The question is:
do you have this variety too?
The chances are large that the the second known coin is a real gem, and not just the collectors did not know about this splendid variety.
I couldn't find a reference to a "TB." type elsewhere (the page you are referring in Delcampe seems to be your own posting for sale).
Could it just be the case of a clogged die? Or wear on that spot? (the coin is in an overall worn state to begin with).
Do you have an INDEPENDENT reference to a "dotless" coin description?
An 1896 Penny in much better condition than the one being sold as something special where the dot is still almost imperceptible. I believe the coin being sold is not what it claims to be and simply a very worn and undesirable example of a common 1896 Penny. Shame.
Indeed the last link is to the coin which is out of the scope of this post: it clearly shows the T.B. type not the TB. So till now it confirms the existence of two coins.
In this post the question is about the existence of other coins of already confirmed variety.
A few 1896 coins are to be checked by coin enthusiasts, informed in private message. So the news will come soon.
Quote: "cyprusalexander"Indeed the last link is to the coin which is out of the scope of this post: it clearly shows the T.B. type not the TB. So till now it confirms the existence of two coins.
In this post the question is about the existence of other coins of already confirmed variety.
A few 1896 coins are to be checked by coin enthusiasts, informed in private message. So the news will come soon.
You will forgive me If I wait to see it professionally confirmed, graded and slabbed as the second coin of it's type by REAL experts at a professional coin grading service. Meantime, This coin is not what you represented it to be and should not be advertised as such.
Quote: "tdziemia"The value will be known when the auction ends on July 25.
True? What if the item has been (knowingly or unknowingly) falsely advised? An unsuspecting individual may pay more than the item is actually worth, and that would still not represent the real value of the item.
So if a scammer sells you a fake Picasso for $1M, is it really worth $1M just because that's what you paid for it?
Thousands of scammed people would be happy to hear their fake items are worth as much as they paid for them believing they were getting the real deal.
This whole conversation has devolved into nonsense. Lets just hope the seller has a money back guarantee when the "winner" realizes he has been had because the coin is not what it was represented to be. 1 bid so far and I wouldn't put it past the seller to be bidding on his own coin to run it up.
Edit:
An eBay Sold Items search (eBay U.S.) on "UK 1896 Penny" gives 10 examples, all but one in well circulated condition (inclulding the two linked above). Frequency distribution based on the appearance of the engraver's initials is as follows:
T B . - 5 examples (I would add that the T is poorly formed in all examples)
T. B . - 3 examples
B . - 1 example
Not able to determine - 1 example
While it's always better to have more data, this suggests the OPs coin is a common (rather than a rare ) variant. Mean selling price of the five examples was $3.09
Quote: "tdziemia"While it's always better to have more data, this suggests the OPs coin is a common (rather than a rare ) variant. Mean selling price of the five examples was $3.09
Variant or mint (filled die) error or just wear? I wouldn't use the term variant for these.
Sorry for any imprecise terminology on my part; I'm not as experienced as others out here on these kinds of matters (i.e. the difference between variant, error, etc.).
Likewise, I am not any kind of expert on UK coinage at this level of detail. But from the small population of photos I have examined (and from the link to the very high grade coin), I am convinced this is not coin wear. You can see the same version of the initials in the MS quality coin linked upthread, in the OPs coin, and and in a handful of others that sold recently on eBay.
Beyond that, I'm also not qualified to say whether it is different dies, a die that started out as T . B . and then something happened to it, etc.
I can just say that, from the eBay search, a number of coins that look (to me) the same as the OP's are selling all the time, at the price I mentioned.
Collectors found some more published examples. Though none of them in their own possession, the found coins indeed look like they represent the difference.
And the fact that the first coin was announced 7 years ago could just mean, that it passed on attention of some book writers and catalog makers.
Out of 23 coins of veil type non with TB. was found. Coin of 1896 till 1901 were under scope.
It is completely new result. Till now the community concentrated its efforts on 1896. But the side in question does not bear date, it means that its dies may be used year after year. So the difference TB. could be spot on coins in other year too.
Even well worn coins of without crystal clear photos, one can determine the difference. T.B. has large, well formed letters of equal size. In T B . the T is smaller than the B and poorly formed.. This permits deciding when an example is the T B ., as long as two letters are visible and the period after the B is clear. Photos of six examples have now been posted in this thread, with no disputing them.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to learn about this, since I don't normally spend time looking at this type, and good luck with your auction.
as subvariety (not to Numista of course: there was direct command to a referee without any delay to add it, but the referee keeps it scheduled for a few years at least), but the last post indicates, that we should consider the difference as the real die variety and not as a subvariety: it is not possible to fill the full stop with dirt during production and not to change the size and the position of letters.
As for looking for the die TB. in other years I'm waiting the results after the recovery from pandemic of one of collector and return from holiday of another: both have vast resources.
