for 1926 this was most likely to have been an ordinary effigy. Variety collecting was in its infancy then and most collectors would be either unaware of the variety or just weren't that concerned. Added to this the fact that being produced from new dies which were presumably only brought into use when the old ones were worn out, the ME's were likely to have been issued last and quite conceivably not until 1927 by which time most collectors already had their BU 1926.

A fair bit of conjecture there, but it does seem to make sense and give a reasonable explanation of this coin's rarity.

We're on the same wavelength here Derek. As a schoolboy it took me a year to suss that my first-ever 1926 penny from change, was the ME ! Back in '26, I'm wondering how many people actually noticed, especially considering how few there were anyway?

[1949threepence 3,367]

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

In 1926 there had been no pennies issued for 3 years. Then demand must have increased enough to warrant an issue, even though the modified effigy must have been close to readiness. Assuming the normal run of casual collectors who habitually put a BU penny aside, the first run of 1926s must have satisfied that urge. By the time the ME came along (at the end of the year?) would people have readily seen the difference between the two types anyway? By the time they did, the 1927 pennny would have emerged in large quantities so those got put aside instead. I'm really thinking the 1926ME 'slipped beneath the radar' as far as being noticed.

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

Surely rarity figures are all nonsence now due to decimalisation. I would guess only 10% of pennies exist now and all the so called rarities were stripped for circulatiion beforehand. The playing field is much levelled now a days and H and KNs are as common as 1967 pennies.

That's a very good point, though I'd hardly claim parity between H & KNs with 1967!!

The best estimate I have seen (and I have no idea where I got it from) was of about 400,000 ME's. I have to say that although I collected avidly from change for maybe 2 1/2 years, I never saw a 26 ME, but at the same time must have encountered 18-20 1926 ordinary effigies, so read into that what you will.

I think it is fair to say that if the only 1926 pennies issued equated to the small number of ME's then they would be far more common in higher grade. People (especially kids) used to put aside an example of each date and for 1926 this was most likely to have been an ordinary effigy. Variety collecting was in its infancy then and most collectors would be either unaware of the variety or just weren't that concerned. Added to this the fact that being produced from new dies which were presumably only brought into use when the old ones were worn out, the ME's were likely to have been issued last and quite conceivably not until 1927 by which time most collectors already had their BU 1926.

A fair bit of conjecture there, but it does seem to make sense and give a reasonable explanation of this coin's rarity.

We're on the same wavelength here Derek. As a schoolboy it took me a year to suss that my first-ever 1926 penny from change, was the ME ! Back in '26, I'm wondering how many people actually noticed, especially considering how few there were anyway?

It would be interesting to get some coin magazines/annuals from around that time to see whether or not they are mentioned.

[scott 144]

who is looking for them, you dont expect them, how many people spot the 1992 10p and 20p varietys?

[DaveG38 405]

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

In 1926 there had been no pennies issued for 3 years. Then demand must have increased enough to warrant an issue, even though the modified effigy must have been close to readiness. Assuming the normal run of casual collectors who habitually put a BU penny aside, the first run of 1926s must have satisfied that urge. By the time the ME came along (at the end of the year?) would people have readily seen the difference between the two types anyway? By the time they did, the 1927 pennny would have emerged in large quantities so those got put aside instead. I'm really thinking the 1926ME 'slipped beneath the radar' as far as being noticed.

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)?

My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H...

When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two.

Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO.

If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing.

Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps.

Surely rarity figures are all nonsence now due to decimalisation. I would guess only 10% of pennies exist now and all the so called rarities were stripped for circulatiion beforehand. The playing field is much levelled now a days and H and KNs are as common as 1967 pennies.

That's a very good point, though I'd hardly claim parity between H & KNs with 1967!!

The best estimate I have seen (and I have no idea where I got it from) was of about 400,000 ME's. I have to say that although I collected avidly from change for maybe 2 1/2 years, I never saw a 26 ME, but at the same time must have encountered 18-20 1926 ordinary effigies, so read into that what you will.

I think it is fair to say that if the only 1926 pennies issued equated to the small number of ME's then they would be far more common in higher grade. People (especially kids) used to put aside an example of each date and for 1926 this was most likely to have been an ordinary effigy. Variety collecting was in its infancy then and most collectors would be either unaware of the variety or just weren't that concerned. Added to this the fact that being produced from new dies which were presumably only brought into use when the old ones were worn out, the ME's were likely to have been issued last and quite conceivably not until 1927 by which time most collectors already had their BU 1926.

A fair bit of conjecture there, but it does seem to make sense and give a reasonable explanation of this coin's rarity.

We're on the same wavelength here Derek. As a schoolboy it took me a year to suss that my first-ever 1926 penny from change, was the ME ! Back in '26, I'm wondering how many people actually noticed, especially considering how few there were anyway?

It would be interesting to get some coin magazines/annuals from around that time to see whether or not they are mentioned.

The best we are likley to get are the studies of coins undertaken by various heroic numismatists in the early to mid 1970s when surveys of coins in circulation were being carried out and the results reported in Coin Monthly. I've got most of them, so if I find a spare hundred hours, I'll see what was being reported at the time. However, as has I think already been said, they were probably already taken from circulation by then.