Australian-Coins Forum

Hi All, 

Just wanted to let you know of an interesting new discovery.  A 5th variety of the 1931 penny.  It has a dropped 1 and Indian obverse, but other characteristics distinguish it from the benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse variety.   It's been dubbed by collectors as the "Unicorn Penny" because of its rarity and mystical origins.  There have been 7 coins discovered so far.  Some of them have irrefutable provenance - one Unicorn Penny was owned by an 80 y.o. collector for many decades and another was discovered belonging to a woman born in 1931.  Her father (a collector) gave her the coin when she was young.   

Check your collections - you may unwittingly own one of the truly rarest varieties of Australian pennies.    

Have a read of this article for more information.  

https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home

Quote"Unicorn Penny"

Have you been holding out on us Uni?

That's a great link Yurist! :good:

Geez, I wish Jeff! I think I would have spilled the beans on that one before now if I had one! :laugh2:

:welcome:

Interesting,i'll leave it for the more experienced to comment but AFAIK no genuine 31 dropped Indian had been ID without the Die Chip.

Also the dropped Indian and its rarity was well known to Collectors/Dealers when i was at School in the 1960's although several 'experts' had claimed  to have ID it in the 1970/80's.Downies auctioned several in the 1960's.

Quote..."It wasn't until the late 1970's that the third variety of the 1931 penny (i.e. the benchmark 1931 'dropped 1 Indian obverse') was properly identified, and it was initially thought that the coin was related to the already famous 1930 penny (of which only about 1500 were struck). However, it was soon established that the two coins had neither their obverses nor reverses in common.".

This is from 1966..

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/377/IMG_0002~0.jpg)

Very interesting. Hmmmm, you guys were close to the trail previously on the other thread.  :good:

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=5 (https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=5)

Who's to know! There could be more of the 5th variety than the third..Everyone will be getting there rulers out .

So this dropped 1 Indian is distinct because it has CBL lettering and the dropped 1 has a different alignment? 
That means it was struck from a reverse die that wasn't the product of the standard dropped 1 hub.
My next question is: do any dropped 1 English have CBLs and this differentially aligned 1? Now I'll have to dig out my dropped 1 English album to see if they exist.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119561' dateline='1560249624'So this dropped 1 Indian is distinct because it has CBL lettering and the dropped 1 has a different alignment? 
That means it was struck from a reverse die that wasn't the product of the standard dropped 1 hub.
My next question is: do any dropped 1 English have CBLs and this differentially aligned 1? Now I'll have to dig out my dropped 1 English album to see if they exist.

I did that same check as well, but it looks to me like the Unicorn Penny was born from a unique reverse die.  I'll be interested to know of your findings.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='119556' dateline='1560209392':welcome:

Interesting,i'll leave it for the more experienced to comment but AFAIK no genuine 31 dropped Indian had been ID without the Die Chip.

Also the dropped Indian and its rarity was well known to Collectors/Dealers when i was at School in the 1960's although several 'experts' had claimed  to have ID it in the 1970/80's.Downies auctioned several in the 1960's.

Quote..."It wasn't until the late 1970's that the third variety of the 1931 penny (i.e. the benchmark 1931 'dropped 1 Indian obverse') was properly identified, and it was initially thought that the coin was related to the already famous 1930 penny (of which only about 1500 were struck). However, it was soon established that the two coins had neither their obverses nor reverses in common.".

This is from 1966..

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/377/IMG_0002~0.jpg)

Thank you for this insightful piece of history.  I will advise the Unicorn Penny article authors to amend accordingly.

Didn't the dropped 1 Indian get a mention in the Deans Variety Catalogue of 1964/5 with 6 examples known? That predates that Downies advert by a few years.

So it's still a London reverse and Indian obverse, but with curved-based letters and no dot after the S - interesting. I guess it's different enough that any examples would have been dismissed as possible fakes.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119566' dateline='1560251569'Didn't the dropped 1 Indian get a mention in the Deans Variety Catalogue of 1964/5 with 6 examples known? That predates that Downies advert by a few years.

I thought it was mentioned in the 1960s at some point too.

Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='119567' dateline='1560252967'So it's still a London reverse and Indian obverse, but with curved-based letters and no dot after the S - interesting. I guess it's different enough that any examples would have been dismissed as possible fakes.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119566' dateline='1560251569'Didn't the dropped 1 Indian get a mention in the Deans Variety Catalogue of 1964/5 with 6 examples known? That predates that Downies advert by a few years.

I thought it was mentioned in the 1960s at some point too.

Thank you for your historical clarifications.  I am able to report that the Unicorn Penny website has now been amended to reflect your points.

Yeah,the ID of the dropped Indian goes back to the early 1960's at least,possibly before that.I did a Paper run/route from 1962 to 1966 and was  looking for one then after a reading an article on the 1930 Penny(around 1962/3?).
As i posted in the other Thread the author stated in the last paragraph that the "..1930 wasn't the rarest Penny,that title belonged to the Dropped Indian,less than a thousand were minted before the Die broke."

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='119572' dateline='1560296897'Yeah,the ID of the dropped Indian goes back to the early 1960's at least,possibly before that.I did a Paper run/route from 1962 to 1966 and was  looking for one then after a reading an article on the 1930 Penny(around 1962/3?).
As i posted in the other Thread the author stated in the last paragraph that the "..1930 wasn't the rarest Penny,that title belonged to the Dropped Indian,less than a thousand were minted before the Die broke."

Thanks for that!  A valuable piece of recollection.  I hope you found some of them :winkextra:

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119574' dateline='1560328663'Thanks for that!  A valuable piece of recollection.  I hope you found some of them :winkextra:

No,never found or purchased one but i still keep my eyes open 50 years later.I did find a 1919 Double Dot,which back in the early 1960's was starting to cause ripples amongst the Dealers,many were in their Teens when it was minted and they had never seen one.

Dear All,

I've just been informed that someone may have found a reference to the 5th variety of the 1931 penny in the 1965 book by John Dean "Australian Coin Varieties Catalogue" on page 44.   Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of this book in hand.  If anyone has a copy, I would very much appreciate it if you post a copy of page 44 here.  If this notation is true, then it would amount to very important evidence suggesting that the Unicorn Penny has been overlooked by the numismatic community for over 50 years (as only 4 varieties are generally known of).

Thank you in advance!

No,  John Dean only lists 4 types on p43/44 and that's it.
I may have caused a problem by stupidly listing 5 types in my book on Aussie coins, but published a retraction in CAB and inforced that fact that only FOUR variations of main die type are found. To keep it simple that's the story.
There may be differences in types of die that could be called another variety, but i'm happy with FOUR main types.
You could read my last article in CAB, where I do a massive grovel, for the details.

Fred Lever.

Just a bit of information on my articles:
The massive grovel article was in the May 2016 issue of CAB. That also had a bibliography of required reading by other researchers in the past.
To understand what was going on with pennies around 1929 to 1932 all of the mentioned articles need reading and understanding.
A later article in April 2019 covers some of the later research and findings and my take on that.
Pennies of that era take a massive lot of reading and research to understand, even I have to re-read all the papers and articles mentioned not only because i'm old and forgetting things but because of the complexity. It is not an easy subject to master.
The best catalog at the moment is Dr David Briggs book on pennies where he investigates the copper subject extensively. The current popular catalogs do not have anything like the detail needed to approach the subject.
I can email a PDF of my articles to anyone interested, I don't know if they can be attached in this forum i'm not that cluey with computors.
Fred.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119566' dateline='1560251569'Didn't the dropped 1 Indian get a mention in the Deans Variety Catalogue of 1964/5 with 6 examples known? That predates that Downies advert by a few years.

Dear Neal, 

I've been told that there may be a reference to the Unicorn Penny as variety P31D on page 44 of John Dean's 1965 book.  Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book to verify this.  I would very much apppreciate it if you could check the reference and possibly upload a copy of the page?  

Thank you very much in advance!

Should have been more detailed about Dean

"P43: P31A Melbourne Mint English obverse curved base letters reverse. normal date.
P43: P31B Melbourne Mint, Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Normal date. Rare.
p44: P31c Melbourne Mint. English die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Different date, with last 1 dropped.
P44: P31D Melbourne Mint. Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Dropped 1 date variety. Extremely rare (only six examples reported from three states)." Please note that was in 1965 when only guys like Dean could tell the difference. Probably some mint pressed over 1000 or so. That means hundreds probably exist and that makes that baby very rare indeed. 1930's are common in comparison

Note: I don't get so excited about curved or flat base letters as this can be a function of an individual hub, and same date and variety coins can have flat or curved or both  bases! What you have to figure out is this: is the curving of letter bases a function of the Master, the Hub, the individual Die SHAPE, or, does it happen during the actual STRIKE, or is it a function of ALL of the above? that can make curved base letters a RANDOM or a TENDENCY depending on die SHAPE or a PROCESS. I will repeat , I can find coins with both flat and curved base letters.
Cheers, Fred.

I remember a discussion by others on the subject of curved base lettering on an earlier version of this forum back around 2004. There was an opinion that curved base lettering may have been a result of poor metal flow during the striking process due to lower pressure settings being employed by the Mint in order to lengthen die life. 

I have no idea myself, I'm just the messenger. No one here boss, it's just us chickens boss  :biggrin:

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='119823' dateline='1563592966'Should have been more detailed about Dean

"P43: P31A Melbourne Mint English obverse curved base letters reverse. normal date.
P43: P31B Melbourne Mint, Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Normal date. Rare.
p44: P31c Melbourne Mint. English die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Different date, with last 1 dropped.
P44: P31D Melbourne Mint. Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Dropped 1 date variety. Extremely rare (only six examples reported from three states)." Please note that was in 1965 when only guys like Dean could tell the difference. Probably some mint pressed over 1000 or so. That means hundreds probably exist and that makes that baby very rare indeed. 1930's are common in comparison

Note: I don't get so excited about curved or flat base letters as this can be a function of an individual hub, and same date and variety coins can have flat or curved or both  bases! What you have to figure out is this: is the curving of letter bases a function of the Master, the Hub, the individual Die SHAPE, or, does it happen during the actual STRIKE, or is it a function of ALL of the above? that can make curved base letters a RANDOM or a TENDENCY depending on die SHAPE or a PROCESS. I will repeat , I can find coins with both flat and curved base letters.
Cheers, Fred.

[quote pid='119823' dateline='1563592966']
Dear Fred, 
Thanks for your comment.  You make an absolutely valid point regarding the curve-based letters.  If this feature is a random by-product of the minting process it could throw into question many existing coin classifications that have been observed for decades.  I believe the theory that purports to explain this phenomena is called 'channelled flow' and was published recently in the JNAA by Paul Holland.  

I have looked at this theory carefully, and in my opinion it is flawed for a number of reasons.  Firstly, curve-based letters are not observed on the obverses of any pennies.  Secondly, they are never observed on any other part of the reverse design including the words "One Penny", which should display some curvature if the dynamics of the theory are correct.  Thirdly, some of the curvatures in the letters - including the cross bars in the 'A's of Australia are curved in the opposite direction to the bases (which seems to debunk the theory).  Fourthly, (and most importantly) if you look at the proofs of many pennies (including the 1930) you will see that curve-base letters are prominently featured on the reverse legends.  We know that the hubs/dies used to strike proofs were without exception perfect and often hand finished to ensure they form an accurate representation of the intended design of the master die.  Clearly, therefore, curve-based lettering were indeed an intended design feature.  

As for the P31D, Dean has obviously noted the Unicorn Penny (with the curve-based letters), but it appears has not observed the currently known benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian die variety (without the curve-base letters).  In other words, there are 5 varieties of the 1931 penny of which Dean only noted 4 (missing the benchmark), whilst later numismatists noted the benchmark coin and missed the Unicorn Penny (also arriving at 4 varieties).   

I hope the above helps.  
[/quote]

Yeah always good for a argument the CBL thing, one point, the fluid flow will be more exaggerated at the rim as the shock waves dissipate and the fluid state reverts to solid. CBL can be seen on other denominations as well.
I've never done any examination of obverses to look for fluid flow, must put on my to do list.
Um.......... just a small point....."proof 1930"? I'm not sure any 1930 dies were ever prepared  to a Proofing standard?
My reading is the Melbourne mint used the best sharpest die to knock out a handful of Samples for the Mint Master to sort through and pass them on as required. Hence the Six that wound up in Museums Mints etc. Those coins only became "proofs"  once the second hand coin dealers were looking for superlatives to flog off some pretty nice UNC grade examples.
Some of those now need a decent cleaning to get rid of the corrosion after sitting around in mothballs in museums, but that's another story!
Fred.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='119823' dateline='1563592966'Should have been more detailed about Dean

"P43: P31A Melbourne Mint English obverse curved base letters reverse. normal date.
P43: P31B Melbourne Mint, Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Normal date. Rare.
p44: P31c Melbourne Mint. English die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Different date, with last 1 dropped.
P44: P31D Melbourne Mint. Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Dropped 1 date variety. Extremely rare (only six examples reported from three states)." Please note that was in 1965 when only guys like Dean could tell the difference. Probably some mint pressed over 1000 or so. That means hundreds probably exist and that makes that baby very rare indeed. 1930's are common in comparison

Note: I don't get so excited about curved or flat base letters as this can be a function of an individual hub, and same date and variety coins can have flat or curved or both  bases! What you have to figure out is this: is the curving of letter bases a function of the Master, the Hub, the individual Die SHAPE, or, does it happen during the actual STRIKE, or is it a function of ALL of the above? that can make curved base letters a RANDOM or a TENDENCY depending on die SHAPE or a PROCESS. I will repeat , I can find coins with both flat and curved base letters.
Cheers, Fred.    I would put my money on it happening during the strike. A flat cut die could curve due to extensive use. :scratch_one-s_head:

I've never been too sure either way but I don't differentiate the flat and curved base letter coins - there are enough pennies as is without worrying about it.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='119816' dateline='1563492975'Just a bit of information on my articles:
The massive grovel article was in the May 2016 issue of CAB. That also had a bibliography of required reading by other researchers in the past.
To understand what was going on with pennies around 1929 to 1932 all of the mentioned articles need reading and understanding.
A later article in April 2019 covers some of the later research and findings and my take on that.
Pennies of that era take a massive lot of reading and research to understand, even I have to re-read all the papers and articles mentioned not only because i'm old and forgetting things but because of the complexity. It is not an easy subject to master.
The best catalog at the moment is Dr David Briggs book on pennies where he investigates the copper subject extensively. The current popular catalogs do not have anything like the detail needed to approach the subject.
I can email a PDF of my articles to anyone interested, I don't know if they can be attached in this forum i'm not that cluey with computors.
Fred.

Dear Fred, I would be most interested in receiving PDF copies of your articles.  Please email them to 1931unicorn.penny@gmail.com

Thank you in advance.

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='119828' dateline='1563619253'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='119823' dateline='1563592966'Should have been more detailed about Dean

"P43: P31A Melbourne Mint English obverse curved base letters reverse. normal date.
P43: P31B Melbourne Mint, Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Normal date. Rare.
p44: P31c Melbourne Mint. English die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Different date, with last 1 dropped.
P44: P31D Melbourne Mint. Indian die obverse, curved base letters reverse. Dropped 1 date variety. Extremely rare (only six examples reported from three states)." Please note that was in 1965 when only guys like Dean could tell the difference. Probably some mint pressed over 1000 or so. That means hundreds probably exist and that makes that baby very rare indeed. 1930's are common in comparison

Note: I don't get so excited about curved or flat base letters as this can be a function of an individual hub, and same date and variety coins can have flat or curved or both  bases! What you have to figure out is this: is the curving of letter bases a function of the Master, the Hub, the individual Die SHAPE, or, does it happen during the actual STRIKE, or is it a function of ALL of the above? that can make curved base letters a RANDOM or a TENDENCY depending on die SHAPE or a PROCESS. I will repeat , I can find coins with both flat and curved base letters.
Cheers, Fred.    I would put my money on it happening during the strike. A flat cut die could curve due to extensive use. :scratch_one-s_head:

Thanks Fred.  I agree that the P31D variety as described by Dean (containing the curve-based letters and otherwise known as the 'Unicorn Penny') is a super rare coin.  

As you say, since the 'best and sharpest dies' were used to strike the 'proof' samples at the Mint Master's discretion, I imagine the Mint Master would have noticed any glaring discrepancy (such as curve-based lettering) that was ostensibly different to the master die.   C'mon... they were not blind.  :-)  

Moreover, it is difficult to believe that curve-based lettering would have been missed over and over again by the Mint Masters in virtually all such proof/sample instances.  Ultimately, the very existence of these 'proof' quality coins (in particular the very well-documented 1930 penny 'proofs'), which contain clearly expressed curve-based lettering is irrefutable evidence of the curvatures (including curvature of the cross bars in the 'A' in AUSTRALIA) being an intended part of the master die design.  

To say the least, these 'proof' quality samples pose a very high hurdle to jump for 'channelled flow' theorists.   

Personally, I think too many excuses/exceptions are being made for the somewhat complex 'channelled flow' explanation, and whilst undoubtedly there is scientific merit to this theory, I believe it is more suited to explain the varying degrees of curvature expression rather than the origin of the curve-based lettering.   

As for you seeing both 'flat' and 'curved' base letters of the same coin, I suggest (with the utmost respect) that what you could in fact be observing is the opposite effect i.e. original curve-based letters losing some of their curvature expression due to a loosening of the die or die wear.  The simplest explanation is often the best!

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119826' dateline='1563611390'It isn't so clear at all. If the masters were suffering from spread such that the letters were distorted (curved bases around the rim) then the proof dies would also have the CBL. Now hand finishing could fix minor defects but to overcome the fish tail appearance of dozens of letters would be a big task. And if they were incapable of fixing issues that involve far less work I doubt they could fix the curves. Those examples of issues they couldn't fix were things like chipped numbers such as the 8 on the blobby threepence of '48, poorly positioned numbers such as the dropped 1 penny and the erasure of the trefoil on a number of silver coins.
I'm sure that any number of proof coin owners can give examples of proofs that were less than perfect but suffice to say I can see faults in several pre decimal proofs I own caused by defects on the master and the defects also appear on the circulation strike dies from those masters.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119553' dateline='1560204010'Hi All, 

Just wanted to let you know of an interesting new discovery.  A 5th variety of the 1931 penny.  It has a dropped 1 and Indian obverse, but other characteristics distinguish it from the benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse variety.   It's been dubbed by collectors as the "Unicorn Penny" because of its rarity and mystical origins.  There have been 7 coins discovered so far.  Some of them have irrefutable provenance - one Unicorn Penny was owned by an 80 y.o. collector for many decades and another was discovered belonging to a woman born in 1931.  Her father (a collector) gave her the coin when she was young.   

Check your collections - you may unwittingly own one of the truly rarest varieties of Australian pennies.    

Have a read of this article for more information.  

https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home

i'm getting a 404 error message

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119836' dateline='1563654699'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119553' dateline='1560204010'Hi All, 

Just wanted to let you know of an interesting new discovery.  A 5th variety of the 1931 penny.  It has a dropped 1 and Indian obverse, but other characteristics distinguish it from the benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse variety.   It's been dubbed by collectors as the "Unicorn Penny" because of its rarity and mystical origins.  There have been 7 coins discovered so far.  Some of them have irrefutable provenance - one Unicorn Penny was owned by an 80 y.o. collector for many decades and another was discovered belonging to a woman born in 1931.  Her father (a collector) gave her the coin when she was young.   

Check your collections - you may unwittingly own one of the truly rarest varieties of Australian pennies.    

Have a read of this article for more information.  

https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home

i'm getting a 404 error message

Sorry Neal, I have taken the article offline temporarily for review in light of the information recently procured from John Dean's book.   I will let you know when it goes back online.  Cheers!

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119835' dateline='1563646984'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119826' dateline='1563611390'It isn't so clear at all. If the masters were suffering from spread such that the letters were distorted (curved bases around the rim) then the proof dies would also have the CBL. Now hand finishing could fix minor defects but to overcome the fish tail appearance of dozens of letters would be a big task. And if they were incapable of fixing issues that involve far less work I doubt they could fix the curves. Those examples of issues they couldn't fix were things like chipped numbers such as the 8 on the blobby threepence of '48, poorly positioned numbers such as the dropped 1 penny and the erasure of the trefoil on a number of silver coins.
I'm sure that any number of proof coin owners can give examples of proofs that were less than perfect but suffice to say I can see faults in several pre decimal proofs I own caused by defects on the master and the defects also appear on the circulation strike dies from those masters.  What's the difference between a Unicorn Penny and a Unicorn??? Nothing there both fictional. :yahoo:

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119835' dateline='1563646984'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119826' dateline='1563611390'It isn't so clear at all. If the masters were suffering from spread such that the letters were distorted (curved bases around the rim) then the proof dies would also have the CBL. Now hand finishing could fix minor defects but to overcome the fish tail appearance of dozens of letters would be a big task. And if they were incapable of fixing issues that involve far less work I doubt they could fix the curves. Those examples of issues they couldn't fix were things like chipped numbers such as the 8 on the blobby threepence of '48, poorly positioned numbers such as the dropped 1 penny and the erasure of the trefoil on a number of silver coins.
I'm sure that any number of proof coin owners can give examples of proofs that were less than perfect but suffice to say I can see faults in several pre decimal proofs I own caused by defects on the master and the defects also appear on the circulation strike dies from those masters.

Thanks Neal.  You make a fair point.  

On further consideration, I guess it would be difficult to judge whether CBL originated from the actual master dies or from derivative hubs.  However, the Mint Master would have needed to be satisfied that the proof coins were an accurate representation of either one or the other.  In other words, even if CBL was not an intended feature of the master die and was a 'defect' that occurred during hub preparation (due to the inexperience of the Melbourne Mint), such a 'defect' would have been accepted as the design standard that future coin runs were to meet.  Effectively, therefore, the proofs legitimise the 'defect'.   

I think it is important to understand that CBL did not originate during the actual penny striking process per se, but rather in the process of die preparation.  This is well covered by Paul Holland in his article in Vol. 28 of the JNAA.  We see (a) flat based letters that appear on pennies that were probably struck from imported working dies; (b) strong CBL on pennies that were struck from derivative/cloned hubs in the earlier days of the Melbourne Mint; and (c.) slight CBL on GV pennies struck after 1931, indicating that the Mint was getting better at hub production.   

Some points that I cannot, however, fully reconcile with Paul Holland's interpretation of CBL's origins (i.e. the 'channelled flow' theory) is the appearance of CBL on some pennies struck before 1919 - the year that the Melbourne Mint received instructions on working hub/die production.  Specifically, I am referring to certain examples of the 1917 penny that show slight CBL on the reverse.  See attached.  I assume that prior to 1919 the Mint relied exclusively on high quality working dies imported from England and India.  So, was the CBL on some of the 1917 coins an intended design characteristic of the master die - serving as a preview of future design tendencies, or just a lower quality imported working die?  This obviously needs more homework.  

The same can be asked about the cross-bar in the 'A' of AUSTRALIA that curves in the opposite direction to the letter bases in strong CBL reverse pennies.  To me they appear as an intended design characteristic rather than a by-product of hub/die production.  

Finally, one needs to research further the question of why we don't readily see CBL on the obverse of GV pennies.  Were the obverse dies not produced or cloned by the Melbourne Mint in a similar manner to their reverse counterparts?    

The underlying point, however, for the purpose of validating the 5th variety of the 1931 penny (i.e. the 'Unicorn Penny') is that the strong CBL featured on its reverse was either an originally intended or a subsequently accepted design feature, just as it was for the 1929, 1930 and other pennies of that period.  

It is, therefore, clear that John Dean was sighting the Unicorn Penny (P31D) in his 1965 catalogue - not the benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian die penny, which contains decidedly straight based letters on its reverse.  To further cement this point, both the Unicorn Penny and the benchmark penny contain a host of distinguishing characteristics that  confirm that they were struck from distinctly different dies.  

I am currently updating my online article on the 5th variety of the 1931 penny and will shortly republish a revised version containing the above points and more.  Stay tuned to https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='119841' dateline='1563672108'

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119835' dateline='1563646984'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119826' dateline='1563611390'It isn't so clear at all. If the masters were suffering from spread such that the letters were distorted (curved bases around the rim) then the proof dies would also have the CBL. Now hand finishing could fix minor defects but to overcome the fish tail appearance of dozens of letters would be a big task. And if they were incapable of fixing issues that involve far less work I doubt they could fix the curves. Those examples of issues they couldn't fix were things like chipped numbers such as the 8 on the blobby threepence of '48, poorly positioned numbers such as the dropped 1 penny and the erasure of the trefoil on a number of silver coins.
I'm sure that any number of proof coin owners can give examples of proofs that were less than perfect but suffice to say I can see faults in several pre decimal proofs I own caused by defects on the master and the defects also appear on the circulation strike dies from those masters. 
What's the difference between a Unicorn Penny and a Unicorn??? Nothing there both fictional. :yahoo:

Clearly, just as fictional as your considered and well substantiated comment. :shok:

To private messages and yurist, i'll get to an archive computer this after noon and email the 1931 pdf's.
Fred.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119844' dateline='1563673715'

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='119841' dateline='1563672108'

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119835' dateline='1563646984'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119826' dateline='1563611390'It isn't so clear at all. If the masters were suffering from spread such that the letters were distorted (curved bases around the rim) then the proof dies would also have the CBL. Now hand finishing could fix minor defects but to overcome the fish tail appearance of dozens of letters would be a big task. And if they were incapable of fixing issues that involve far less work I doubt they could fix the curves. Those examples of issues they couldn't fix were things like chipped numbers such as the 8 on the blobby threepence of '48, poorly positioned numbers such as the dropped 1 penny and the erasure of the trefoil on a number of silver coins.
I'm sure that any number of proof coin owners can give examples of proofs that were less than perfect but suffice to say I can see faults in several pre decimal proofs I own caused by defects on the master and the defects also appear on the circulation strike dies from those masters. 
What's the difference between a Unicorn Penny and a Unicorn??? Nothing there both fictional. :yahoo:

Clearly, just as fictional as your considered and well substantiated comment. :shok:

Yurists spotting the CBL on the 1917 penny is another Doh! moment by me. After looking at thousands of 1917 pennies over the years I've never noticed the CBL or thought about it until now as I've concentrated on the obverse.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='119845' dateline='1563676848'To private messages and yurist, i'll get to an archive computer this after noon and email the 1931 pdf's.
Fred.

Thank you Fred.  Much appreciated!

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119844' dateline='1563673715'

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='119841' dateline='1563672108'

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119835' dateline='1563646984'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119826' dateline='1563611390'It isn't so clear at all. If the masters were suffering from spread such that the letters were distorted (curved bases around the rim) then the proof dies would also have the CBL. Now hand finishing could fix minor defects but to overcome the fish tail appearance of dozens of letters would be a big task. And if they were incapable of fixing issues that involve far less work I doubt they could fix the curves. Those examples of issues they couldn't fix were things like chipped numbers such as the 8 on the blobby threepence of '48, poorly positioned numbers such as the dropped 1 penny and the erasure of the trefoil on a number of silver coins.
I'm sure that any number of proof coin owners can give examples of proofs that were less than perfect but suffice to say I can see faults in several pre decimal proofs I own caused by defects on the master and the defects also appear on the circulation strike dies from those masters. 
What's the difference between a Unicorn Penny and a Unicorn??? Nothing there both fictional. :yahoo: Fair enough!!. But do expect me to believe that the Mint would take the time effort + expense to commission engravers + engineers to make the Unicorn Master, only to knock out a couple of hundred coins!!!. HUMBUG...

Clearly, just as fictional as your considered and well substantiated comment. :shok:

I should add that both Dean (1965) and Saxton listed the 1917 penny as FBL, so is the 1917 CBL shown by Yurist also a unicorn penny? Seems that no "facts" are definite when people like Yurist can show unicorns might exist by displaying them for us to ponder and dissect.

Neal, no need to shoot the messenger.  I'm not the source of the posted image.  It's been available in the public domain for many years.  

https://www.allcoinvalues.com/australian-coins-and-notes/1917-australian-penny-value.html

But these CBL 1917 pennies are not hard to find.  Here is one that's currently listed on eBay.  

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/AUSTRALIA-1917-PENNY-COIN-DECEASED-ESTATE-FIND/193005299058?hash=item2cf0032572:g:c18AAOSwpkddNDEu

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119859' dateline='1563788951'But these CBL 1917 pennies are not hard to find.  Here is one that's currently listed on eBay.  

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/AUSTRALIA-1917-PENNY-COIN-DECEASED-ESTATE-FIND/193005299058?hash=item2cf0032572:g:c18AAOSwpkddNDEu

Good luck + all the best in your search for the Holy Grail..Always look on the bright side of like..whistle whistle whistle... :thank_you:

Quote from: ':Yurist' pid='119856' dateline='1563785338'Neal, no need to shoot the messenger.  I'm not the source of the posted image.  It's been available in the public domain for many years.  

https://www.allcoinvalues.com/australian-coins-and-notes/1917-australian-penny-value.html

:huh: Not shooting the messenger but praising him. Dean missed it, Saxton missed it, I missed it. How the 1917 CBL was overlooked for so long is just perplexing.

Pennyman had this Coin listed on Ebay for A$68,000,hhhhhhmmmmm,by the tone of the words(including 'Unicorn') in the listing he's been reading/posting on this forum. Its shows in Ebay's completed listings with no bids.  

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/290/1931_indian_rev.jpg)

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/290/1931_indian_obv_.jpg)

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/290/1931_indian_obv_2.jpg)

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='119904' dateline='1564542144'Pennyman had this Coin listed on Ebay for A$68,000,hhhhhhmmmmm,by the tone of the words(including 'Unicorn') in the listing he's been reading/posting on this forum. Its shows in Ebay's completed listings with no bids.  
"Faaaarrk"" $65,000.00..Trust this bloke to try an weasel that amount from some poor soul..Feedback score-96.2 for only 211 items sold...HaHaHa what a joke this bloke is.. :yahoo: :yahoo:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/The-Unicorn-Penny-Australian-1931-Dropped-1-Indian-Obverse-Penny/192995072858?hash=item2cef671b5a:g:3UsAAOSwxOFdK8To

How about this one? Few issues regarding condition.
AUSTRALIAN 1931 PENNY DROPPED 1 POSSIBLE RARE INDIAN DIE OR LONDON DIE (https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/AUSTRALIAN-1931-PENNY-DROPPED-1-POSSIBLE-RARE-INDIAN-DIE-OR-LONDON-DIE-ESTATE/193018648707?hash=item2cf0ced883:g:oHIAAOSwgn1dNC0x&frcectupt=true)

Hey Jeff MS64 at least!
Should be sent off to that PCGS place for grading...or maybe not.
Not even my miracle cleaning technique is going to save that little beauty.
By the shape of the O above the crown its a English die, also the N looks like it points between bumps.
I nearly bid on it for fun but then I've got plenty of knackered coins, If it was a 1930 or D31Indian maybe........
Fred.

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='119853' dateline='1563766007'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119844' dateline='1563673715'

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='119841' dateline='1563672108'

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119835' dateline='1563646984'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='119826' dateline='1563611390'It isn't so clear at all. If the masters were suffering from spread such that the letters were distorted (curved bases around the rim) then the proof dies would also have the CBL. Now hand finishing could fix minor defects but to overcome the fish tail appearance of dozens of letters would be a big task. And if they were incapable of fixing issues that involve far less work I doubt they could fix the curves. Those examples of issues they couldn't fix were things like chipped numbers such as the 8 on the blobby threepence of '48, poorly positioned numbers such as the dropped 1 penny and the erasure of the trefoil on a number of silver coins.
I'm sure that any number of proof coin owners can give examples of proofs that were less than perfect but suffice to say I can see faults in several pre decimal proofs I own caused by defects on the master and the defects also appear on the circulation strike dies from those masters. 
What's the difference between a Unicorn Penny and a Unicorn??? Nothing there both fictional. :yahoo: Fair enough!!. But do expect me to believe that the Mint would take the time effort + expense to commission engravers + engineers to make the Unicorn Master, only to knock out a couple of hundred coins!!!. HUMBUG...

Clearly, just as fictional as your considered and well substantiated comment. :shok:

Still think it's fictional?   Here is an article on the Unicorn Penny published recently by the JNAA.  

https://www.academia.edu/41899860/Journal_of_the_Numismatic_Association_of_Australia_Volume_29_2018-19_Final_printed_Web

See page 149.

 :blush: :blush: :blush:

Is that you Yuri ? ,interesting article ,lot of work/research by the look of it.
Page 149 for those that have trouble getting past the early articles on Foreign Coins.
I see Fred gets a mention as well as the usual suspects.
So ,without going down the Rabbit Hole and ending up in a padded room there are 2 types/varieties of dropped 1 Indians.  
If i see any in my travels i will throw the link in this Thread.

Nice article Yuri. The reference to Deacon (top of page 151) is I presume James Hunt Deacon? Or is it somebody else. Plus what exactly is the reference source for Deacon as it appears to predate Dean. Possibly SANJ  or another old journal (my library is incomplete in regards to South Australian and Melbourne numismatic journals).
Would love to see the take of Holland and a few others on this 5th variety. Looks promising as deserving a guernsey in the list of recognised penny varieties.

Lets see some proper high res pics !
Otherwise I'd have to say this "unicorn penny" is rubbish.

On close examination of the available (poor) images:

• there is evidence of work and/or discolouration around the date for most
• the 3 in the date is different on some 
• the first 1 in the date is differently aligned on some 

No high res images have been made available, from what I can see.
Not good enough.
They look like 1929 Indians with an altered date.
With the first "1" also altered also.

Also why are these "Unicorn pennies" being sold on Ebay by a seller who has negative feedback for selling a fake 1930 penny ?

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121467' dateline='1582451884'Lets see some proper high res pics !
Otherwise I'd have to say this "unicorn penny" is rubbish.

On close examination of the available (poor) images:

• there is evidence of work and/or discolouration around the date for most
• the 3 in the date is different on some 
• the first 1 in the date is differently aligned on some 

No high res images have been made available, from what I can see.
Not good enough.
They look like 1929 Indians with an altered date.
With the first "1" also altered also.

Also why are these "Unicorn pennies" being sold on Ebay by a seller who also sells fake (altered date) 1930 pennies ?

..you tell em Echi,a bit pretentious with the name 'Unicorn',no need for it. I don't have the knowledge/time/patience to say yay or nay but Yuri has sure put the time in.
Eric from Drake ID the fake 31 dropped Indian so they are out there.
Stay Tuned.

There are some Pics. of the Coin declared by Eric as a fake on page 4,does seem some disturbance around the date.

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4&highlight=1931+dropped+Indian

On the subject of the Dropped Indian it beggars belief that it wasn't ID early in the piece,1930's/40's/50's.
Some of our biggest Coin Dealers got their start during the Depression,Phil Downie in Melb,1931 or 32 for eg.

The Coin Dealer(i will insert his name when i can find it or remember) that we had at School for a period a Week started his Business around the same time.Lost his job as a Wool Classer(Buyer?) in the early 1930's when the Wool Industry collapsed so he started selling his Stamp/Coin Collection to survive.This slowly morphed into him buying as well as he built up a Client list with funds to buy,buyers market in those days.
His break came when he put a small ad in the Herald,his house was in Surrey Hills(Redfern?) close to Central Station,Country Folk were getting the Train to Sydney(probably the same in Melb. & Brisbane) to sell possessions,Coin dealers usually gave a better price for Gold/Silver Coins than Pawn Brokers & Second hand Dealers,so suddenly he found he had a booming Business in Stamps & Coins.
Anyway terrible time in Aust. History that i hope is never repeated.
Point being it would be extremely unlikely the 31 Dropped Indian and similar Coins weren't ID  early in the piece.
Just my opinion.

Sold recently on Ebay for $4500:

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/QgRoAyr.jpg)

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/RVEMFmq.jpg)

A "Unicorn" penny listed by the same seller some time ago:


(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/AqCi7UD.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/Irx3S9d.jpg)

Same background.
Same photography.

Here is an image of the same "Unicorn" penny.
Image was copied from the Yurist gallery of "Unicorn" images:

(https://i.imgur.com/EZl2el1.jpg)

I can post more images of other "Unicorn" pennies sold by the same seller.
He has sold a few.
They all match up with images from the "Yurist gallery".

Hi Echidna, re#54.
 1/Yes please post up , or, email to me any images of 1930 and 1931 pennies.
As you know I have an interest in 1930 and 1931 pennies.
From an image such as  the first in the post, I can certainly make an opinion on whether a 1930 penny is a blatant fake or may be genuine. As to WHICH die variety a 1930 penny may be will require a detailed image around 1mb in size.

I'm holding back on WHICH die variety a 1931 penny may be.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='121463' dateline='1582437896'Nice article Yuri. The reference to Deacon (top of page 151) is I presume James Hunt Deacon? Or is it somebody else. Plus what exactly is the reference source for Deacon as it appears to predate Dean. Possibly SANJ  or another old journal (my library is incomplete in regards to South Australian and Melbourne numismatic journals).
Would love to see the take of Holland and a few others on this 5th variety. Looks promising as deserving a guernsey in the list of recognised penny varieties.

Hi Neal,  Thank you.  

The full reference is: James Hunt-Deacon and Kenneth J. Irons; , "The Story of Australia's Coinage and Currency" in the Australian Numismatic Journal, 11, 1960, p 6 


You will find more detail on Andrew Crellin's website at: https://www.sterlingcurrency.com.au/blog/news-research/commonwealth-coins/the-1931-indian-penny-with-the-dropped-1-reverse-l/

Geez, I'm going to have to track down AJ & Trout and get a workshop set up, fancy referring to them as Unicorns ...... the hide! :laugh2:

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121467' dateline='1582451884'Lets see some proper high res pics !
Otherwise I'd have to say this "unicorn penny" is rubbish.

On close examination of the available (poor) images:

• there is evidence of work and/or discolouration around the date for most
• the 3 in the date is different on some 
• the first 1 in the date is differently aligned on some 

No high res images have been made available, from what I can see.
Not good enough.
They look like 1929 Indians with an altered date.
With the first "1" also altered also.

Also why are these "Unicorn pennies" being sold on Ebay by a seller who also sells fake (altered date) 1930 pennies ?

Echidna, 

Your spiny rhetoric fits your username very aptly.    

Rest assured though that the JNAA's standards of peer review are second to none.  The article is the result of many months of research with ample hi res images being scrutinised prior to their inclusion in the publication.  Attached is just one sample of the image quality taken from the article.   Not sure how much more hi res you need.

Also, had you actually read the article instead of jumping to conclusions, you would have noticed the floor being wiped with the '1929 Indian altered date' theory.  The same goes for the other obvious explanations that attempt to dismiss the coin.   

I suggest that you read the article and come back to me with a properly considered opinion that satisfies academic standards.  Otherwise, there is really little point in waving your fists around given that the fight is already over.     

PS. I will address your 'gotcha' moment with the eBay image in a later post, so you can see that "there is no there there" either.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121470' dateline='1582497397'There are some Pics. of the Coin declared by Eric as a fake on page 4,does seem some disturbance around the date.

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4&highlight=1931+dropped+Indian

On the subject of the Dropped Indian it beggars belief that it wasn't ID early in the piece,1930's/40's/50's.
Some of our biggest Coin Dealers got their start during the Depression,Phil Downie in Melb,1931 or 32 for eg.

The Coin Dealer(i will insert his name when i can find it or remember) that we had at School for a period a Week started his Business around the same time.Lost his job as a Wool Classer(Buyer?) in the early 1930's when the Wool Industry collapsed so he started selling his Stamp/Coin Collection to survive.This slowly morphed into him buying as well as he built up a Client list with funds to buy,buyers market in those days.
His break came when he put a small ad in the Herald,his house was in Surrey Hills(Redfern?) close to Central Station,Country Folk were getting the Train to Sydney(probably the same in Melb. & Brisbane) to sell possessions,Coin dealers usually gave a better price for Gold/Silver Coins than Pawn Brokers & Second hand Dealers,so suddenly he found he had a booming Business in Stamps & Coins.
Anyway terrible time in Aust. History that i hope is never repeated.
Point being it would be extremely unlikely the 31 Dropped Indian and similar Coins weren't ID  early in the piece.
Just my opinion.

Hi Basil, 

The article addresses your exact point and shows that the 1931 5th variety was actually identified by Dean some 65-70 years ago.   Sure, it wasn't discovered as early as the 1930 Indian obverse penny (which I believe was identified in the mid-1940's), but then neither was the 1930 English obverse penny.  Naturally, uber-rare coins will take longer to surface.

RE my post #55 may look a bit odd, that's because the copper line feed to my office dropped out while I was doing an edit and wiped the bottom half of it . (that's the copper line the NBN think they will provide a reliable service to me...lots of luck, meanwhile from my G4 laptop:)

Re echidnas post #54 and the image of a sad looking 1930 penny.
I applied the first part of the "lever test" to that image and counted the denticles.
I find the reverse has 174 beads indicating it to be a London die. Pass.
The centre lines through the ALIA also fall in the right place with regards to the rim beads. Pass.

That means the coin does not go straight to the scrap bin and moves to the next set of tests being the shape and position of the digit dates, and then any die markers such as the "F dot", the "3 tip" and the "weak rim bead" in order to place WHICH variety it is.
Now we have a problem because the image is far too coarse to see any detail such as markers.
The coin condition also looks to me as though this is a corroded or crusted coin that has been cleaned.
However, from this vague image, the date digits do appear to be in a typical position of a genuine coin. This is not a Pass.
This is a , put aside and view coin closer as in the hand or fidelity photographs= Undecided.

Re post #59.
This is precisely the point with a 31 drop1 indian.
John Dean in his 1964 book described the reverse as having CURVED FEET letters.
Forget all the other tech stuff, this is the point.
John either got the description wrong, or, he was actually looking at a coin with CURVED FEET for the book.
I have a drop 1 with FLAT FEET. Every image of 1931 drop 1's I have (not many) show flat feet.

So, there is a question for you all, tell me if your 1931 drop1 Indian has FLAT or CURVED base letters?

Cheers, Fred.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121474' dateline='1582548372'Fake (altered date) 1930 which sold recently on Ebay for $4500:

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/QgRoAyr.jpg)

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/RVEMFmq.jpg)

A "Unicorn" penny listed by the same seller some time ago:


(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/AqCi7UD.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/Irx3S9d.jpg)

Same background.
Same photography.

Here is an image of the same "Unicorn" penny.
Image was copied from the Yurist gallery of "Unicorn" images:

(https://i.imgur.com/EZl2el1.jpg)

I can post more images of other "Unicorn" pennies sold by the same seller.
He has sold a few.
They all match up with images from the "Yurist gallery".
(Which was locked last time I checked).

Doesn't look good to see our wonderful "Unicorn" pennies being sold by the same seller who sells fake 1930s.

PM for details of the seller.

There is a total of 8 Unicorn Pennies discovered so far, sourced from 5 different collectors across the country.  Two collectors - an octogenarian man and his slightly older sister, held 3 such coins between them.   As the JNAA article states, the sister was born in 1931 and was gifted her coins by her father as a birthday gift when she was a young girl.  The fact that her brother misidentified the coins (thinking they were the 1931 benchmark dropped 1 Indian obverse pennies) I would say is forgivable.  Dean discovered the Unicorn Penny in the early 1960s, and experts have been making the same mistake ever since.  

For me, as a researcher wading through thousands of online images, this eBay trader turned out to be an invaluable resource.  The fact that he later misidentified a fake 1930 penny is certainly less forgivable, but is probably a reflection of his limited knowledge (and perhaps a little hope) rather than malicious intent.  Indeed he wouldn't be the first person who's made that mistake before.  I don't see anything sinister or criminal here, and I know the same trader is currently offering a genuine benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse penny for sale on eBay.  

See: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1931-Dropped1-Ind-obv-Penny-Rarer-Than-1930-Penny-6P/124091587300?hash=item1ce46f5ae4:g:Ai8AAOSwqQBbVoEj

Tempting as it may be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory linking the Unicorn Penny to some rogue eBay trader, the truth in fact, is a lot less fanciful.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='121487' dateline='1582593200'RE my post #55 may look a bit odd, that's because the copper line feed to my office dropped out while I was doing an edit and wiped the bottom half of it . (that's the copper line the NBN think they will provide a reliable service to me...lots of luck, meanwhile from my G4 laptop:)

Re echidnas post #54 and the image of a sad looking 1930 penny.
I applied the first part of the "lever test" to that image and counted the denticles.
I find the reverse has 174 beads indicating it to be a London die. Pass.
The centre lines through the ALIA also fall in the right place with regards to the rim beads. Pass.

That means the coin does not go straight to the scrap bin and moves to the next set of tests being the shape and position of the digit dates, and then any die markers such as the "F dot", the "3 tip" and the "weak rim bead" in order to place WHICH variety it is.
Now we have a problem because the image is far too coarse to see any detail such as markers.
The coin condition also looks to me as though this is a corroded or crusted coin that has been cleaned.
However, from this vague image, the date digits do appear to be in a typical position of a genuine coin. This is not a Pass.
This is a , put aside and view coin closer as in the hand or fidelity photographs= Undecided.

Re post #59.
This is precisely the point with a 31 drop1 indian.
John Dean in his 1964 book described the reverse as having CURVED FEET letters.
Forget all the other tech stuff, this is the point.
John either got the description wrong, or, he was actually looking at a coin with CURVED FEET for the book.
I have a drop 1 with FLAT FEET. Every image of 1931 drop 1's I have (not many) show flat feet.

So, there is a question for you all, tell me if your 1931 drop1 Indian has FLAT or CURVED base letters?

Cheers, Fred.

Bravo Fred!    

That is exactly the point.  

Just to put John Dean's credibility into perspective, he was the founding editor of Australia's first coin collectors magazine - the Australian Coin Review, which now operates under the banner of the Coin and Banknote Magazine.  Clearly, he was not some amateur with a laissez faire approach to important observations.  In fact, he wrote a book dedicated to describing Australian coin varieties (The Australian Coin Varieties Catalogue 1965), wherein he specifically noted that only SIX of the 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse pennies variety were known - ALL of which contained CURVED-BASE letters.  

To entertain the notion that John Dean's observation was wrong, one would have to present evidence supporting such an assertion.  However, not only is there an absence of such evidence, but conversely there is now physical proof of EIGHT of the coins with CURVED-BASE letters in existence.    

Combine that with the numerous unique die attributes found in this penny variety, and the truth becomes somewhat apparent.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121489' dateline='1582594977'There is a total of 8 Unicorn Pennies discovered so far, sourced from 5 different collectors across the country.  Two collectors - an octogenarian man and his slightly older sister, held 3 such coins between them.   As the JNAA article states, the sister was born in 1931 and was gifted her coins by her father as a birthday gift when she was a young girl.

Ok,i don't know how factual that all  is but it has the history of the 1930 Penny written all over it,page after page of hearsay and unsubstantiated 'facts'.  
The guy that was busted selling 1930 fakes in Sydney back in the late 1960's had a letter,JP endorsed, from an elderly Lady saying it was her Husbands Coin he received from the Melb. Mint.The letter was genuine but her deceased Husband never got a Penny from the Mint and the Coin was a fake.The Fraudster used the letter multilple times.

For me, as a researcher wading through thousands of online images, this eBay trader turned out to be an invaluable resource.  The fact that he later misidentified a fake 1930 penny is certainly less forgivable, but is probably a reflection of his limited knowledge (and perhaps a little hope) rather than malicious intent.  Indeed he wouldn't be the first person who's made that mistake before.  I don't see anything sinister or criminal here, and I know the same trader is currently offering a genuine benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse penny for sale on eBay.  

The dealer/person in question was also caught out selling a fake 1931 dropped Indian,link above,he also sold several 200L wheely Bins of Coppers,i think he knows his way around a Penny.

See: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1931-Dropped1-Ind-obv-Penny-Rarer-Than-1930-Penny-6P/124091587300?hash=item1ce46f5ae4:g:Ai8AAOSwqQBbVoEj

Tempting as it may be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory linking the Unicorn Penny to some rogue eBay trader, the truth in fact, is a lot less fanciful.

Yuri i hope it turns out well for you after all the effort and time you have put in but TBH it looks a bit dicey at the moment but as i said its all above my pay grade but i enjoy the discussion after several weeks of this Forum being in the Doldrums.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121492' dateline='1582599812'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='121487' dateline='1582593200'RE my post #55 may look a bit odd, that's because the copper line feed to my office dropped out while I was doing an edit and wiped the bottom half of it . (that's the copper line the NBN think they will provide a reliable service to me...lots of luck, meanwhile from my G4 laptop:)

Re echidnas post #54 and the image of a sad looking 1930 penny.
I applied the first part of the "lever test" to that image and counted the denticles.
I find the reverse has 174 beads indicating it to be a London die. Pass.
The centre lines through the ALIA also fall in the right place with regards to the rim beads. Pass.

That means the coin does not go straight to the scrap bin and moves to the next set of tests being the shape and position of the digit dates, and then any die markers such as the "F dot", the "3 tip" and the "weak rim bead" in order to place WHICH variety it is.
Now we have a problem because the image is far too coarse to see any detail such as markers.
The coin condition also looks to me as though this is a corroded or crusted coin that has been cleaned.
However, from this vague image, the date digits do appear to be in a typical position of a genuine coin. This is not a Pass.
This is a , put aside and view coin closer as in the hand or fidelity photographs= Undecided.

Re post #59.
This is precisely the point with a 31 drop1 indian.
John Dean in his 1964 book described the reverse as having CURVED FEET letters.
Forget all the other tech stuff, this is the point.
John either got the description wrong, or, he was actually looking at a coin with CURVED FEET for the book.
I have a drop 1 with FLAT FEET. Every image of 1931 drop 1's I have (not many) show flat feet.

So, there is a question for you all, tell me if your 1931 drop1 Indian has FLAT or CURVED base letters?

Cheers, Fred.    Hi Fred, Could be my eyes,but i have seen the coin with flat,curved and what i call half curved base letters..Also have seen one with just the two MM + T with curves..The same 9 + 1 on the ones with half + full curves and a different 9 + 1 on the ones with flat letters..Do curved letters flatten out or flat letters curve during the minting process...Check out some of the lettering and the 9 on Drake Sterlings 1931 dropped Indian..Like i said,Could be my eyes... :yeah_that:

Bravo Fred!    

That is exactly the point.  

Just to put John Dean's credibility into perspective, he was the founding editor of Australia's first coin collectors magazine - the Australian Coin Review, which now operates under the banner of the Coin and Banknote Magazine.  Clearly, he was not some amateur with a laissez faire approach to important observations.  In fact, he wrote a book dedicated to describing Australian coin varieties (The Australian Coin Varieties Catalogue 1965), wherein he specifically noted that only SIX of the 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse pennies variety were known - ALL of which contained CURVED-BASE letters.  

To entertain the notion that John Dean's observation was wrong, one would have to present evidence supporting such an assertion.  However, not only is there an absence of such evidence, but conversely there is now physical proof of EIGHT of the coins with CURVED-BASE letters in existence.    

Combine that with the numerous unique die attributes found in this penny variety, and the truth becomes somewhat apparent.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121493' dateline='1582600070'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121489' dateline='1582594977'There is a total of 8 Unicorn Pennies discovered so far, sourced from 5 different collectors across the country.  Two collectors - an octogenarian man and his slightly older sister, held 3 such coins between them.   As the JNAA article states, the sister was born in 1931 and was gifted her coins by her father as a birthday gift when she was a young girl.

Ok,i don't know how factual that all  is but it has the history of the 1930 Penny written all over it,page after page of hearsay and unsubstantiated 'facts'.  
The guy that was busted selling 1930 fakes in Sydney back in the late 1960's had a letter,JP endorsed, from an elderly Lady saying it was her Husbands Coin he received from the Melb. Mint.The letter was genuine but her deceased Husband never got a Penny from the Mint and the Coin was a fake.The Fraudster used the letter multilple times.

For me, as a researcher wading through thousands of online images, this eBay trader turned out to be an invaluable resource.  The fact that he later misidentified a fake 1930 penny is certainly less forgivable, but is probably a reflection of his limited knowledge (and perhaps a little hope) rather than malicious intent.  Indeed he wouldn't be the first person who's made that mistake before.  I don't see anything sinister or criminal here, and I know the same trader is currently offering a genuine benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse penny for sale on eBay.  

The dealer/person in question was also caught out selling a fake 1931 dropped Indian,link above,he also sold several 200L wheely Bins of Coppers,i think he knows his way around a Penny.

See: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1931-Dropped1-Ind-obv-Penny-Rarer-Than-1930-Penny-6P/124091587300?hash=item1ce46f5ae4:g:Ai8AAOSwqQBbVoEj

Tempting as it may be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory linking the Unicorn Penny to some rogue eBay trader, the truth in fact, is a lot less fanciful.

Yuri i hope it turns out well for you after all the effort and time you have put in but TBH it looks a bit dicey at the moment but as i said its all above my pay grade but i enjoy the discussion after several weeks of this Forum being in the Doldrums.

Although the article was peer reviewed it still isn't 100% certain the variety is kosher. Would take some chutzpah to pull a fraud off like this though (a David Gee level). Hi-res images  are not enough as it needs XRF analysis results and an examination in hand by experts in the pennies of 1930-31.
Also even though the article was peer reviewed I have to ask if those reviewers are experts in the 1930-31 pennies or just generalists or dealers who might spot glaring errors but not the minutiae. It is surprising how many errors can appear in the journals that escape the peer review process (in one example from a coin journal I spotted over 30 errors written by a certain curator of a museum about the 1920 penny, I won't name the journal or the curator but I'm sure some will figure out which journal/curator I'm referring to).

Re #64 Hi  Stan, no, your eyes are 100%!
I commented in my book on Aussie coins and in CAB articles that coins can be FBL on one side and CBL on the other and showed photographic evidence in both over the years.
The reasons as to why the letters stretch and distort on coins, dies and hubs is well researched and commented on.
Where a hub or die contains the distortion then many coins will have the distortion.
Where a FBL die produces CBL on a coin because of local conditions on the day (lots of reasons to do with pressure waves, metal flow in the collar space, down the rabbit hole we go) there may be coins with FBL on one side and CBL on the other and the number may be low.
With regard to the 1931, Dean logged the Drop1 Indian as CBL and from that I make the ASSUMPTION that he was looking at a coin with obviously curved letters rather than flat dead straight. He was really careful about his descriptions with the pennies and placed a lot of importance on the CBL/FBL appearance. My ASSUMPTION is he did not log it as FBL because that was not what he was looking at.
I am not adding the 5th variety of this coin into my world because I don't have enough evidence to do so.
When I do it will be just a die pair variety not some commercial name.
My world is solid engineering and logic and repeatability.
I am waiting with baited breath for a source, independent of myself and Yuri, to come up with evidence for a CBL 1931 drop 1.
????? Waiting.
Fred.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121493' dateline='1582600070'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121489' dateline='1582594977'There is a total of 8 Unicorn Pennies discovered so far, sourced from 5 different collectors across the country.  Two collectors - an octogenarian man and his slightly older sister, held 3 such coins between them.   As the JNAA article states, the sister was born in 1931 and was gifted her coins by her father as a birthday gift when she was a young girl.

Ok,i don't know how factual that all  is but it has the history of the 1930 Penny written all over it,page after page of hearsay and unsubstantiated 'facts'.  

A curious observation given that the JNAA article is a comparative analysis that specifically examines coin attributes (i.e. facts) dating back to a highly credible expert source from 1965 and is fully referenced and footnoted.   Sure, there is a little anecdotal content when it comes to the discussion of provenance, but given that the coin was lost for 55 years, that seems hardly surprising.  

The guy that was busted selling 1930 fakes in Sydney back in the late 1960's had a letter,JP endorsed, from an elderly Lady saying it was her Husbands Coin he received from the Melb. Mint.The letter was genuine but her deceased Husband never got a Penny from the Mint and the Coin was a fake.The Fraudster used the letter multilple times.

Not exactly an ingenious plot, but certainly a good lesson in the principles of 'caveat emptor'.  I'm not sure you're saying anything insightful regarding the case in hand though - other than perhaps a general reminder that 'there are fraudsters out there'.    

For me, as a researcher wading through thousands of online images, this eBay trader turned out to be an invaluable resource.  The fact that he later misidentified a fake 1930 penny is certainly less forgivable, but is probably a reflection of his limited knowledge (and perhaps a little hope) rather than malicious intent.  Indeed he wouldn't be the first person who's made that mistake before.  I don't see anything sinister or criminal here, and I know the same trader is currently offering a genuine benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse penny for sale on eBay.  

The dealer/person in question was also caught out selling a fake 1931 dropped Indian,link above,he also sold several 200L wheely Bins of Coppers,i think he knows his way around a Penny.

Interesting.  Please enlighten us further with the... what was it you said(?) ... oh, yes 'FACTS'.  Who caught him exactly? Where and when was he caught?  Please remember... no HEARSAY or anything UNSUBSTANTIATED though.    

See: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1931-Dropped1-Ind-obv-Penny-Rarer-Than-1930-Penny-6P/124091587300?hash=item1ce46f5ae4:g:Ai8AAOSwqQBbVoEj

Tempting as it may be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory linking the Unicorn Penny to some rogue eBay trader, the truth in fact, is a lot less fanciful.

Yuri i hope it turns out well for you after all the effort and time you have put in but TBH it looks a bit dicey at the moment but as i said its all above my pay grade but i enjoy the discussion after several weeks of this Forum being in the Doldrums.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='121508' dateline='1582666661'Re #64 Hi  Stan, no, your eyes are 100%!
I commented in my book on Aussie coins and in CAB articles that coins can be FBL on one side and CBL on the other and showed photographic evidence in both over the years.
The reasons as to why the letters stretch and distort on coins, dies and hubs is well researched and commented on.
Where a hub or die contains the distortion then many coins will have the distortion.
Where a FBL die produces CBL on a coin because of local conditions on the day (lots of reasons to do with pressure waves, metal flow in the collar space, down the rabbit hole we go) there may be coins with FBL on one side and CBL on the other and the number may be low.
With regard to the 1931, Dean logged the Drop1 Indian as CBL and from that I make the ASSUMPTION that he was looking at a coin with obviously curved letters rather than flat dead straight. He was really careful about his descriptions with the pennies and placed a lot of importance on the CBL/FBL appearance. My ASSUMPTION is he did not log it as FBL because that was not what he was looking at.
I am not adding the 5th variety of this coin into my world because I don't have enough evidence to do so.
When I do it will be just a die pair variety not some commercial name.
My world is solid engineering and logic and repeatability.
I am waiting with baited breath for a source, independent of myself and Yuri, to come up with evidence for a CBL 1931 drop 1.
????? Waiting.
Fred.      :yeah_that: :i_agree:    But hats off to Yuri, he's having a go. Probably stuck in front of a computer at 3am with empty pizza boxes everywhere..he he...Least it will keep him off the streets...LOL... :laugh2:

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='121505' dateline='1582625233'Although the article was peer reviewed it still isn't 100% certain the variety is kosher. Would take some chutzpah to pull a fraud off like this though (a David Gee level). Hi-res images  are not enough as it needs XRF analysis results and an examination in hand by experts in the pennies of 1930-31.
Also even though the article was peer reviewed I have to ask if those reviewers are experts in the 1930-31 pennies or just generalists or dealers who might spot glaring errors but not the minutiae. It is surprising how many errors can appear in the journals that escape the peer review process (in one example from a coin journal I spotted over 30 errors written by a certain curator of a museum about the 1920 penny, I won't name the journal or the curator but I'm sure some will figure out which journal/curator I'm referring to).

Neal, since you asked... the peer reviewers were most definitely experts in the 1930/31 penny.  Truthfully, as a result of their reviews, I made numerous and substantial changes to the article - focussing on the finer details of the comparative analysis.  Of course, errors can appear in publications (in some journals more often than in others) and I always invite a healthy dose of scepticism when it comes to a discussion of presented facts.  I'm happy to address anything substantive in the article that you have concerns over.  Do let me know if you find anything.  

As for the JNAA generally - just to set the record straight - this is not some hastily-put-together coin collectors magazine.  It is a serious publication produced by highly respected experts from the world of academia.  The latest volume took over a year to compile and I believe its quality and integrity is a true testament to the time and effort invested.

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='121511' dateline='1582680500'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='121508' dateline='1582666661'Re #64 Hi  Stan, no, your eyes are 100%!
I commented in my book on Aussie coins and in CAB articles that coins can be FBL on one side and CBL on the other and showed photographic evidence in both over the years.
The reasons as to why the letters stretch and distort on coins, dies and hubs is well researched and commented on.
Where a hub or die contains the distortion then many coins will have the distortion.
Where a FBL die produces CBL on a coin because of local conditions on the day (lots of reasons to do with pressure waves, metal flow in the collar space, down the rabbit hole we go) there may be coins with FBL on one side and CBL on the other and the number may be low.
With regard to the 1931, Dean logged the Drop1 Indian as CBL and from that I make the ASSUMPTION that he was looking at a coin with obviously curved letters rather than flat dead straight. He was really careful about his descriptions with the pennies and placed a lot of importance on the CBL/FBL appearance. My ASSUMPTION is he did not log it as FBL because that was not what he was looking at.
I am not adding the 5th variety of this coin into my world because I don't have enough evidence to do so.
When I do it will be just a die pair variety not some commercial name.
My world is solid engineering and logic and repeatability.
I am waiting with baited breath for a source, independent of myself and Yuri, to come up with evidence for a CBL 1931 drop 1.
????? Waiting.
Fred.      :yeah_that: :i_agree:    But hats off to Yuri, he's having a go. Probably stuck in front of a computer at 3am with empty pizza boxes everywhere..he he...Least it will keep him off the streets...LOL... :laugh2:

All too true Fred!    :sportbike:

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121510' dateline='1582679725'

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121493' dateline='1582600070'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121489' dateline='1582594977'There is a total of 8 Unicorn Pennies discovered so far, sourced from 5 different collectors across the country.  Two collectors - an octogenarian man and his slightly older sister, held 3 such coins between them.   As the JNAA article states, the sister was born in 1931 and was gifted her coins by her father as a birthday gift when she was a young girl.

Ok,i don't know how factual that all  is but it has the history of the 1930 Penny written all over it,page after page of hearsay and unsubstantiated 'facts'.  

A curious observation given that the JNAA article is a comparative analysis that specifically examines coin attributes (i.e. facts) dating back to a highly credible expert source from 1965 and is fully referenced and footnoted.   Sure, there is a little anecdotal content when it comes to the discussion of provenance, but given that the coin was lost for 55 years, that seems hardly surprising.  

Yuri,please, "a little anecdotal",no Professional paper should have BS like that included,you are not selling a used car driven to Church by a little old Lady on Sunday,its a review,for want of a better word,of a Coin variety,you need to name them and obtain a Stat. Dec. before a Editor would even think about  including it in a published piece.I know that because my Niece is  a Journo. and i've completed a lot of research for her.
 As far as this 1965 expert goes(Dean i guess) i'm the person who pointed you in the correct direction when your website was saying they were ID in the 1980's(70's?) when in fact they were common knowledge in the 1960's when i was at School,i posted the Downies 1966 Coin price sheet,A$80 for a dropped Indian,and you changed the Website.
I'm sure the Dropped Indian was known before the 1960's,i'm still chasing some Info. on this.Stay tuned.


The guy that was busted selling 1930 fakes in Sydney back in the late 1960's had a letter,JP endorsed, from an elderly Lady saying it was her Husbands Coin he received from the Melb. Mint.The letter was genuine but her deceased Husband never got a Penny from the Mint and the Coin was a fake.The Fraudster used the letter multilple times.

Not exactly an ingenious plot, but certainly a good lesson in the principles of 'caveat emptor'.  I'm not sure you're saying anything insightful regarding the case in hand though - other than perhaps a general reminder that 'there are fraudsters out there'.

I have a newspaper clipping on this particular fellow,the scams with the 1923 half were worse.    

For me, as a researcher wading through thousands of online images, this eBay trader turned out to be an invaluable resource.  The fact that he later misidentified a fake 1930 penny is certainly less forgivable, but is probably a reflection of his limited knowledge (and perhaps a little hope) rather than malicious intent.  Indeed he wouldn't be the first person who's made that mistake before.  I don't see anything sinister or criminal here, and I know the same trader is currently offering a genuine benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse penny for sale on eBay.  

The dealer/person in question was also caught out selling a fake 1931 dropped Indian,link above,he also sold several 200L wheely Bins of Coppers,i think he knows his way around a Penny.

Interesting.  Please enlighten us further with the... what was it you said(?) ... oh, yes 'FACTS'.  Who caught him exactly? Where and when was he caught?  Please remember... no HEARSAY or anything UNSUBSTANTIATED though.    


 I included the link in this Thread,Post No. 38,ID by Eric from Drake Coins as a Fake.Before you start digging the hole any deeper prove Eric is wrong.

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4&highlight=1931+dropped+Indian

 (https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4&highlight=1931+dropped+Indian)As far as the Wheelie Bin Coins go ask your mate,they were on Ebay last year and mentioned
 on this Forum. 

See: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1931-Dropped1-Ind-obv-Penny-Rarer-Than-1930-Penny-6P/124091587300?hash=item1ce46f5ae4:g:Ai8AAOSwqQBbVoEj

Tempting as it may be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory linking the Unicorn Penny to some rogue eBay trader, the truth in fact, is a lot less fanciful.

Yuri i hope it turns out well for you after all the effort and time you have put in but TBH it looks a bit dicey at the moment but as i said its all above my pay grade but i enjoy the discussion after several weeks of this Forum being in the Doldrums.

Yuri,did you read the above,its not me you have to convince,i'm a Hobby Collector who has been sucked into doing research and compiling Records on the 1930 Penny for a aging Family Friend so i am deeply interested in anything to do with 1931 Pennies...good luck with it,but to quote my Niece who is following this story,"what pretentious wanker came up with the name 'Unicorn' for an old Coin".   

(https://i.imgur.com/t01yyDV.jpg)

This is a "Unicorn" according to Yurist.
I think its fairly obvious that there has been something done in the date area.
A depression in the surface is visible especially around the second 1.
Plus discolouration which is limited to the date area only.
(Dont remember where the pic came from - probably sold on Ebay).

(https://i.imgur.com/2lC4UUj.jpg) (https://imgur.com/2lC4UUj)

(https://i.imgur.com/cXFYZf8.jpg) (https://imgur.com/cXFYZf8)

Not sure if this is a "Unicorn" also but it has had work done :
Depression around the last 1 and discolouration around the date area only.
The 3 is just all wrong and the last 1 is different.
(I think this one was sold on Ebay last year)

Point is that it demonstrates that 1931 dropped 1 Indians are being faked.

Yurist - why don't you provide some proper high res pics so we can see the date area of all of them ?
Are they all like this - with evidence of alterations ?

Echinda.."Point is that it demonstrates that 1931 dropped 1 Indians are being faked."

I don't think there is any doubt about that,there were too many suddenly turning up on Ebay the last couple of years,i know our local Dealer won't touch anything that hasn't got the die marker after 'S' but he has only only ever been offered a couple to buy the last few years.

I think Yuri is genuine and,for whatever reason, has really got stuck into this variety but whether its wasted time or a success time will tell.
Little point me arguing the case for or against as i don't have the knowledge or the Coins to examine,i'm sure Neale,Fred,yourself and others will come to a conclusion down the track.Might also be time for Walter,Eric or our glorious Forum leader to have a say.
Interesting Thread.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121514' dateline='1582684093'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121510' dateline='1582679725'

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121493' dateline='1582600070'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121489' dateline='1582594977'There is a total of 8 Unicorn Pennies discovered so far, sourced from 5 different collectors across the country.  Two collectors - an octogenarian man and his slightly older sister, held 3 such coins between them.   As the JNAA article states, the sister was born in 1931 and was gifted her coins by her father as a birthday gift when she was a young girl.

Ok,i don't know how factual that all  is but it has the history of the 1930 Penny written all over it,page after page of hearsay and unsubstantiated 'facts'.  

A curious observation given that the JNAA article is a comparative analysis that specifically examines coin attributes (i.e. facts) dating back to a highly credible expert source from 1965 and is fully referenced and footnoted.   Sure, there is a little anecdotal content when it comes to the discussion of provenance, but given that the coin was lost for 55 years, that seems hardly surprising.  

Yuri,please, "a little anecdotal",no Professional paper should have BS like that included,you are not selling a used car driven to Church by a little old Lady on Sunday,its a review,for want of a better word,of a Coin variety,you need to name them and obtain a Stat. Dec. before a Editor would even think about it including it in a published piece.I know that because my Niece is  a Journo. and i've completed a lot of research for her.
 As far as this 1965 expert goes(Dean i guess) i'm the person who pointed you in the correct direction when your website was saying they were ID in the 1980's(70's?) when in fact they were common knowledge in the 1960's when i was at School,i posted the Downies 1966 Coin price sheet,A$80 for a dropped Indian,and you changed the Website.
I'm sure the Dropped Indian was known before the 1960's,i'm still chasing some Info. on this.Stay tuned.

I'm not sure what your background is, but you sure make yourself sound like an authority on the content of 'Professional papers' (whatever that term actually means).   Nevertheless, with the limited experience in academic writing that I do have, I can offer you the following guidance:  the paper is not a 'review' nor specifically is it a review of the coin's provenance.  It is a comparative analysis that focuses primarily on observable attributes of certain coins and draws conclusions based on those features.  The ancillary material on authenticity and provenance is provided in the form of a discussion that invites further consideration and debate, which I am happy to see is happening.  

Similarly, my website was a research platform designed to stimulate discussion and invite expert commentary that was subsequently considered for inclusion into the paper.  Whilst I'm grateful for your comments regarding the 1931 dropped 1 Indian penny being known since the 1960's, it was actually another commentator who alerted me to Dean's notations.  Sorry to burst your bubble!  
          

The guy that was busted selling 1930 fakes in Sydney back in the late 1960's had a letter,JP endorsed, from an elderly Lady saying it was her Husbands Coin he received from the Melb. Mint.The letter was genuine but her deceased Husband never got a Penny from the Mint and the Coin was a fake.The Fraudster used the letter multilple times.

Not exactly an ingenious plot, but certainly a good lesson in the principles of 'caveat emptor'.  I'm not sure you're saying anything insightful regarding the case in hand though - other than perhaps a general reminder that 'there are fraudsters out there'.

I have a newspaper clipping on this particular fellow,the scams with the 1923 half were worse.    

Which 'particular fellow' are you talking about?  Is that the same guy that owns the Unicorn Penny and tried to sell an allegedly fake 1930 on eBay recently?  If not, then why bring up some random guy from the 60's?  

For me, as a researcher wading through thousands of online images, this eBay trader turned out to be an invaluable resource.  The fact that he later misidentified a fake 1930 penny is certainly less forgivable, but is probably a reflection of his limited knowledge (and perhaps a little hope) rather than malicious intent.  Indeed he wouldn't be the first person who's made that mistake before.  I don't see anything sinister or criminal here, and I know the same trader is currently offering a genuine benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse penny for sale on eBay.  

The dealer/person in question was also caught out selling a fake 1931 dropped Indian,link above,he also sold several 200L wheely Bins of Coppers,i think he knows his way around a Penny.

Interesting.  Please enlighten us further with the... what was it you said(?) ... oh, yes 'FACTS'.  Who caught him exactly? Where and when was he caught?  Please remember... no HEARSAY or anything UNSUBSTANTIATED though.    


 I included the link in this Thread,Post No. 38,ID by Eric from Drake Coins as a Fake.Before you start digging the hole any deeper prove Eric is wrong.

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4&highlight=1931+dropped+Indian

 (https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4&highlight=1931+dropped+Indian)
I think the JNAA paper serves that exact purpose - proving Eric wrong.  If you disagree, please explain why.  But don't give me any more of your 'Flat Earth'-style conspiracy arguments.  Simply address the substantive points presented in the paper and tell me what you disagree with.  Oh yes, you will actually have to read the paper first.  


As far as the Wheelie Bin Coins go ask your mate,they were on Ebay last year and mentioned
 on this Forum. 

It's not for me to prove your unsubstantiated remarks.  As hard as it is sometimes to think before one speaks, if you do have something worthy to say, then be prepared to back it up.  

See: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1931-Dropped1-Ind-obv-Penny-Rarer-Than-1930-Penny-6P/124091587300?hash=item1ce46f5ae4:g:Ai8AAOSwqQBbVoEj

Tempting as it may be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory linking the Unicorn Penny to some rogue eBay trader, the truth in fact, is a lot less fanciful.

Yuri i hope it turns out well for you after all the effort and time you have put in but TBH it looks a bit dicey at the moment but as i said its all above my pay grade but i enjoy the discussion after several weeks of this Forum being in the Doldrums.

Yuri,did you read the above,its not me you have to convince,i'm a Hobby Collector who has been sucked into doing research and compiling Records on the 1930 Penny for a aging Family Friend so i am deeply interested in anything to do with 1931 Pennies...good luck with it,but to quote my Niece who is following this story,"what pretentious wanker came up with the name 'Unicorn' for an old Coin".   

Basil, it's not a coin-naming contest.  No prizes were given out for the name 'Unicorn Penny'.  The paper explains the origins of the name as agreed by some collectors to identify the coin rather than saying something awkward like "1931 dropped 1 Indian, but not the benchmark penny, the other one with the curved-base letters".  They chose the name because for decades collectors have been chasing this particular coin without knowing whether it actually existed.   It's sounds like a fitting name from that angle and there was nothing pretentious about it, although I admit it has a ring to it.   Personally, I just call it the "1931 5th variety".  As for your niece, she might avoid unnecessary embarrassment next time by asking the right questions instead of jumping to conclusions.  Isn't that what good journalists are supposed to do?  

Yuri,i'm not getting into a pii....contest with you,by your Posts so far you do not have a background in pre-Dec. Coins as far as i can tell,what puzzles myself is your motivation with this variety,even if it is a genuine Coin you seem to be on a single minded Crusade for some reason and let your Ego take control when someone questions your assertions,why?,what's in it for you?
I'm not the person you should be attempting to influence,i'm a Hobby collector,albeit with over 50+ years experience,i don't have a reputation to protect and i'm not trying to make a name for myself in the Coin world so my comments on this are just a general interest scenario as far as the 1930 Penny goes.
Instead of having a go at me address the concerns that some of the Coin experts on this Forum have with your Coin,for starters show that the 31 dropped Indian shown above is not a fake.
Whether you have discovered a new variety or not that article you somehow managed to have published is Schoolboy stuff,Gilbert Heyde would be spinning in his grave.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121516' dateline='1582705052'(https://i.imgur.com/t01yyDV.jpg)

This is a "Unicorn" according to Yurist.
I think its fairly obvious that there has been something done in the date area.
A depression in the surface is visible especially around the second 1.
Plus discolouration which is limited to the date area only.
(Dont remember where the pic came from - probably sold on Ebay).

Indeed this is appears to be a photo of a Unicorn Penny.  Keep in mind that these pennies were minted for experimental purposes and the '1' was most likely added later to a die that featured a blank "193_"  date type.  In fact, it is for this very reason that we have the 'dropped 1' varieties of the 1931 penny.  Experimental coins were minted with a range adjustments made to the working die during production and the depression around the '1' may be attributed to this.    The depression is not common to all of the 8 Unicorn Pennies I have recorded.  I can, however, see numerous other distinct features in the date that point to it being an authentic Unicorn Penny.  You can read my article in the JNAA for a comprehensive date analysis and draw your own conclusions.  



(https://i.imgur.com/2lC4UUj.jpg) (https://imgur.com/2lC4UUj)

(https://i.imgur.com/cXFYZf8.jpg) (https://imgur.com/cXFYZf8)

Not sure if this is a "Unicorn" also but it has had work done :
Depression around the last 1 and discolouration around the date area only.
The 3 is just all wrong and the last 1 is different.
(I think this one was sold on Ebay last year)

Point is that it demonstrates that 1931 dropped 1 Indians are being faked.  

I agree.  It certainly looks like both the 3 and the 1 have been altered.  Most likely a 1929 donor penny was used.   What gives it away is the sharp-pointed nose on the leftmost '1'.  Both the Unicorn Penny and the benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian penny have a blunt nose on the leftmost '1'.   

Yurist - why don't you provide some proper high res pics so we can see the date area of all of them ?
Are they all like this - with evidence of alterations ?

Sorry to rain on your parade Echidna, but no, Unicorn Pennies do not normally feature a depression around the date nor have evidence of alterations.  I will be happy to upload some hi res images for you to look at upon my return to my computer next week.  In the meantime, you might consider identifying the donor coin that you believe was used in creating the alleged altered date Unicorn Penny (first image above).  I think you might have some difficulty in finding a perfect match.  

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121523' dateline='1582762849'Yuri,i'm not getting into a pii....contest with you,by your Posts so far you do not have a background in pre-Dec. Coins as far as i can tell,what puzzles myself is your motivation with this variety,even if it is a genuine Coin you seem to be on a single minded Crusade for some reason and let your Ego take control when someone questions your assertions,why?,what's in it for you?
I'm not the person you should be attempting to influence,i'm a Hobby collector,albeit with over 50+ years experience,i don't have a reputation to protect and i'm not trying to make a name for myself in the Coin world so my comments on this are just a general interest scenario as far as the 1930 Penny goes.
Instead of having a go at me address the concerns that some of the Coin experts on this Forum have with your Coin,for starters show that the 31 dropped Indian shown above is not a fake.
Whether you have discovered a new variety or not that article you somehow managed to have published is Schoolboy stuff,Gilbert Heyde would be spinning in his grave.

Basil, I have been collecting coins (with a special interest in the Australian penny) for over 40 years.  Not sure if that qualifies as 'background' by your standards, but it is what is it.  My only motivation with this coin is to set the record straight after 55 years.  I strongly believe that this 5th variety of the 1931 penny has been confused with the benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian and that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Dean's original observations were in fact correct.  I have dedicated many months of research into this matter, the results of which I simply want to share with the numismatic community.   However, when confronted by imbecilic comments like your "article you somehow managed to have published", I begin to wonder about the education level of the person making them.  Honestly, I would much prefer to have a constructive discussion with you about the merits of the coin in question.  But don't try to trample over something I feel passionate about and expect not to step on some  thorns along the way.  If you restrain your bigotry and open your mind a little, you may actually learn something.

Yuri,i'm no Dr. but i have qualifications(long time ago) in the Counselling area and you are not just passionate about this topic you are bordering on OCD,i just don't get your angle and why its so important to yourself to prove your are correct to a bunch of ,to you,anonymous Posters.

Anyway i'm not wasting any more time on this,i'll leave it to the experts down the track.

....good luck with it but stay away from padded Rooms and people faking Coins,they end up in Court or Jail or both.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121525' dateline='1582767039'

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121523' dateline='1582762849'Yuri,i'm not getting into a pii....contest with you,by your Posts so far you do not have a background in pre-Dec. Coins as far as i can tell,what puzzles myself is your motivation with this variety,even if it is a genuine Coin you seem to be on a single minded Crusade for some reason and let your Ego take control when someone questions your assertions,why?,what's in it for you?
I'm not the person you should be attempting to influence,i'm a Hobby collector,albeit with over 50+ years experience,i don't have a reputation to protect and i'm not trying to make a name for myself in the Coin world so my comments on this are just a general interest scenario as far as the 1930 Penny goes.
Instead of having a go at me address the concerns that some of the Coin experts on this Forum have with your Coin,for starters show that the 31 dropped Indian shown above is not a fake.
Whether you have discovered a new variety or not that article you somehow managed to have published is Schoolboy stuff,Gilbert Heyde would be spinning in his grave.

Basil, I have been collecting coins (with a special interest in the Australian penny) for over 40 years.  Not sure if that qualifies as 'background' by your standards, but it is what is it.  My only motivation with this coin is to set the record straight after 55 years.  I strongly believe that this 5th variety of the 1931 penny has been confused with the benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian and that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Dean's original observations were in fact correct.  I have dedicated many months of research into this matter, the results of which I simply want to share with the numismatic community.   However, when confronted by imbecilic comments like your "article you somehow managed to have published", I begin to wonder about the education level of the person making them.  Honestly, I would much prefer to have a constructive discussion with you about the merits of the coin in question.  But don't try to trample over something I feel passionate about and expect not to step on some  thorns along the way.  If you restrain your bigotry and open your mind a little, you may actually learn something.    As for DEAN,back in 64 he would not have known if a CBL or FBL was up his arse!!. He said all 1931 pennies have CBL and has viewed 6 1931 dropped indians with CBL...Which is WRONG. They have FBL + acute CBL..As i said before..Whats the difference between the Unicorn penny + a Unicorn???..Nothing as there both fiction...I have pics and records of past sales going back 30years and have never..And i state NEVER seen a 1931 dropped indian with full CBL + no dot after georgvis on the obverse...And now all of a sudden 8 have popped up and more on the rise...You can't con a old school street smart Sydney kid... :sun_bespectacled:

Not to question your street smarts but 8 of a new variety popping up isn't unheard of. think of the 1916 mule or the 1920 dot above English, once someone found one a bunch more popped up. As for Yuri having OCD or whatever my attitude is that he has a Magnificent Obsession in his passion (then again that also applied to David Gee :laughingneqw:)

Thank God a response without being hidden in multiple, nested quotes.

"YEAH'' but 8 1916 mules did not pop up in 1965 + 8 1920 dot above English did not pop up in 2003..They came over a long period of time. One by One..Fools rush in where angles dare to tread...Look left,right and left again before you cross...All is not what if seems..etc,etc...

:laugh2: 10 points Jeff!

I'm not wasting any more time on this,whether it is a new variety or not there is something not right.I don't know if its people trying to make a name for themselves for some reason or they are trying to popularise it for monetary gain,maybe its something else but something is not right,it smells.

This topic sure livened up a quiet Forum,thanks to Yuri for that.

Re post #79.
I quote from this post a paste of text:

   " As for DEAN,back in 64 he would not have known if a CBL or FBL was up his arse!!. He said all 1931 pennies have CBL and has viewed 6 1931 dropped indians with CBL...Which is WRONG.

Oh Dear, I find that summing of John Deans' reputation a bit harsh!
I view John Dean as one of the great observational collectors of Australian coins.
I would rank him with Saxton, Holland, Briggs and others who reported and wrote on what they saw on hundreds if not thousands of samples of coin dates from 1911 to 1936.
Dean was the first person to log and assemble, in print, a list of penny reverses  versus description of FBL and CBL.
This book was the motivation for many collectors of the time (1964) such as myself to look further into coins.

I found the nested reply and cut and pasting of similar text in post  #79 a bit confusing as to who wrote what.
If Dean saw curved base letters on a 1931 coin than that's what he saw.
To wholesale condemn an author on the basis of disbelieving one entry is ungracious and surely needs an apology?

Fred.

Not me Fred,Dean was one of the Coin Guru's when i was at School,i have/had a couple of his Books.
I should apologise to Guri thou.,reading back on some of my Posts i was a bit harsh,i'll have to stop posting when i'm drunk(and also bidding on Ebay Coins.)
Still i think he will cop plenty of worse scrutiny than my meagre efforts over his little project here,one of his mentors,lets call him the 'Pennysomething', must be close to being sued.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/l1XTu3T.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/G7MGjxT.jpg)


"Unicorn" pennies showing differences in the placement of the first 1 and the 3.
First image - the 1 leans to the right and points between circles in the ring.
Second image - the 1 leans to the left and points directly at a circle in the ring.
First image - the 3 clearly does not touch the line.
Second image - the 3 is closer to the line and touches it.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/byycrW8.jpg)

Another "Unicorn".
The first 1 is even further to the right.
The 3 is tilted more to the right and and placed higher.

These images are relatively low res and not ideal but that's all we have for now.
The high res images promised by Yurist are needed to sort out this mess.

Hi Echidna.
Nicely observed re the digit placing.
The point about digits is they can wander around all over the place as amply demonstrated in the past by David Briggs.
Briggs has many coins photographed in his copper book showing this.
Some coins have so many presentations of digit position you just give up calling them varieties.
We used to say "3 tilt left, 3 tilt right" and so on but that just covered the gross positions.
Where the mint guys were hand punching hubs and even individual dies then the list grows and grows.
Throw into that distortion by metal flow and more importantly the apparent change in position and shape by actual WEAR on a coin and you have an endless perceived list of differences. You have to go down Basils' rabbit hole, into the padded chamber and out through the looking glass to keep up with it!
There is nothing new or wonderful about digits moving or letters curving, the main fun is working out if this is wonky placement of digits on a hub or die, OR, striking distortion while pressing out hub, die or coin.

Fred.

Hi Fred

What you say is right.
However the "unicorn" penny would be the product of one die only, if it were real.
And the date numerals should line up.
I can imagine the last two digits moving around if there were multiple dies.

Hi Echidna.
Yep, exactly the point.

Coin is a reverse die  with a drop 1, said to be paired with a Indian obverse.
That's a 31D in the normal parlance.

The reverse die shown with distorted letters (CBL) and a 1 in a different position (say tilt left?).

The obverse die shown with no particular die marker. (i'm not interested in die markers that are not there, that proves nothing).

So, to me, while a obverse die was left in the machine for lots of trials , the reverse (any date circa 29/30/31) dies were being swapped in and out and this "3D with tilt drop 1" pairing did not survive long, hence not many striking made the cut.

There is no mystery with 29, 30 and 31 varieties, mysteries only exist, when observers do not understand the mechanics and the engineering behind the workshop trials.

The other point of contention, authenticity, fakery and all that i'll leave as a separate issue because it has nothing to do with understanding hub and die progression. IF coins with a indian obverse and a drop 1 tilty curvy reverse are found not to be glued together fakes then i'll add a "b" version to 31D if I expand the existing A, B, C, D table.

From the padded room...........Fred.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121545' dateline='1582939819'Hi Fred

What you say is right.
However the "unicorn" penny would be the product of one die only, if it were real.
And the date numerals should line up.
I can imagine the last two digits moving around if there were multiple dies.

Yep,if genuine,with only a handful minted,they all should be identical,my Neville Nobody opinion.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121563' dateline='1583017341'

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121545' dateline='1582939819'Hi Fred

What you say is right.
However the "unicorn" penny would be the product of one die only, if it were real.
And the date numerals should line up.
I can imagine the last two digits moving around if there were multiple dies.

Yep,if genuine,with only a handful minted,they all should be identical,my Neville Nobody opinion.

Basil and Echidna, you are both correct about there needing to be 2 (or more) unicorn dies if the digit moved around. Not an impossibility are there are other scarce die pairings with multiple digit positions (such as the '52 penny left, right, pointed etc). But then that would require the workshop to have prepared such dies and is there any evidence of that many dies made in 1930-31? The answer is probably in Mullett and if the records account for X number of dies and there are already X number of dies already known by their die markers then that rules out the existence of multiple Unicorns (to be otherwise would require the mint not to record the dies manufacture, not to record the dies use and then only strike several small batches in test runs etc etc).
Perhaps a closer examination of the obverses of the different unicorns might identify die markers consistent with 1930-31 Indians (unless the unicorns had not only specially prepared reverses but specially prepared obverses as well).
Or we might find die markers matching 1929 Indians in which case do the records show a used die being kept to 1931?

Everything I just typed/pondered above is EXACTLY what the proof readers and others who approved the article for inclusion in the journal SHOULD HAVE BLOODY WELL DONE. That is not a criticism of Yuri (I take it that he is  just a  passionate enthusiast coin collector) but of the journals editorial committee. If the journal doesn't have knowledgeable expert numismatists (numismatologists) in their committee or get articles vetted by those of us who are then they are publishing a journal that will attract puff pieces. End rant :@ .

Yurist says:

"There have been 7 coins discovered so far.  Some of them have irrefutable provenance - one Unicorn Penny was owned by an 80 y.o. collector for many decades and another was discovered belonging to a woman born in 1931.  Her father (a collector) gave her the coin when she was young.  "

So what makes this irrefutable ?
In other words it is evidence that cannot be proved wrong.
And we must therefore accept this statement as fact ?
Please explain.

That wouldn't get past a good Editor,means nothing and just raises suspicions on the whole article.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121577' dateline='1583048332'Yurist says:

"There have been 7 coins discovered so far.  Some of them have irrefutable provenance - one Unicorn Penny was owned by an 80 y.o. collector for many decades and another was discovered belonging to a woman born in 1931.  Her father (a collector) gave her the coin when she was young.  "

So what makes this irrefutable ?
In other words it is evidence that cannot be proved wrong.
And we must therefore accept this statement as fact ?
Please explain.

Just a clarification... this quote is not from the article, but from an earlier post of mine; and a total of 8 Unicorn pennies have since been identified.  

I was merely sharing my experience of the discoveries.  They was completely serendipitous, non-contrived and nobody gave up any information too easily.  In some cases, I made an effort to identify these coins myself within the owner's collections.   It commonly started by me spotting an image of suspected Unicorn online that was incorrectly classified as a benchmark 1931 dropped 1 Indian penny.  This was followed by a series of exchanges with the owners to establish a line of communication, which enabled me to gather further details.       

In most cases, I was the one who instigated a broader review of the owners' collections, effectively digging around through their trove of 1931 pennies to see if they had any more dropped 1 Indians with CBL.  I only informed them of the significance after any Unicorns were identified.  In exchange, I was subsequently told of any interesting stories behind these coins.  

Whilst I appreciate that the story of a gift to a girl from her father some 70+ years ago cannot be supported by documentary evidence, the story likewise has no ostensible way of being disproven.  That's what 'irrefutable' actually means 'impossible to disprove'.  

In any event, I kept a log of emails with each owner that demonstrate my conduct was in good faith, and that the owners were not trying to convince me of anything.  In fact, in most cases they were merely unsure of the significance of the CBL and simply wanted more information about it. Nothing remarkable or sinister.  I'm sure that other interesting varieties were also discovered under similar circumstances.  

However, with the avalanche of scepticism that I experienced over the possibility of a 5th variety existing, I felt that providing details about the declared provenance of some coins was necessary.   In particular, with skeptics immediately referring to modern technological advancements that enable virtually any coin to be created/duplicated, it was both relevant and important to state that some of the Unicorns had been held by collectors for many many decades - preceding laser 3D scans etc. etc.

It sounds like you've gone to a considerable amount of effort there Yurist! Top work! :good:

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121581' dateline='1583091172'Just a clarification... this quote is not from the article, but from an earlier post of mine; and a total of 8 Unicorn pennies have since been identified.  

Ok,but,as you stated yourself, you can't include anecdotal evidence or observations in any serious journalistic piece,i know Murdoch Journo's do it all the time these days but for the most part Editors will slash it out.
Without evidence and facts its just Chinese Whispers and Hearsay,not permissible in Court or most Pro. Journals.

As Echinda says throw up some high Res. Pics.,there are some very experienced Numismatists hovering in the background of this Forum and i know a couple that will offer an opinion with decent Pics.

Anyway keep posting ,interesting subject.

Basil, I'm trying to source some SUPER high res images, and will post them as soon as possible.  

As for journalistic pieces, I have come across the phrase 'according to a reliable source' far to often not to know that in most cases it simply means a first hand account.  A collector directly claiming to have owned the coin for decades, therefore, must by definition be a reliable source.  It is certainly not 'hearsay' or 'Chinese whispers', which would be the case if the collector's account was indirect (i.e. they heard someone say something and assumed it was true).  

The information is anecdotal simply because it's based on personal accounts rather than verifiable facts.  But certain facts are as impossible to verify as it is impossible to disprove them.  Thus, until shown otherwise, they amount to reliable and irrefutable witness statements that support a line of solid research.  In my view, perfectly legitimate grounds for the JNAA to have published such information.  

However, one is of course at liberty to be sceptical, and to rely instead, on even less tangible faculties like intuition, 'street smarts', ESP, clairvoyance etc.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121589' dateline='1583196353'Basil, I'm trying to source some SUPER high res images, and will post them as soon as possible.  

Ok,no high level of anxiety required,we are dealing with a possible Die variety of a 1931 dropped Indian,like the 1930 Penny 99% of Collectors have never seem a genuine eg.
I don't see what all the fuss is about from your angle,its no big deal,if genuine it causes a ripple like the 1933 Half overdate then Numismatists move on,if its a contrived or Fake Coin its joins the dust bin of thousands of similar attempts over the years..
We are not talking about a article in The Lancet where someone has found a cure for Cancer,its a Die variety of a known Coin.
Look forward to the Pics.,i have someone in the background keen to have a good look as will Echinda,Neale,Fred etc on here.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='121589' dateline='1583196353'Basil, I'm trying to source some SUPER high res images, and will post them as soon as possible.  

As for journalistic pieces, I have come across the phrase 'according to a reliable source' far to often not to know that in most cases it simply means a first hand account.  A collector directly claiming to have owned the coin for decades, therefore, must by definition be a reliable source.  It is certainly not 'hearsay' or 'Chinese whispers', which would be the case if the collector's account was indirect (i.e. they heard someone say something and assumed it was true).  

The information is anecdotal simply because it's based on personal accounts rather than verifiable facts.  But certain facts are as impossible to verify as it is impossible to disprove them.  Thus, until shown otherwise, they amount to reliable and irrefutable witness statements that support a line of solid research.  In my view, perfectly legitimate grounds for the JNAA to have published such information.  

However, one is of course at liberty to be sceptical, and to rely instead, on even less tangible faculties like intuition, 'street smarts', ESP, clairvoyance etc.    ''YEAH"' Good luck for the outcome..But i would not want to be you if it comes back as a non genuine (fake)..

Hi Stan,i think you are posting in the wrong section of the quoted reply,you have to post under the line to stop it getting merged with the quote.

Still confused with why Yuri is so passionate with this Coin Variety even if it is genuine,time will tell.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='121600' dateline='1583298987'Still confused with why Yuri is so passionate with this Coin Variety even if it is genuine,time will tell.

I think it is the nature of collecting that makes many collectors passionate (bonkers :tease: ) about what they collect. Trout with the Canberra, me with the 1920 penny, Klaus Ford with the Centenary florin etc. It takes the passionate collector to advance the knowledge and without us nutters spending a ridiculous amount of time/money on the hunt for coins and information the hobby would have never advanced further than the crappy coin charts of 60 years ago.

Yurist why don't you provide us the images you already have ?
The super high res versions could take quite a while and can be posted at a later point.
I'm guessing that you have never seen a "Unicorn" in the hand so the pics you have now must be good enough to form an opinion.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/H32fAKa.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/M6KWtTL.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/fg6KbI2.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/E4kX92H.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/PqLEqNT.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/zHbLa6I.jpg)
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/ts4xDE9.jpg)


Seems to be taking a while for Yurist to provide decent images as promised.
For what its worth these are the rubbish images from the "Unicorn Website" which has been off line for some time.
These images represent all the "evidence" Yurist has provided, basically.
Plus the "irrefutable evidence" about a little old lady...

And I note that at least three of the above images (#1 #2 & #6) have been edited - heavily re-coloured.

Bloody Unicorns! :laugh2:

Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='121677' dateline='1584105973'Bloody Unicorns! :laugh2:

Its all your fault for encouraging him Uni...LOL.

Its all suss for sure and even if it is a genuine variety its no big deal anyway,99%+ of the Coin collecting population will never see one.
Still,interesting to see where it all leads.

I have a question for you coin forum members and its a survey really.

Have a look at your 1931 drop 1 coins with the London reverse.
Tell me how many  have curved base letters.

I have about 20 FBL in my junk copper and no CBL.

Fred.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='121703' dateline='1584220251'I have a question for you coin forum members and its a survey really.

Have a look at your 1931 drop 1 coins with the London reverse.
Tell me how many  have curved base letters.

I have about 20 FBL in my junk copper and no CBL.

Fred.

Hello Fred

Mine are all FBL.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='121710' dateline='1584232757'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='121703' dateline='1584220251'I have a question for you coin forum members and its a survey really.

Have a look at your 1931 drop 1 coins with the London reverse.
Tell me how many  have curved base letters.

I have about 20 FBL in my junk copper and no CBL.

Fred.

Hello Fred

Mine are all FBL.      DEAN must have all the CBL 31 drop 1 Londons from his 1965 review...

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='121703' dateline='1584220251'I have a question for you coin forum members and its a survey really.

Have a look at your 1931 drop 1 coins with the London reverse.
Tell me how many  have curved base letters.

I have about 20 FBL in my junk copper and no CBL.

Fred.

Hi Fred,i have about 50-60 1931 Coins so will check them all next W/end.

Since this Unicorn thing i've been checking dropped 31's on Ebay and all are FBL so far.

Thanks Basil, appreciate that, yep been looking at web too no CBL sighted yet.
Also have trawled through hundreds of archive photos no CBL.
The logical uncovering of CBL 31's should be just like the  uncovering other rare vareties, like the dot over bottom scroll 1920 thing and the 2000 dollar/10cent.  May be area specific.
Now that people are looking actively for CBL 31, as this is the largest forum in Oz, somebody here should find one!

Fred.

Hi Yuri, are those hi-res images you mentioned previously available?

I have done a bit of work on pennys inclusive 1929 to 1931, in regards to the appearances of the reverse and obverse types and relating these to the die types and  serial numbers, following Mullett. Also a little bit about Bill Mullett and his tenure at the Melbourne Mint.
That work resulted in  a bunch of articles that are a summary of the work and hopefully will be printed in CAB this year.

The bulk of the work is far too large to actually fit in a magazine, there is a large spreadsheet of die appearances by source and serial number year by year from 1911 to 1936 that only strange types as myself would be interested in.
Keep an eye out on the CABs for those, support the magazine as well!

Like any special interest mag  such as "Restored Cars" by Eddie Ford,  these magazines  continuance relies heavily on subscribers and advertisers.
If they do not get subscriptions they will fold it is simple as that.
Fred.

:good: Good work Fred, I hope to be able to get a copy of them when they come out. Most interested.

Hi All,

Sorry for the somewhat long delay on the hi-res images.  The Covid-19 lockdown got in the way of my scheduled return home.  

Anyway, I've now had time to upload some of the hi-res images I had on file to my website.  

Please see: https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home/image-archive

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/ISyM7GC.jpg)" 
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/TIVL0W0.jpg)" 
Coin #8 and #2.
The alignment of the 1s are different.
The shape of the 3s are different.
Sorry Yurist - at least one is an altered date.






(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/K9RSqCl.jpg)" 
1929 pennies have this small mark in the first 9.
It is visible on Yurust's images (which are not really high res) if you look closely.
Exactly what you would expect for altered date 29s.

Yurist's article says:
"Interestingly, the '9' in the Unicorn Penny is very similar to the counterpart '9' in the 1929 Indian obverse penny"
But then you say:
"We can also exclude the 1929 penny given the distinctly different date characteristics compared with the Unicorn Penny"
If the 9 is the same then what you are referring to is the first 1.
The first 1 was also replaced and your article doesnt even consider this as a possibility.

Yurist they are all fake - altered date 1929s.

Hi Echi, that "mark" in the 9 is a DEFECT in a hub that has carried on to appear in various striking dies.
One has to stop thinking about coins alone and consider the master to hub to die evolution that produces the coins.
The mark in the 9 is a CHIP off the surface of a HUB extending down into the loop. On your excellent image this even shows the outline of the missing metal in the BOTTOM of the trough forming the loop of the 9. That indicates your coin was struck very soon after the chip detached.
Being a minor fault and in a time of desperation (1929)  the chip has been ignored by the press guys and in any subsequent hub to die pressing in later years (1930, 1931)  will reapear.
What you are pointing out is a HUB IDENTIFICATION mark and thank you for that, i had overlooked it.
I'll call it the "Echi" or "Spike" mark for attribution!
That is the sort of ID marking that assists in getting a clearer idea of the evolution of the hub-dies series.
There are other ID marks that carry through hub to dies the most famous being the "small pearl" in the King's crown on pennies that carried through from 1917 to 1927 on many dies.
Damm now i have to go back through hundreds of images of 1929-30-31 reverses looking for that marker and relate it to die ID numbers!
Cheers, Fred.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122337' dateline='1589599491'(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/ISyM7GC.jpg)" 
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/TIVL0W0.jpg)" 
Coin #8 and #2.
The alignment of the 1s are different.
The shape of the 3s are different.
Sorry Yurist - at least one is an altered date.






(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/K9RSqCl.jpg)" 
1929 pennies have this small mark in the first 9.
It is visible on Yurust's images (which are not really high res) if you look closely.
Exactly what you would expect for altered date 29s.

Yurist's article says:
"Interestingly, the '9' in the Unicorn Penny is very similar to the counterpart '9' in the 1929 Indian obverse penny"
But then you say:
"We can also exclude the 1929 penny given the distinctly different date characteristics compared with the Unicorn Penny"
If the 9 is the same then what you are referring to is the first 1.
The first 1 was also replaced and your article doesnt even consider this as a possibility.

Yurist they are all fake - altered date 1929s.

Of the 8 'Unicorn Pennies' that I identified, one ('UP8') contains some unique date features.  I was able to confirm this recently and addressed it in a separate page on my website at:

https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home/further-research

There's a lot of commentary (including Mullet) suggesting a rather chaotic state of affairs at the Melbourne Mint during the time when these coins were struck.  There was a considerable amount of botching going on with a 'trial and error' approach employing different dies, tooling and date figures being cut from of older hubs and placed into new ones.  Experimental coins were being struck, a few of which (like the 'Unicorn Penny' and probably some sub-varieties like the UP8) found their way into circulation.  

It is also very likely that the 1929 reverse hubs were involved in these experimental strikes.  So, it is not surprising to see some of the markings from the 1929 coin appearing in the Unicorn Pennies.  

For the sake of completeness, I will try to obtain zoomed hi-res images of the dates to confirm the mark in the '9'.  In the meantime, I have superimposed your 1929 image with the Unicorn Penny (see attached) and noticed a misalignment of the leftmost '1'.  In my article, I noted this as a difference in spacing between the '1' and the '9'.  

I suggest that it is much more likely that adjustments were made to the 1929 hub at the Mint (in producing working dies for the 1931 Unicorn Penny) than someone altering a 1929 coin to reproduce the benchmark 1931 drop '1' Ind. Obv. penny.   If we are to consider the latter (your) version, then using a 1929 penny as a doner coin would involve removal of the leftmost (blunt nose) '1', the '2' and the rightmost '9' from the 1929 coin and replacing them with a pointy noise '1', a unique '3' and a dropped '1'.    

Of course, achieving such substantial alterations without leaving any apparent trace would be nothing short of incredible artistic precision.  However, it would also be incredibly ironic that a master of such calibre was then so careless about placing the dropped '1' in the right position.  I'm afraid that simply doesn't follow.

[attachment=3952]

Yurist Quote.."There's a lot of commentary (including Mullet) suggesting a rather chaotic state of affairs at the Melbourne Mint during the time when these coins were struck.  There was a considerable amount of botching going on with a 'trial and error' approach employing different dies, tooling and date figures being cut from of older hubs and placed into new ones."

That's correct but it wasn't just the Mints,it was Aust. wide chaos as the average Joe struggled to survive and the Mints were no exception as their budgets shrunk and demand for Currency collapsed.
I used to live and breathe Coins as a School Boy in the 1960's but i have never read how the 'dropped 1' Penny came into being and why it  was released into Circulation in the first place,how hard is it to align a date?
Apparently someone got up in Parliament in the early 1930's,we are still trying to find out who and whether it was Vict. or Federal,and said the latest Coins from the Mint " are an eg. of a general malaise affecting Aust Society... etc". 

Anyway this Thread is getting way past my levels of expertise and knowledge but i still find it very interesting but can't help feeling something is wrong here.  

Hi Fred
Yes the "mark" is also visible in other dates prior to 1929, but not after.
The point is that if the Unicorns are altered date 29s, then one would expect to see the mark.
Its a significant issue which Yurist failed to comment on.

Yurist
So now you are finally confirming that Unicorns show the 1 the 3 and the final 1 in different positions ?
And this is due to "experimentation during the 1931 penny production". 
Yeah right.
Well I guess this means we now have a Unicorn version 1, Unicorn version 2 ?
Well I think I may have discovered a version 3 ! (number 5 - see below).

You made a similar comment earlier about the depression in the date area:
"Experimental coins were minted with a range adjustments made to the working die during production and the depression around the '1' may be attributed to this."
This would mean that the mint added metal to the working die around the 1.
Yeah right.

The depression seen in the date area is due to the fact that they are fake altered dates and whoever did the fakery had to first remove the numerals.

The 1 the 3 and the final 1 are in different positions because they are fake altered dates.
The 3s are different shapes because they are fake altered dates.
Depressions and scratches can be seen in the date area because they are fake altered dates.
Discolouration can be seen in the date area because they are fake altered dates.

Do not discount the skill of these fakers.
Some are highly skilled and are able to put out very high quality fakes good enough to fool dealers.

Yurist, lets see unedited high res pics of the date areas.
All eight of them please.

Also you are wrong:
"Of the 8 'Unicorn Pennies' that I identified, one ('UP8') contains some unique date features"
How about number 5 - the 3 is obviously different.
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/rrjnVWr.jpg)" 

The top one looks fishy. Surface change around the 3. The last one is longer than the bottom coin. The bottom of the one on the top coin is further away from the rim than the bottom coin...Could be that my eyes are getting old,but the top coin does not look like a dropped one....

Hi Stan

We will have to wait for Yurist to provide the high res images of the date area.
But yes it looks dodgy.
The first 1 looks like its got a fishtail.


(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/z2VfwjW.jpg)"

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122349' dateline='1589693061'Hi Stan

We will have to wait for Yurist to provide the high res images of the date area.
But yes it looks dodgy.
The first 1 looks like its got a fishtail.
By the way this is "Unicorn #5" which was sold by a known seller of fake 1931 Drop 1 Indians on Ebay.
Even with the dodgy pic its a fairly obviously an altered date.
He has got a few of them.
You can identify his pics by the pink background.    NA.don't think you'll here from Yurist. It's tail between the legs time and head for the hills... :s :sportbike:

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/z2VfwjW.jpg)"

Echidna, i trawled through a few pre 1929 pennies today and cannot so far detect that die chip in the 9 in any other date.
I spotted a nice 1929 VF example on ebay with a very clear flaw and grabbed that for a reference coin.
Can you give me an idea if it occurs in specific dates and not in others?
It would be very exciting if traceable back to 1921 or 1923.
I am trying to line up the  die flaw to a specific hub or die by serial number.
As a cross reference it would be nice if you could all look at coins and call in the dates that have this flaw.

Cheers, Fred.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122353' dateline='1589711511'Echidna, i trawled through a few pre 1929 pennies today and cannot so far detect that die chip in the 9 in any other date.
I spotted a nice 1929 VF example on ebay with a very clear flaw and grabbed that for a reference coin.
Can you give me an idea if it occurs in specific dates and not in others?
It would be very exciting if traceable back to 1921 or 1923.
I am trying to line up the  die flaw to a specific hub or die by serial number.
As a cross reference it would be nice if you could all look at coins and call in the dates that have this flaw.

Cheers, Fred.

Hi Fred

Off the top of my head its definitely there on 1925s
I will check other dates and get back about this.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122354' dateline='1589711932'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122353' dateline='1589711511'Echidna, i trawled through a few pre 1929 pennies today and cannot so far detect that die chip in the 9 in any other date.
I spotted a nice 1929 VF example on ebay with a very clear flaw and grabbed that for a reference coin.
Can you give me an idea if it occurs in specific dates and not in others?
It would be very exciting if traceable back to 1921 or 1923.
I am trying to line up the  die flaw to a specific hub or die by serial number.
As a cross reference it would be nice if you could all look at coins and call in the dates that have this flaw.

Cheers, Fred.

Hi Fred

Off the top of my head its definitely there on 1925s
I will check other dates and get back about this.

I can see the same die flaw on these dates:
1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122345' dateline='1589682181'Hi Fred
Yes the "mark" is also visible in other dates prior to 1929, but not after.
The point is that if the Unicorns are altered date 29s, then one would expect to see the mark.
Its a significant issue which Yurist failed to comment on.  

Firstly, this die marker is an entirely new observation and needs to be confirmed.  Secondly, I already posted my comment saying that if it's real there is nothing necessarily sinister about it.  As Fred said, die markers have been passed on from one coin to another for years.  It simply means that the 1929 hub (like numerous others) were used in the 1930/31 experimental phase.  

Yurist
So now you are finally confirming that Unicorns show the 1 the 3 and the final 1 in different positions ?

Not sure what you mean.  My article makes a clear reference to the dropped '1' of the Unicorn Penny being in a different position.  The article also tests the leftmost '1' against numerous pennies of that period and shows that it too appears in a different position.  The position of the '3' seems unchanged but the shape of that numeral appears to be unique in most Unicorn Pennies, except in UP8.  The '3' in UP8  is consistent with the shape of the '3' in the 1930 penny.   I hope you won't be arguing that someone harvested the '3' from a 1930 penny to create an altered UP8?   

And this is due to "experimentation during the 1931 penny production". 
Yeah right.
Well I guess this means we now have a Unicorn version 1, Unicorn version 2 ?
Well I think I may have discovered a version 3 ! (number 5 - see below).

I will need to investigate this further, but minor variations in working dies (due to hub adjustments) that resulted in minor changes to the shape of date numerals would be expected in coins that were struck during the well-documented experimental phase at the Mint.   

You made a similar comment earlier about the depression in the date area:
"Experimental coins were minted with a range adjustments made to the working die during production and the depression around the '1' may be attributed to this."
This would mean that the mint added metal to the working die around the 1.
Yeah right.

I suggest you do a little more reading about the challenges facing the Mint in 1929-1931.   The practice of cutting a date numeral from one hub and placing it into another was common as the Mint improvised to create its own working dies.   The methods employed and quality of the results were somewhat random, and it's certainly not unthinkable that metal was added/removed and/or striking pressure was adjusted, which resulted in depressions around misplaced numerals like the dropped '1'.   


The depression seen in the date area is due to the fact that they are fake altered dates and whoever did the fakery had to first remove the numerals.

Numbingly repeating the word "fake" doesn't make it true, and "yeah right" is not an argument.  You cannot simply discount history, and in particular the challenging circumstances experienced at the Mint during the Great Depression.     

The 1 the 3 and the final 1 are in different positions because they are fake altered dates.
The 3s are different shapes because they are fake altered dates.
Depressions and scratches can be seen in the date area because they are fake altered dates. 
Discolouration can be seen in the date area because they are fake altered dates.

Worth noting that most of the Unicorn Pennies don't have any evidence of significant scratches, depressions or discolourations around the date or anywhere else.  The few pennies that do have some surface issues have them throughout the entire coin and not just around the date.    

Do not discount the skill of these fakers.
Some are highly skilled and are able to put out very high quality fakes good enough to fool dealers.

There have indeed been some very good coin reproductions in the past, but there are too many fundamental inconsistencies for the Unicorn Penny to be a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny.  

For example, if the fakers were so skilled that they managed to remove three of the 'wrong' date numbers from a 1929 penny and seamlessly replace the leftmost '1' (there are no depressions or scratches), then why install the wrong '3' and get the dropped '1' placement wrong each time?  Clearly, a bad faker would not have the skill to pull off a masterful job on any of the date numbers, while a good faker would not have gotten any of the numbers wrong.  By analogy, it's like showing a perfect reproduction of the Mona Lisa by a highly skilled artist who decided to paint her with blond hair.  

Also, let's not forget about the curved-base letters (CBL).  If the faker's objective was to emulate the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny (which features a reverse legend with flat base letters), then why choose a donor coin with CBL?  Sorry, but no matter which way you look at it, your 'fake' coin theory simply doesn't hold water.   

Yurist, lets see unedited high res pics of the date areas.
All eight of them please.  

I can assure you that the images I have posted on my website are completely unedited.  I merely placed the original images on a black background.   I have requested additional hi-res images of the remaining 4 coins and will add them to the website as soon as received.   

Also you are wrong:
"Of the 8 'Unicorn Pennies' that I identified, one ('UP8') contains some unique date features"
How about number 5 - the 3 is obviously different.
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/rrjnVWr.jpg)" 

I can see the possible anomaly you are referring to, but I don't yet have a hi-res image of that coin to confirm whether this is a striking issue or subsequent damage to the coin.  From my file images I can, however, see that this particular coin ('UP5') has some considerable surface damage on other parts of the reverse.  There appears to be a planchette flaw next to the 'W' in COMMONWEALTH and a similar flaw in the 'O' in ONE.  Once again, the Mint was experimenting with different metals and dies at the time, so seeing such anomalies is not totally unexpected.  

Hi Echidna,  
From your observation that the same flaw exists on so many dates confirms that a  copy hub persisted for a long while since 1923..
That a copy hub can last for such a long time is not unusual as it only had the job or providing one derivative pressed on  hub at a time.
Most likely the copy hub had the date of 19blankblank thus letting the next stage of punching have any numeral you want next.
The point about the hub is the 9 on it carries the minute flaw.
As i look at more coins and concentrate on the 9 I see examples where by virtue of wear on the dies the 9 just looks a bit "fatter", having lost the finer details of the flaw.
"Metal added".
Yes, please note that the hub sequences never saw metal added to anything, the mint had no such facility to do that.
Where metal had to be "added" a pressing sequence of incuse back to relief  was carried out. Once in relief metal could be removed, thus when pressing back to incuse what was a hollow was now "filled".
That same reverse copy hub with curved base letters and the 9 flaw appears to keep bobbing up in the whole decade and i have no problem  with it coming out of storage in 1929, 1930 and 1931 in the attempts to make viable striking dies.
Whether successful coining dies resulted in those attempts each years is illustrated by the number of struck coins found of the year.
We have 1929 lots of coins, 1930 none and 1931 a few.
Other years, well,  I have looked at quite a few 1925 images and about 1/2 of them have a wonky 9.

That 1931 coins may have numerals pointing in all directions does not surprise me at all as hubs were hand punched and came from different series so all four digits may be in slightly different positions on groups of coin strikings.
In history this is common. Only David Briggs has gone to a great lot of trouble to itemize the various wanderings of numerals on our coinage.
A couple of hours reading his books and looking at the enclosed photos reveals just how variable digit placing can be.
In some years he just gave up trying to classify the varieties of date positions, falling back to "as many as you can find"!!

I am still waiting for somebody else on this coin forum to find their own CBL 1931 Ind Obv coin to add to the handful that Yuri has found.
I suppose that as well as the CBL we now should now look for a "lumpy 9".
It took quite a few years for the English obverse dot over bottom scroll reverse 1920 to be found in any number, i guess I will have to wait a few more years before the CBL 1931D1+ W9 +Ind obv's start to show!

Fred.

Yurist what we need are high res images of the date areas for all eight coins as per your promise:
"I will try to obtain zoomed hi-res images of the dates

None of the pics so far provided are good enough to see the required details.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122362' dateline='1589762719'Yurist what we need are high res images of the date areas for all eight coins as per your promise:
"I will try to obtain zoomed hi-res images of the dates

None of the pics so far provided are good enough to see the required details.    :i_agree:  Zoomed hi-rez images are a start..Also all eight coins are needed in hand. Tools are needed,digital scale,micrometer to check thickness of rim,planchet + circumference and a microscope to check surface,date area..Did this process at least happen to one of the eight coins???!!!... :-/

As I said, I will attempt to obtain the zoomed images.  However, in some cases I am dealing with collectors who aren't very technically savvy.  

Personally, I have handled 5 of the coins.  Of course, I used a hi-magnification eye lens and verified the weights and diameters.  All was normal, 9.45g and 30.8mm respectively.  

If I get a chance to arrange additional inspections, I will take a microscope camera lens with me and take the zoomed images myself.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122355' dateline='1589714874'I can see the same die flaw on these dates:
1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929

I found them on the same dates, nothing prior to 1923 nor the 31's or beyond. Bugger, don't have a 1930.  :drooling:   

Just to elaborate a little, the flaw was seen on both FBL and CBL coins for 1923

Filled 4 and normal 4 on both Indian and English obverse coins for 1924

The broken N reverse for 1925, as well as the cuds on E and Y reverse for 1925

Runny nose King obverse coin for 1926

Both Indian and English obverse coins for 1927

Both Indian and English obverse coins for 1929

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/vrHFcJz.jpg)" 

Comparison of the four images we have so far.
Check the alignment of the first 1 the 3 and the final 1.
Its clear that they are ALL different.
Its important because its exactly what you would expect with altered dates.
But this wasn't this mentioned in the journal article.

Its clear that Yurist hasnt done this sort of image comparison.

Re post 125.
(I will not nest this post, that is too confusing, i cannot tell who is saying what).

Ecchy, i spent a couple of happy hours yesterday looking at pennies and the 9 in the dates.
I  looked at about 100 coins dated between 1922 and 1932.
The coins were in the VF to EF grade so wear was not too much of a factor in distorting the image positions.

1/  I found a SIMILAR die chip in CBL coins of the dates you nominated.
I am not sure  if the chip is exactly the same defect in ALL of the coins viewed.
I strongly do believe that we are looking at a hub chip, passed onto coining dies.
That needs about 1000 more coin viewing to get a handle on.
(Yes, here comes a CAB article on the "9 chip" defect after i do some more research.)
I have not found the chip defect in any FBL reverse.

2/ As the similar if not exact chip shows on dates from 1923 to 1929 how does that effect your proof of evil doing namely: the 5th variety of 1931 are modified 1929 coins? Could they not be any date from 1923 to 1929?

3/ I am not sure about any of this proofing of evil doing simply because digits wriggle about in position when viewed on the coin images.
It is demonstrated that digits move about on many dates of coins!
It is not just these 1931's that have wonky digits.
If digits moving about were a sure sign of evil doing that means many coins from 1913 (where you find lots of differences) must be date altered coins!
That notion is just non- sense.

4/ The digit position changes on as seen on many dates is not caused by changes on COINS but changes on HUBS, particularly when a generic hub has had a date change or repair involving the digits.

5/ Yes there are plenty of date altered coins from evil doers and i am the first to jump right onto the mongrels, particularly when it involves one of my beloved 1930 coins!

6/ Calling ALL these so called 5th variety of 1931 drop 1 and all that fakes just because  the digits are in slightly different positions just does not hold water. The digit positions are determined by the HUB and DIE train including any distortions caused  by hand punching on intermediate hubbing and heat treating.

7/ There is still a huge amount of research to do to try and identify HUBS and DIES and relate them to the coins that we see in our collections.
I am on it, but I need help!

Cheers, Fred.

Echidna, regarding your image comparison at post #134, before jumping to conclusions about numeral misalignment, you needed to first ensure that your images were all correctly calibrated with each other.  

You must take full images of each coin and superimpose them so that you achieve a perfect alignment of every detail.  Believe me, that's much harder to do than you may think (but it's possible).  Once you've achieved that, you can start to compare the date alignments, and you will find that there is actually far less variation ('wriggle') than you expect.  

I have done the hard work for you.  See attached below the image of all 4 coins correctly superimposed over each other.  The amount of wriggle in the date numerals is extremely small (about the level you expect to see with mechanical doubling, which is caused by the die shifting (or bouncing) during the striking phase if it's not properly seated).  

The only significant variation that is ascertainable is with the dropped '1' due to UP8 anomaly, which is noted on my website at https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home/further-research

[attachment=3954]

The owner of Unicorn no 5 is no longer calling it a Unicorn..It's just a 1931 dropped one Indian with dot above S with CBL base letters..So are all the other Unicorns just variety 4 with cbl with numeral misalignment due to die shifting(bouncing) during the striking phase and no dot above S due to die fill...

Firstly, what is required are proper high res pics.
Until then this debate will just go around in circles.
Because its impossible to prove anything much until then either way.

Next, we actually need images taken with a digital microscope of the date areas.
If they are fake then there will be ample evidence of alterations.
If genuine then it will be obvious.

Regarding the issues with the date numerals, the ideal way to demonstrate the variations is by ortho rectifying the images.
Its mathematical and precise down to the individual pixels.
I can do this, but its not worthwhile with the low res images provided so far.
Happy to provide further info about this process.

Regarding the question as to why the fakers would use a 1929 Indian, its a matter of cost.
Technically the best donor coin would be a 1931 Indian die with the normal date I guess.
Cost wise about $50 a pop.
Next best is a 27 Indian, again about $50 each.
A 1929 Indian can be picked up for a few cents.

Further to this issue of 1929 Indians please check these images.
There is a die flaw visible on SOME 29 Indians.
I can see the same flaw on Unicorn number 8.
Again the resolution is frustratingly not good enough, however it looks like a match to me.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/9JAuS4b.jpg)" 
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/y6SYqLM.jpg)" /

Good work Echi,i hope Eric can back you up down the track,he thought the original 1931 Indian Coin from last year was a fake. All this is way past my pay grade but certainly an interesting Thread.

Echidna, I have requested the zoomed hi-res images and will work on getting some of the coins photographed with a digital microscope.    

Regarding your suggested donor coins, please remember that the coin supposedly being emulated is the FBL 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv penny. Therefore:

1. The 1929 is CBL not FBL.  Plus it would require perfect replacement of the leftmost '1', as well as the '3' and the dropped '1'.  That is, three date numerals would need to be replaced on the wrong (CBL) planchette.  Doesn't sound very credible that a master faker would go to such trouble and then try to pass off a CBL coin for an FBL.  Nonsense!  

2. The 1927 is also CBL and not FBL.  However, this coin can be immediately excluded as a donor coin for the obvious reason of the fourth pearl in the Crown being considerably smaller (a well-known die marker that Fred, and others, have written extensively about).  FYI, the UP's obverse features a larger 4th pearl.  

3.  The 1931 Indian obverse is an FBL coin, so obviously cannot be a donor for a UP, which is CBL.

Let me know if you come up with any more donor coins you wish to consider.

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='122386' dateline='1589961465'The owner of Unicorn no 5 is no longer calling it a Unicorn..It's just a 1931 dropped one Indian with dot above S with CBL base letters..So are all the other Unicorns just variety 4 with cbl with numeral misalignment due to die shifting(bouncing) during the striking phase and no dot above S due to die fill...

Not sure what you mean.  I can't find any online listing of UP5 anywhere.  If you're referring to some eBay listing of a 1931 dropped '1' Indian obverse, I personally cannot see any CBL coins currently there.  

As to your question, the answer is 'no'.  The benchmark 4th variety is an FBL coin, whereas the Unicorn Penny is a CBL coin.  

Hope that clarifies the confusion.  Let me know if you have any further questions.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='122393' dateline='1589977602'Echidna, I have requested the zoomed hi-res images and will work on getting some of the coins photographed with a digital microscope.    

Regarding your suggested donor coins, please remember that the coin supposedly being emulated is the FBL 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv penny. Therefore:

1. The 1929 is CBL not FBL.  Plus it would require perfect replacement of the leftmost '1', as well as the '3' and the dropped '1'.  That is, three date numerals would need to be replaced on the wrong (CBL) planchette.  Doesn't sound very credible that a master faker would go to such trouble and then try to pass off a CBL coin for an FBL.  Nonsense!  

2. The 1927 is also CBL and not FBL.  However, this coin can be immediately excluded as a donor coin for the obvious reason of the fourth pearl in the Crown being considerably smaller (a well-known die marker that Fred, and others, have written extensively about).  FYI, the UP's obverse features a larger 4th pearl.  

3.  The 1931 Indian obverse is an FBL coin, so obviously cannot be a donor for a UP, which is CBL.

Let me know if you come up with any more donor coins you wish to consider.

You are overthinking the issue.
The fakers are not targeting knowledgeable collectors.
Their target is novice collectors who dont know about FBL & CBL etc.
Who would not be able to tell the difference between genuine and fake.
So it doesnt really matter that its CBL and the fourth pearl is the wrong shape.
And that there is no dot after the S.
It just needs to be a 1931 penny with a dropped 1 and Indian die.

The 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny is not a coin for the novice collector.  Unlike the 1930 penny, it is not widely known to the general public.  It is a highly specific coin that usually attracts collectors with considerable knowledge and experience.  For that reason, fakers are not motivated to reproduce this coin, which explains why (unlike the flood of fake 1930 pennies) there are very few 1931 penny reproductions around, and certainly none that are any good.    

The fact remains, that if you are a highly skilled faker, you're unlikely to invest your considerable time and effort into reproducing a highly specific coin that mostly appeals to a relatively small audience of coin nerds like us.

However, if you insist that a faker would nevertheless be interested in creating a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny to target the novice collector, then wouldn't it be much easier to take a 1931 Indian obverse penny and simply drop the 1?  Why go to the trouble of using a 1929 Indian penny as a donor?  

So far, none of the theories that the Unicorn Pennies are fakes seem to hold any water.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='122398' dateline='1590016647'The 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny is not a coin for the novice collector.  Unlike the 1930 penny, it is not widely known to the general public.  It is a highly specific coin that usually attracts collectors with considerable knowledge and experience.  For that reason, fakers are not motivated to reproduce this coin, which explains why (unlike the flood of fake 1930 pennies) there are very few 1931 penny reproductions around, and certainly none that are any good.    

The fact remains, that if you are a highly skilled faker, you're unlikely to invest your considerable time and effort into reproducing a highly specific coin that mostly appeals to a relatively small audience of coin nerds like us.

However, if you insist that a faker would nevertheless be interested in creating a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny to target the novice collector, then wouldn't it be much easier to take a 1931 Indian obverse penny and simply drop the 1?  Why go to the trouble of using a 1929 Indian penny as a donor?  

So far, none of the theories that the Unicorn Pennies are fakes seem to hold any water.

Yes technically the best donor coin would be a 31 Indian.
Drop the 1, maybe replace the 3 as well - its the wrong shape.
Cost wise $50 a pop however.
29 Indians can be picked up for a few cents.
Its the best low cost option.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='122394' dateline='1589978248'

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='122386' dateline='1589961465'The owner of Unicorn no 5 is no longer calling it a Unicorn..It's just a 1931 dropped one Indian with dot above S with CBL base letters..So are all the other Unicorns just variety 4 with cbl with numeral misalignment due to die shifting(bouncing) during the striking phase and no dot above S due to die fill...

Not sure what you mean.  I can't find any online listing of UP5 anywhere.  If you're referring to some eBay listing of a 1931 dropped '1' Indian obverse, I personally cannot see any CBL coins currently there.  

As to your question, the answer is 'no'.  The benchmark 4th variety is an FBL coin, whereas the Unicorn Penny is a CBL coin.  

Hope that clarifies the confusion.  Let me know if you have any further questions.     Thank's for the info. Now i know who the owner of UP5 is...

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/2lC4UUj.jpg)" 
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/cXFYZf8.jpg)" /

Yurist said "However, if you insist that a faker would nevertheless be interested in creating a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny to target the novice collector..."

Yes I do insist.
And here it is.
According to Yurist this coin should not exist.
Its a FAKE dropped 1 Indian (el-cheapo version).
Looks exactly the same as a "Unicorn" except that they really botched the date on this one.

Fact is that the fakers are going after the low end market with cheap fakes such as this.
Most likely choice for the donor coin is a 29 Indian.
Simple really, but Yurist didnt even consider this possibility.

Well Echidna, at last!
Another CBL drop 31!
Something to look at and compare with the other coins.
I can do some comparative measurements.
The coin could do with a good wash to get all that greasy stuff off!
The gunk makes it hard to see any tool work about the digits or hub/die markers.
Fred.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122402' dateline='1590056705'Well Echidna, at last!
Another CBL drop 31!
Something to look at and compare with the other coins.
I can do some comparative measurements.
The coin could do with a good wash to get all that greasy stuff off!
The gunk makes it hard to see any tool work about the digits or hub/die markers.
Fred.    Also don't use acetone as the 3 + 1 could fall off...

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='122403' dateline='1590059020'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122402' dateline='1590056705'Well Echidna, at last!
Another CBL drop 31!
Something to look at and compare with the other coins.
I can do some comparative measurements.
The coin could do with a good wash to get all that greasy stuff off!
The gunk makes it hard to see any tool work about the digits or hub/die markers.
Fred.    Also don't use acetone as the 3 + 1 could fall off...

Hi Fred, 

I'm not getting my hopes up on this one.  On first impression the leftmost '1' has a pointy nose.   That's not a UP trait.  

Also, the distance between the leftmost '1' and the '9' is more consistent with the 1929.   

See attached images below.  


Of course, it needs a brushing to reveal more detail, but on initial analysis it looks dodgy to me.  Most likely an altered 1929.  

As I said to Echidna, "...there are very few 1931 penny reproductions around, and certainly none that are any good".  

The point is that making a good fake requires a considerable amount of skill and effort.  Only then can a faker warrant the high price tag that would make their job worth while.  The inherent contradiction is that you're never going to get a good quality fake from a CBL donor coin.  The reason why there are so few 'el cheapo' fakes out there is that there is no mass awareness of the 1931 dropped '1' Indian penny.  So, collectors are not buying them for gap fillers (as is the case with the 1930 fakes) and most novices would not be in the market for one, certainly not at a high price.  

Sorry Echidna, it still doesn't make sense.  But thank you for digging up this apparent fake.  I must admit it made my heart pound for a few seconds.

------

This is the Coin from Ebay last year that Eric said was a fake,with this angle it looks like they are replacing the 31 area with a new piece of metal but i may be wrong,not up with the latest techniques for altering dates on coins.

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/493/ebay_31_dropped_indian_fake.jpg)

Yurist
However, if you insist that a faker would nevertheless be interested in creating a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny to target the novice collector, then wouldn't it be much easier to take a 1931 Indian obverse penny and simply drop the 1?  Why go to the trouble of using a 1929 Indian penny as a donor?  

So far, none of the theories that the Unicorn Pennies are fakes seem to hold any water.

Surely replacing the 1 on a normal '31 Indian  to fake a dropped 1 Indian wouldn't work as they are from different master hubs?

Hi Neal, You're absolutely right.  

Echidna is talking about low quality fakes that are designed to target novice collectors who won't worry about the hub details.  For this customer base, a faker may well get away with using a 1931 Indian aligned date donor coin.  That's really the easiest option, as you only need to drop the '1'.  However, these 'el-cheapo' fakes are hardly worth the effort as they don't have broad appeal and don't command a high price.  That's probably why they're not very common.  

With 1931 pennies, it's really only worthwhile making a high-quality fake that will sell for a substantial price.  Such coins would normally need to get past an expert, and a master faker obviously takes this into account.  So, the notion of a faker starting with a CBL donor coin to create a high quality reproduction of an FBL coin is utter nonsense.   That's why it's highly unlikely that the CBL Unicorn Pennies are reproductions of the FBL 1931 dropped '1' Indian obverse penny.

Hi Echidna, so far from that picture all i can see is a grubby suspicious looking coin.
Leaving all the stuff about the positions of the numerals and what date coin it may have been or what hub strain the coins may be.
 
Now pull the rabbit out of the hat for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Show us the picture of the date area with all the gunk cleaned away and revealing how the 1 or the  3 are attached to the field of the coin.
I am sure you have already done this.

I have fake coins that clearly show evidence:

1/ where the field metal has been scraped about to get enough material to form the change about the numeral (like change a 6 into an 0 for a 1930).

2/ where the field has been scraped flat to remove a digit(s) and new digits glued on. The new digit(s) are then sat on a bed of adhesive and the part line or excessive glue may be seen.

How has this date numeral been done?
I am busting to see all revealed.

Fred.

Is it me or an optical illusion as the "1" from the "31" looks as though it is raised rather that flat as per the "1" of the "19"?

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122410' dateline='1590094913'Hi Echidna, so far from that picture all i can see is a grubby suspicious looking coin.
Leaving all the stuff about the positions of the numerals and what date coin it may have been or what hub strain the coins may be.
 
Now pull the rabbit out of the hat for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Show us the picture of the date area with all the gunk cleaned away and revealing how the 1 or the  3 are attached to the field of the coin.
I am sure you have already done this.

I have fake coins that clearly show evidence:

1/ where the field metal has been scraped about to get enough material to form the change about the numeral (like change a 6 into an 0 for a 1930).

2/ where the field has been scraped flat to remove a digit(s) and new digits glued on. The new digit(s) are then sat on a bed of adhesive and the part line or excessive glue may be seen.

How has this date numeral been done?
I am busting to see all revealed.

Fred.

Hi Fred

I dont have the coin, just the pics.

Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='122415' dateline='1590108174'Is it me or an optical illusion as the "1" from the "31" looks as though it is raised rather that flat as per the "1" of the "19"?

Yes its not flat like you would expect - it looks like its its curved.
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/Z6ZkcxA.jpg)" />

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122376' dateline='1589923298'I have not found the chip defect in any FBL reverse.

Probably a bit off topic now but, here you go Fred. Looked at the first page on ebay, all CBL, didn't check the other 3 pages though. Then looked at just 6 examples I had and found this. They may be rare :shock:  :blush: :angel:

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/270/1923_Penny_cud_in_9.JPG)(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/270/1923_Penny_rev__Cud_in_9.JPG)

Oh thanks Auto for taking the trouble,   yep looked through ebay and i'm tending to agree with your #158.
I think we could call that a FBL.
This is a split decision as the die shows a bit of distortion, look the bottoms of the F and L's are not ruler flat and the E's have that slender slightly curvy look about them.
The point is the master HUB in 1923 had dead flat feet and thick well formed letters.
The derivative copy hubs started to go a bit wonky as time went by. As deterioration set in the beads on the rims went from lovely round dots to teeth shapes and the flat inwards feet of the digits curved more and more.
The point here is that a "close to the master hub" derivative has the chip in the field on the loop of the 9.
That suggests that the MASTER hub was damaged pretty early on and getting a clean hub copy from the Master was then not possible.
(yes just like the Indian mishap back in 1916 when they stuffed the obverse master and we had wonky pearls in the kings crown)
Hence every hub and die for years had wonky 9's until the completely fresh tooling arrived from London in 1931.
I have started an article focusing on this blunder. "The London 9 Virus" sounds pretty punchy for a working title!
Thanks, Fred.

Re #156 from Echidna.
Oh dear me.............................!
If I had that coin I would be putting an armed guard around it!
Well that is, if I closely examined it and found NO EVIDENCE of the 3 and the 1 being: welded/glued/chiselled/sprayed/punched/whatever onto the parent metal of the coin.

My reason is this.
While looking at the images of that coin i felt I had seen the odd reverse layout of the digits before.
I have about 1000 times. The position of the 1, 9 and 3 are in the same unique position as the small run of 1930 date coins have.
You will note the "3' is in that odd laid back angle.

IF the coin was not a bodgy concoction, which would be proven by cleaning and microscopic examination, what we are looking at is a coin pressing from the same hub series as the 1930! The copy hub 193 which produced the next hub/die train with an "0" punched in giving  "1930" for the known 1930 pressings could easily have had a 193 batch  brother punched with a "1" to give some "1931".
That is exactly what the press shop guys were doing in order to get something, anything , to work, to keep production going in 1931.

Thus we would have an excruciatingly rare pressing.

What  a pity..........

Fred.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122417' dateline='1590109030'

Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='122415' dateline='1590108174'Is it me or an optical illusion as the "1" from the "31" looks as though it is raised rather that flat as per the "1" of the "19"?

Yes its not flat like you would expect - it looks like its its curved.    :i_agree:    I know the owner of this so called Unicorn and the owner of No5. There both modern day snake oil salesmen...This is my last post until Yurist puts up some decent pics like the one Echidna did of the 29 where you could see the grain in the bronze around the numerals ...
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/Z6ZkcxA.jpg)" />

A very old newspaper article my late Uncle had

(//%5Bimg%5Dhttps://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10029/442/artile.jpg)[/img]

Interesting,there is a similar article from the early 1960's when it was annouced we were heading towards Decimal Currency,Author says similar things about the dropped Indian but it was still in £'s value.
The original Numismatic Society of Australia(Australian Numismatic Society?) was formed before WW1 and was active during the late 1920's early 1930's and according to 1930 Penny researchers made official visits to the Melb. Mint. during and after this time.
It beggars belief they did not know about the dropped Indian at that time as the 1932/1933 and probably even the 1934 Pennies were under close scrutiny with Numismatists,Dealers and Collectors looking for Indian Obverses that did not exist.

Basil my knowledge of Coin Societies and similar organisations prior to the 1960's  comes from the pamphlets and catelouges I have collected. My memories are not that good, however........................
What always intrigued me was that whatever was printed in the "Renniks" series of catelouges  became the standard.
Despite coins like the 1931 drop 1 being mentioned and listed in many places prior, when the Renniks became the "engraved in stone" standard the 1931 Drop 1 became invisible!
Other cat  printers and album makers then toed the line and the 1931 drop 1 became non existant.
"If it aint in Renniks it don't exist"...................
That attitude carried on for decades with people like me whining and wondering why.
There were a few people that actually  collected circulating coins and printed their results like Dean, he knew what a 31d1 was!.
Other collectors like myself made their own lists , book, cats based on what they could actually see.  Oddly enough, as myself, most have nothing much to do with the coin industry, clubs, societies, auction houses, grading services and all that stuff.
 Funny thing about that!
Fred.

Yes Fred,that article 'interest' posted is very similar to the one i read as a Kid,early 1960's,it was primarily about the 1930 but in the last paragraph the Author mentioned the dropped Indian and its rareity and also that the Die broke.
Interest's Uncle's article mentions Computer Discs so i guess it is post 1970's,i would love to find the original 1960's article,its out there somewhere.

That newspaper article must be after the mid 1990s as the phone number has 8 digits.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='122406' dateline='1590062196'This is the Coin from Ebay last year that Eric said was a fake,with this angle it looks like they are replacing the 31 area with a new piece of metal but i may be wrong,not up with the latest techniques for altering dates on coins.

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=5506&page=4

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/493/ebay_31_dropped_indian_fake.jpg)

Yes, I said it was an altered date, and I stand by my view that it is an altered date. I also stand by the status quo that the CBL 1931 dropped 1 Indian die pennies don't exist. I don't want to dismiss the amount of work that Yurist has put into researching this area, but there is a shadow over this coin, real or not.

Yurist, if only you could produce some high-quality images or videos of problem-free examples that didn't have suspicious discolourations or depressions around the date area. I looked at the link you sent previously with images. Those are good quality images, but each of those coins has problems, either the coins are tarnished or cleaned, or otherwise problematic. Tarnishing or cleaning a counterfeit coin is a classic sleight of hand to distract the viewer from what would otherwise be an obvious counterfeit.

Do you have any images of problem-free, untarnished, uncleaned coins? I know you said the owners of some of the coins in question weren't very adept at using a camera, but their technical limitations shouldn't be the reason this coin's future hangs in balance. If this coin is genuine, it deserves to be recognised.

Eric

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/SAXsqYv.jpg)" />

Unicorn penny #2.
Heavy scratches (tooling) make it clear that its an altered date.

Also the bottom left hand corner of the 1 is sticking up a bit.
They didn't glue it down properly.

Re #168, Oh dear, as they say, THAT DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT!

Having looked at dud 1930's with O's glued on, that "1" just looks the same at that magnification with:
1/ "Epoxy" type glue bubbles around the interface of the digit and the field.
2/ The parallel scratches (look like tool marks) on the field do not appear at all on the surface of the "1".
(if the scratches were cross scuffing they would across the "1" as well)
3/ The field surrounding the digit always appears to be sunken, just as it would be if the surface has been scraped  and lowered while removing the existing last digit.
4/ The "1" is a master piece, either A/ created from an offcut or B/ chiselled off another coin.
(doing B/ usually curves the digit up and you have to hammer it flat before gluing it down. That may possibly explain the odd hammered ends of the "1").

Not that I would know of course........................!!

Thanks for the update Echidna, I have that sinking feeling.

I would love to see a few different angles of the placement of the "1".

Fred.

QuoteNot that I would know of course........................!!

Just inspired guesswork from a state of ignorance eh?

Others might not but I believe you Fred.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/BYSZTbn.jpg)" />

More scratching around date numerals.

RE #171
Well, that is a masterful job of transplanting the 3 and the 1, way beyond my capabilities.

1/ It strikes me that as the 3 and 1 will be sitting flat on a bed of adhesive they may be susceptible to a solvent of the base adhesive.
I doubt they are pegged in, unlike the fake dots in another thread, the 1919DD.
Thus soaking the coin in a solvent of an acrylic base for instance, may soften the  up adhesive enough to move the numerals without applying excessive force or using a pick too much.
The chemists on this forum are free to jump on me for the loose terminology used above and correct me, no problems.
I doubt any adhesive would be one of the super UV setting types, again I may stand correcting.
If so, you will need dynamite to shift the buggers.

2/ The other item in recognising which date the donor coin may be, is the flaw in the "9".
Apart from the 1931 "yuri" coins,  I have NEVER seen the flaw past 1929.
That flawed Hub series just stopped with the 1930 tooling. There were no more offspring hubs and dies from any master tooling from the 1920's left, any coins from 1930 onward were offspring from an unflawed master. (Article coming up in CAB on that subject soon).

3/ the coin in #171 appears to be a 1929 or previous date coin with a masterclass transplant of a 3 and 1.
This coin needs a close inspection of both sides to see if it reveals any known die markers (apart from the 9) of hubs used in production to narrow the date down.

4/ A soak in acrylic thinners may cause the digits to fall off (eeeeek!) and will not cause any more damage to an already poor condition coin.
Recommended.
Fred.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/CLi2RhG.jpg)" />
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/bYr1mjW.jpg)" />



Possible die markers under the R in AUSTRALIA.
And O of OF.
(Bottom coin is an Indian die - pic from Ebay)

Thanks Echidna, so noted.
Will investigate more.
Fred.

There is a blip on the bottom of O in COMM. Hmmm?

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/HmHA0GM.jpg)" />

Thanks Neal.
Three matching die markers now.

Also isn't there the starting of a die crack/chip starting between the 2nd 'M' and the 'O'..?

Is Neal back yet?

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/DcXC4Z1.jpg)" />

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/yOZ2mKT.jpg)" />

Same coin (unicorn #2) different photo.
Die marker #4 is on the left hand side of the U in AUSTRALIA.
Definitely a 1929 altered date.

Hi Basil
There might also be a die crack/chip starting between the 2nd 'M' and the 'O'.
Images are not good enough to be sure though.

Ok,looks like something is going on but a bit vague.
All so looks like your 99% proven its a 1929 altered date.
That JNAA article is open to revision but i bet they just bury it.(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/493/Fake_1931_Panny_resize_forum.jpg)

Hi guys. Doing a bit more work on the 1931's.
I note that there has been, and is, at the moment a seller on ebay with 5 separate offers of the indian drop 1 coin variety.
This seller id "frederick3862".

1/ please note this seller is not me! My first name is frederick and that is the closest we get.
I have not sold coins on ebay for yonks and only have one account where i buy all sorts of stuff.

2/ the 5 offers of this type of coin have something very odd about them.
The images provided for the 5 coins appear to be copies of images, not actual coins.
While there are 5 separate offers with different prices, the images in the 5 offers are of 2 coins only, going by obvious repeated images and coin markers (bumps/scratches/ect) !
The text description of all is the same 7 line list repeated.

This is an odd way for a genuine owner to present genuine coins for sale and i would suggest that there are no actual coins to be had.
I am not going to go into any correspondence with the seller about these offers.
It may be perfectly legal to offer a single item multiple times for different prices.
Any explanation that the coin shown is of the type and not the actual coin available would be ridiculous.
If i had more money than sense i would buy all  5 coins offered and wait with great expectation for 5 different coins to be delivered.
Being a poor pensioner I wont be doing that!

I will continue with research on this topic.
Fred.

https://en.everybodywiki.com/The_Unicorn_Penny (https://en.everybodywiki.com/The_Unicorn_Penny)
Yurist is now claiming a 6th version of the 1931 penny.

I note that "frederick3862" now only has 2 x 1931D1Indians for sale on ebay.
The ones with the coin markers: spot between F and A on the reverse and the one with the spot behind kings head on the obverse.
Wonder what happened to the other 3?
Oh and you can buy 4 coins for $4,900 with the king spot coin.

Bargain!

Fred.

To anyone not privy to the volumes of information floating around between various correspondents including myself about this "Unicorn" coin and my statement that the coin as shown in Fig 5 of the JNNA "unicorn" discovery is a concoction with the 3 and 1 tacked over where a 2 and 9 was.
 The time for endless pages of explanations are over.

It has been suggested to Yuri that the Fig 5 coin be sent to a third party coin evaluation buisness such as PCGS.
Such a third party body should be able to establish by scanning whether the date numerals are a continuous part of the coin body and not tacked on extras.
That is all that is required here. The metallic composition of the coin is not in question. The die evolution is not part of this test.

If an independent body such as PCGS found the "Unicorn 1931" coin to be genuine and not a glued up concoction I will be the first to grovel and give a full apology to Yuri and retract my description of "Piltdown 1931" as seen on my last memo on the subject.

Cheers, Fred Lever.

Yes Fred.its a 'iffy' Coin.

Aircraft Engineering Businesses can do X-rays,they X-ray(probably more advanced techniques these days) metal for cracks & fatigue.
Back in the 1960/70's Lynx Engineering in Sydney checked some Coins for some of the bigger Dealers,probably 1930 pennies.

Nothing to do with coins, but gosh Basil, "Lynx"  is a blast from the past!
The company I worked for as an apprentice at Homebush, used to send lots of rotating stuff to Lynx to balance and/or check welds.
As a callow youth I would sneak out with the delivery truck to places like Lynx, J&S fibreglass, the factory that used to make mouse traps and race cars  (memory gone) and various foundries and metal spinners. Also, Ford was just down the road and we used a few x-stock blue painted big blocks (memory gone, "Goss Cleveland build"???) for special projects.
Should stop right here and not hi-jack the thread!
Fred.

And a manifold for just about any carbie, or multiples, on just about any engine.

I'm sure I had some lynx stuff on my galant. Twin 42mm webers, but I know I know the name. ....... It will come to me ....... in the dead of the night so that I can forget when I wake up :laugh2:

Hi Fred, please don't say the metal composition of the unicorns is not in question. If there are any added numerals then the metallurgy might show either minute or major differences depending on the source of the numbers. Imperial bronze changed its composition a number of times and even when the mint was making ostensibly the same formula there would be differences between every batch. Each mine has  different contaminants and how many batches were unevenly mixed as shown by streaky pennies and wood tone pennies.
So can they focus the xrf analysis gun on just the digits?

Hi Neal, no, that is not what i said.

I'm talking about the coin shown in fig5 of Yuris JNNA paper and in my memo and whether it has a 31 glued over the top of the 29.
All PCGS has to do is give the coin a yes/no test on that point.
For that test, exactly what it is made of is irrelevant.

After that, I agree with you completely, when you get to the nitty gritty of working out what was made by whom and where and how, material composition will be very important.

Lets not get diverted with side issues generating more arguing points like a class full of  high school debaters when the question is very simple: is the coin a dud or not a dud?
I think PCGS will have seen enough faked up concoctions and have a room full of hi-tech machines I know nothing about to work it out.

Cheers, Fred.

The x-ray can show what's going on with the numbers,added with adhesive of some kind,metal around them manipulated etc. but as you say PCGS would have some fairly exotic means of testing coins these days.
Lynx had some state of the art x-ray machines for the Aircraft and Motor Racing industries but that was 50 years ago,methods used by the Aircraft Engineering firms these days would be far more advanced.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122947' dateline='1596844130'The metallic composition of the coin is not in question. The die evolution is not part of this test.


Cheers, Fred Lever.
Hi Fred, you did say that and that is why I raised the issue. Precision of language is important in numismatic research. (Yes, I'm a PITA pedant).
I'm no expert on brazing or welding so is it possible (perhaps with the right equipment?) to precisely braze/weld bronze such that x-ray analysis is inconclusive in showing a join? Not necessarily in this case but for advances by fakers for other bronze ( or other metal) rarities.

Yep Neil, ok I'll watch my language from now on!
I dont want to get marked down  you again.
My point badly made, is not to lose sight of the test.
I simply say that the coin shown as fig 5 in the JNNA article (and discussed in this forum endlessly) is suspect.
PCGS need to test for hanky panky coin alteration, NOT, whether the coin is some variety of something.

As always ready to be corrected!
Sloppy writer Fred.

Just on this subject, I was wondering how many 1929 pennies have the "R dot" and "O dot" as a percentage of the total mintage.
I only have about 100 1929 pennies in my collection and found only 1 with the dots.
I spotted a couple on ebay yesterday amongst the hundreds of 29 on offer. (i grabbed one of those).
I reckon at least 50 dies were used ( 50,000 per die?) to produce the millions of 29 made so an incidence of 1 in a hundred or so would be in order?

So, have a gander at your 1929's and let me know if you have a "Rdot".
Fred.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='123000' dateline='1597099548'So, have a gander at your 1929's and let me know if you have a "Rdot".
Fred.

I'll have a look next W/end Fred.

This clip was sent to me by a Coin Collecting Friend,met thru Ebay,who has a property down Grafton(NSW) way.
AFAIK the NR Times is a Grafton based paper that is expanding its circulation area to include Lismore/Ballina/Byron as Murdoch closed all our local papers including the throw-ins a Month or 2 ago.

Sorry Yuri but i call BS on this Coin and everyone asociated with it.

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/496/IMG_0001.jpg)

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/496/Resize.jpg)

Well that is fantastic news, about that coin made in India for the RAM in 1931.
I wonder who in Sydney has the gear to "certify" a pre decimal coin?
Dont even all the big time dealers in Sydney  have to send their coins off to PCGS or some professionsl joint for "certification"?
Anyway, Oh, look theres that figure of $75,000 again, could this chap Joe Spence be the seller of the coin we saw on ebay?
Or have some connection with that frederick**** that had the four or five drop indian drop 1's  for sale?
I do not have much to do with the commercial side of coins so simply do not know.
I guess time will tell.
Fred.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='122977' dateline='1596973655'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122947' dateline='1596844130'The metallic composition of the coin is not in question. The die evolution is not part of this test.


Cheers, Fred Lever.
Hi Fred, you did say that and that is why I raised the issue. Precision of language is important in numismatic research. (Yes, I'm a PITA pedant).
I'm no expert on brazing or welding so is it possible (perhaps with the right equipment?) to precisely braze/weld bronze such that x-ray analysis is inconclusive in showing a join? Not necessarily in this case but for advances by fakers for other bronze ( or other metal) rarities.

Neal,x-ray equipment designed for the Aircraft Industry are very sensitive,Lnyx machines could pick up microscopic hairline cracks in metal and that was 50 years ago,there would be some exotic methods these days.
Any alteration to the date on a Coin would show up clearly.

No one seems to know who "Aussie Grading" are that Spence mentions.

1/ cracks in things: Yep Basil is right in the 1970's Lynx could find cracks and flaws in cranks and con rods. All i could do myself was paint "crack detector" fluid on the surface and see what happens. Even then xray equipment could "see" right through metal making it "translucent". Other firms with xray equipment could expose my crappy welds on pipes and fabricated stuff and show lack of penetration, tiny gas voids, flaws  and so on. No chance of getting sub spec pieces through then!  God knows what modern scanning techniques can do now. I have had 3T scanning done of MYSELF  and the amount of information about bone and organ condition was gobsmacking. I would view shining UV light onto a coin as being on par with me painting "crack finder" fluid on the outside of something. Does not see INSIDE the thing from the front and back.

2/ I popped off a email to "the pennyman" seeking a bit more info about the TWO 5th variety  coins he has handled.
I wish he had let the coin magazine know about these coins instead of a country paper as an independant surfacing of a new variety is a very exciting numismatic event.
Guess he will come back with some info in due course.

Fred.

Fred.

Here is another 1931 dropped 1 India die for sale on Ebay.
First 1 in the date looks a bit wonky.



(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/yIkpvEX.jpg)" />

Yes Ecchi, I have emailed frederick3862 and queried why the FOUR  indian drop 1's sales only show the images of TWO coins not four.
He has replied to tell me they rarer than a 1930 and have a dot after the S and are Indians but unfortunately missed the point about showing the same coin in pairs of ads:

For reference I will use the last 3 digits of the ebay sales.
sales 145 and 379 show the same coin with a spot between the F and A on the obverse.
sales 204 and 360 show the same coin with a scratched obverse.
With the view of a prospective purchaser how can this be?
I have asked him to show four different coins in each ad so I can check the die type.

Fred.

Received a further reply including he is 87 years old and not good with computers but if i looked at the ads I will see the photos.
OK.

Fred.

Fred,sorted my available 1929's,dozen or so but only 1 Indian.I have some more somewhere and will post if i find any Indians amongst them.

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/493/1929_rev.jpg)
(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/493/1929_obv.jpg)

Hi Basil nice looking typical CBL reverse.
You gotta have a "dot variety" to complete your collection!

Have not had a response back from the Pennyman, re his  new "unicorn" 31 discovery.
Probably over whelmed with offers to buy it.

Cheers, Fred.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/aTzta8o.jpg)" />

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/XEpFcDR.jpg)" />




Another Unicorn penny for sale on Ebay.
Same seller who has sold many Unicorn pennies - he has yet another example.

Hi Echidna, another one?
Amazing they keep coming!
I filed those images in my working story folder of 5th variety coins.
I compared the circulation marks with previous and this is a new one.
I note the same low resolution image reproduction with pink (rose tinting?) background showing a coin with odd pimply fields.
Perhaps fresh out of the oven? (joke).
Cannot find it on Australian ebay, is it still there?
Fred.

I can't see it on Ebay Fred,listing may have been ended.I'm sure someone associated with this  Scam,other than Yuri,is reading our Posts.
All this is getting above my paygrade,experience and knowledge but the the latest one looks like work has been done around the '3' and the '1' is in the wrong position to my eyes,should be lower.  

Interesting topic thou.,i've always been interested in the dropped Indian,its amazing how many people have tried to make a name for themselves in the Coin world by 'discovering' this variety,particulary in the 1970/80's.
The 'Unicorn' is just another attempt to do the same in my view.

ended listing:
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1931-Dropped1-Ind-obv-Penny-dot-after-S-EXTREMLY-RARE-6P/124314141945?hash=item1cf1b344f9:g:Ai8AAOSwqQBbVoEj

new listing:
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/124326697532?ViewItem=&item=124326697532

Different Coin i think Jen.

This Fredrick guy and his Coins are a worry,at one stage he had the same Coin photo in 3 different listing with 3 different prices.

Yep, he is the one that explained about that, he replied he was old and not good with computers but if I looked I would see the photos!
I may be old as well, bit I am not stupid.
Fred.

That "frederick" really needs help.

He has two 1931 dropped ones on ebay right now, for $6500 and $7670.
The photo of the coin you will receive for each auction is the same coin!
It is the coin with a spot between the OF and A on the reverse and a ding behind the head on the obverse!
Some one needs to have a word with their grandad.

Fred.

The following are my scans of my 1931 Lazy "1" etc:

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10120/1931_Lazy_1_Indian_Die_Rev.jpg)
(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10120/234/2020-09-09_14-58-57_0736.jpg)
 
 


Add your comment    
 

  Comment  
 

Hope I can get some comments on it.

Obverse scan is a fit fuzzy but it looks OK to me.

Re #210 Goldies lazy 31.
That poor coin has had a tough life!
The reverse is well struck with flat base letters and a drop 1.
There is too much crud on the face of the coin to pick any die markers, but looks typical.
The obverse is also very badly affected with crud but appears to be an Indian die by the placing of the N, shape of the O ect.
Assuming the reverse and obverse are from the same coin it looks like one of the rare drop1/Indian mob to me.
Good one!

Fred.

Re #212.
One thing about Goldies lazy 31 was a niggling thought I had seen it before in another context.
That is not surprising seeing how few genuine ones exist.
While getting my thoughts together I reviewed my 31 file and found the reference that would give that coin the gold standard despite the condition.
The reference is Jon Saxtons Website on Australian coins.
That same coin (identified by the circulation marks on both obverse and reverse) is portrayed and used as the example of a P31.2A to prove that the variety really does exist.
Circa the 1990's and despite many collectors such as R.L. Clarke  having cataloged the variety much earlier,  some people clung to the theory the  coin did not exist.
Jon was making the point that it did.
So Goldies  "lazy 31"  gets another tick of approval.

Fred.

The same sorry coin (or correctly speaking filched images from Triton.vg) was offered by a sleazebay seller about 15 years back. I always wondered why he had such a nice collection but settled on that one
It isn't quite true that so few genuine ones exist. Bob Roberts many years ago mentioned to me that he had sold about 50 over the years; Ian McConnelly told me he picked up 2 from dealers books and perhaps one is for sale every other month from dealers/auction and ebay.

Off topic Fred but you said before that John Barilaro is a gold plated goose. Recent events bear that out but maybe just "tin plated".

Jeff, absolutely agree the jerk is a fat blowhard.
Met so many guys like him, all wind and no guts when the chips are down, they squeal and go to water.
Then puff there chests out and say how good they are.
That Gladys woman probably said , "my way or the hi-way" and blowhard walks out and says what a wonderful job he is doing.
I would have just sacked the lot and slid in the back up crew, problem solved.
Back to topic.
Fred.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/v4R8Ie8.jpg)" />
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/nxxj7u5.jpg)" />


Another "Unicorn" has been discovered.
Same Ebay seller who has sold many Unicorns has it.

Have to laugh. Why do these coins always look like they have been buried for 100 years?
Or just out of the oven.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmm, or just out of the foundry??
The fakers used to make cast 2/- pieces when a 2/- was really worth something.
Guess they now make pennies, their problem is we have sussed out the 1930 duds well and truly, so 1931 must be the next go-to date.
I'll give it a look tomorrow and see if i have seen it before anywhere.
Fred.

Five out of the (now) nine "Unicorn" pennies can be traced back to the same seller.
Here are the other four:


(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/WVXpTq3.jpg)" />
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/EyZpQOe.jpg)" />
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/gP1HNkI.jpg)" />
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/LYGWtM7.jpg)" />

Great quality photos...............NOT.
About time Frederick got a good camera.

re post 217# Yep that is another image I have not seen before.
That makes about 14 CBL 1931 IMAGES I have seen.
I updated my previous PDF memo where i pulled all the images into a document to keep tabs on them and have email circulated that doc to interested people.
I still have not see a CBL 31 coin of any breed outside of Yuris JNNA paper, or ebay sellers, pennyman and frederick.
And yes once more that "frederick1234" (or whatever) guy is NOT ME! (just in case you wondered)!
I have enough trouble just staying alive let alone  trying to sell the same 2 dodgy pennys over and over again.

Fred.

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='123475' dateline='1601336228'I still have not see a CBL 31 coin of any breed outside of Yuris JNNA paper, or ebay sellers, pennyman and frederick.

Fred.

Yes Fred,i think the shed door is still open,always a worry when you get several coins with similar artificial Patina from the same seller/owner.
'Pennyman' is becoming famous amongst our small band of Coin Collectors up here on the NSW North Coast/SE Qld with the "minted in India"  comment. He had a few scrambling for reference books until the Penny dropped.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='123021' dateline='1597362456'

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='122977' dateline='1596973655'

Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='122947' dateline='1596844130'The metallic composition of the coin is not in question. The die evolution is not part of this test.


Cheers, Fred Lever.
Hi Fred, you did say that and that is why I raised the issue. Precision of language is important in numismatic research. (Yes, I'm a PITA pedant).
I'm no expert on brazing or welding so is it possible (perhaps with the right equipment?) to precisely braze/weld bronze such that x-ray analysis is inconclusive in showing a join? Not necessarily in this case but for advances by fakers for other bronze ( or other metal) rarities.

Neal,x-ray equipment designed for the Aircraft Industry are very sensitive,Lnyx machines could pick up microscopic hairline cracks in metal and that was 50 years ago,there would be some exotic methods these days.
Any alteration to the date on a Coin would show up clearly.

No one seems to know who "Aussie Grading" are that Spence mentions.

Aussie Grading-Ebay seller based in Lismore n.s.w., has the exact same banknotes for sale as did Ebay seller Thepennyman. Honest John Spence  :angel: based in Lismore..Would not be to surprised to here that this Yurist,Pennyman and Frederick rooster are just a get together scam syndicate.  :sun_bespectacled:

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/iZtAf8s.jpg)" />
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/wtbqEC2.jpg)" />

Close up of the first 1 in the date, from an oblique angle, showing the base of "Unicorn penny #2".
Appears to be a clear join line where they have glued or welded the numeral on.

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='123508' dateline='1601942377'Aussie Grading-Ebay seller based in Lismore n.s.w., has the exact same banknotes for sale as did Ebay seller Thepennyman. Honest John Spence  :angel: based in Lismore..Would not be to surprised to here that this Yurist,Pennyman and Frederick rooster are just a get together scam syndicate.  :sun_bespectacled:

Thanks SS,i haven't come across this seller before.The way i(and others) read the article was that he was working with a 3rd party grading Co.,not one of his Ebay monikers.

Keep up the good work Echi.

Seems like John the Pennyman has hit hard times.
His "penny man" web site states the shop and site at Lismore are in liquidation.
Shelves and fittings for sale.
The web site is in "lorem Ipsum" state.
The ebay shop is empty last sale more than 90 days again had 100% feedback.
Seems like yet another coin dealer has found the market too tough to stay afloat.
Sad, sign of the times.
Fred.

I'm sure he'll bob up somewhere Fred,the 1931 dropped Indian has ruined him up here in this neck of the woods,amongst coin enthusiasists at least,but would still have the general public dealing with him wherever he goes.

Yes Basil, I wish him the best.

There is a confusing situation regarding the buisness name "the penny man".
I am confused a bit as there is a "Penny man" in the USA who is in liquidation and I may be in error in thinking this has anything to do with our "Pennyman".
I am sure that John Spence is aware of this forum having been in the coin buisness for some time and I would expect him to be aware of the thread and advise us of the actual position of the bricks and mortar and e-bay stores.
I did send him an email some time ago seeking more information on the drop 31 coins but have not yet received a reply.

Fred.

Yes Fred,more than one 'Penny man' around both here in Oz. and O/S.
I rang a friend who lives out the back of Lismore,he is of the opinion the shop is still there but will check when he is in Town next week.

Re #229, thanks Basil. The local  estate agencies list the "pennyman" shop address as being part of the main street Star shopping complex but the shop itself appears to have its front door access in the street behind. Nothing like hopping in the car and going there for a gander un announced. Something thats not possible for me to do any more. Twenty years ago i would have just driven there for a day visit, seen the local tourist sights and swung by the shop and sorted the guy out. Google is the only way I can get about now!
Fred.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='119566' dateline='1560251569'Didn't the dropped 1 Indian get a mention in the Deans Variety Catalogue of 1964/5 with 6 examples known? That predates that Downies advert by a few years.

I can't see where anyone has confirmed Neale's question,my Brother recently obtained Deans 1965 book and it is mentioned as stated including "curved based letters on Rev.".
However as i posted previously i'm sure it was well known in Dealers circles well before then,when it was announced we were changing to Decimal Currency,1962/63?, i read an article where the final paragraph stated the dropped Indian was our rarest Penny,not the 1930,it always stuck in my mind and i was looking for them on my Paper Run/Route back then,early 1960's.

(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/493/IMG_resize.jpg)

Hi Basil I covered this point about the 31's in an article in CAB May 2016 v19-04.
For years(decades) I had been going on about the lack of coin catalogs even  listing the drop1, let alone anything else.
I had a quick refresh of my 31 file and in general you will find most coin catalogs just cut and pasted from Dion Skinner.
Thus only 1 type of 1931 exists, etched in stone................................
In time sequence Dean 1965 noted the 4 types  in his cat and various authors onwards in journals, Saxton, Sharples, Holland etc noted the drop 1 and the die pairs.
Cats like Fosters, Gartner, Clarke  noted the drop 1, but in popular cats printed in Australia,  only Dean, Byrnes, Lever, Briggs  have ever listed the 4  types. Dealers like Bob Roberts has newspaper ads noting the drop1 indian existed but they were pissing against the wind, "if it aint in Renniks or Maccas it dont exist"!
If you cant locate my article easily just drop me an email and i'll send you a pdf copy.
Cheers, Fred.

Hi Fred,received PDF's,thanks for making an effort,i will have a look on the W/end.

Yuri has advised me that the latest "unicorn" coin associated with "the pennyman" has been validated as authentic by Nobles the auction people.
He has no further details at the moment.

Fred.

I'd be interested to know the exact context in which they authenticated the coin. Who at Nobles authenticated it? Were they primed to believe it authentic by being shown the NAA Journal first?

Perhaps Yuri might be able to reply here.

Eric

The JNAA no longer supports the "Unicorn Penny".
They now believe that they are fakes.

Another "Unicorn penny" has turned up.
This brings the tally to nine.
Same Ebay seller who has discovered most of them.


(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/nxxj7u5.jpg)" />

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/v4R8Ie8.jpg)" />

Just a quick observation but the last '1' is spaced too far away from the '3'.

Yes Basil, it is amazing that Fred Coote keeps finding these rare "unicorn" coins for the "pennyman" while no one else in the world can find one.
Funny all the rare 1931 indians that "frederick****" tries to sell on ebay all have the same "cat dragged in" look.
Almost as if they have come from the same source...............
Anyway,
At least Jim Noble has now seen one and authenticated it I believe.
Life has funny twists and turns does it not.
We can all now relax and spend up big to buy a "unicorn" now that Noble has authenticated a coin.
I look forward to that coin appearing in the next Noble auction.
Fred.

The obverse of this latest "Unicorn penny" looks quite dotty.
A big dot under the ear.
Should be able to match it up with a 1929 Indian obverse.

Ecchy when you look at that obverse image it has the same look as a lot of my fake cast coins.
 Note the lack of definition in the king image and the metal faults such as the lumps and voids.
We are all assuming this is a copper coin but if the image is colour true the coin could be poured from low temp "muck metal" as used in 2/- forgerys.
Fred's images are always "shot soft" so you cannot quite see fine detail. Or, the coin is cast.
I doubt you will find a 1929 obverse with the same lumps, no mileage in casting 1929 dates.
If that coin in the image is ever subject to scientific analysis by a third party body, not me, not you, and found to be real, then we can all relax and bid for it.
Fred.

Hello gentlemen, just a few points:

1. It is true that Fred Coote was the source of a few Unicorn Pennies.  However, he is certainly not the only source.  There are a number of others.  

2. For your information, Fred Coote was born in 1933.  Given that he is turning 88 this year, he can probably be excused for not posting perfect images online, and should instead be commended for being internet savvy, and using eBay in the first place.  In fact, I've had the opportunity to physically inspect some of Fred's Unicorn Pennies and have to tell you that they are nothing like the condition they appear in on the eBay images.  Unfortunately, Fred uses an old (low res) camera for his eBay ads, which is why they look so horrible.      

3. Initially, I also found it odd that Fred Coote had a few Unicorn Pennies in his possession.  So, I asked him to explain how that can be.  He responded with a rather interesting story...  Fred's sister, who was born in 1931, passed away a few years ago and Fred inherited her penny collection.  Their father, who was a milkman, collected pennies that were left under milk billy cans, and each 1931 penny that he found he gave to Fred's sister, and each 1933 penny he gave to Fred.   This went on for many years, until their father left to fight in the second world war.  Is it possible that a small batch of Unicorn Pennies found their way (one by one) from their original source to Fred's sister's collection?  If Fred's father was specifically picking 1931 pennies for many years in a given area (near their source), I don't think it's entirely implausible that a few of these pennies ended up in a single collection. 

4. Fred's sister obviously had a very substantial collection of 1931 pennies, which also explains why Fred is currently selling quite a number of the rare 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse pennies on eBay too.  

5. I have documented and checked Fred's story through different sources, and have no reason to suspect that it is untrue in any way.  In fact, I am convinced that it is absolutely true and that Fred's Unicorn Pennies have been in his family's possession since the early 1930's.  I, therefore, have no doubt over their authenticity.  


6. I think Jim Noble (who I understand personally met Fred Coote) also believes him.  You will appreciate that with such overwhelming provenance (tracking the coin back some 80+ years to a single collection), one can understand why Jim was inclined to authenticate it.  In any event, I am pretty sure that Jim Noble would have (at the very least) used a magnifying glass to check for any obvious signs of the coin being a fake.  Clearly, it is not.  

7. For further details into the origins of the Unicorn Penny, I invite you to visit my Further Research page on my website at: https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home/further-research 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news for all the doubters out there,(https://www.australian-coins.net/images/smilies/extra-smilies/zomby.gif) but the evidence is now overwhelmingly in favour of the Unicorn Penny being a genuine 5th variety of the 1931 penny, and probably one of the rarest examples of an Australian pre-decimal coin variety.  (https://www.australian-coins.net/images/smilies/extra-smilies/yahoo.gif)

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='124205' dateline='1611000887'Hello gentlemen, just a few points:

3. Initially, I also found it odd that Fred Coote had a few Unicorn Pennies in his possession.  So, I asked him to explain how that can be.  He responded with a rather interesting story...  Fred's sister, who was born in 1931, passed away a few years ago and Fred inherited her penny collection.  Their father, who was a milkman, collected pennies that were left under milk billy cans, and each 1931 penny that he found he gave to Fred's sister, and each 1933 penny he gave to Fred.   This went on for many years, until their father left to fight in the second world war.  Is it possible that a small batch of Unicorn Pennies found their way (one by one) from their original source to Fred's sister's collection?  If Fred's father was specifically picking 1931 pennies for many years in a given area (near their source), I don't think it's entirely implausible that a few of these pennies ended up in a single collection. 

4. Fred's sister obviously had a very substantial collection of 1931 pennies, which also explains why Fred is currently selling quite a number of the rare 1931 dropped 1 Indian obverse pennies on eBay too.  

Hi Yuri,good to see you posting but my Neville Nobody opinion based on nearly 60 years of Pre.Dec. collecting, and also working for Coin Dealers back in my youth,there is a huge Red Flag with these Coins.The egs clearly show disturbances near the date area as Echi. has shown several times.
After saying that i'll leave it up to the experts to have a final say so time will tell.

Family Friend for over 60 years was a Sydney Coin/Stamp Dealer for over 30 years,in his 90's now he has seen all this before,unfortunately his eyesight is poor so i can't get his definte opinion on your Coins but he laughs at your anecdotal provenance,insert 1930 Penny being left out for the milk money and its a tired old cliche.

Hi, Just my two bobs worth..No One Numismatist can authenticate a coin. This must come from a unanimous group decision . As for Mr Jim Noble i suggest he should see a Mr F.J. Geddes-Optical . There just up the road at 6/187  Macquarie Street Sydney...They also bulk bill.

"It is true that Fred Coote was the source of a few Unicorn Pennies."   

How many exactly ?

I"nitially, I also found it odd that Fred Coote had a few Unicorn Pennies in his possession.  So, I asked him to explain how that can be.  He responded with a rather interesting story...  Fred's sister, who was born in 1931, passed away a few years ago and Fred inherited her penny collection.  Their father, who was a milkman, collected pennies that were left under milk billy cans, and each 1931 penny that he found he gave to Fred's sister, and each 1933 penny he gave to Fred.   This went on for many years, until their father left to fight in the second world war.  Is it possible that a small batch of Unicorn Pennies found their way (one by one) from their original source to Fred's sister's collection?  If Fred's father was specifically picking 1931 pennies for many years in a given area (near their source), I don't think it's entirely implausible that a few of these pennies ended up in a single collection. "

Rubbish, most  "Unicorn Pennies" show signs of heavy circulation. 
If it was 1931 to circa 1939 they would be much better grade.
His other 1931 dropped 1 Indian dies are all low grade too.

Yurist has conveniently forgotten that the JNAA no longer supports the "Unicorn" any longer.
Yurist has conveniently overlooked the Ebay feedback for Frederick3862.
Yurist has conveniently overlooked the fact that the note from Jim Noble simply says that Mr Coote's penny is a "Unicorn" which is correct. Doesn't say anything about the Unicorn being genuine.
Yurist still has not provided one proper high res image after all this time.

Yes, echidna has hit upon the ???? that hit me. It is certainly possible that the bag pennies containing the Unicorns were released into the district where the father was a milko and said father kept all that passed through his milk run. But that would result in a number of. Unicorns only circulating for a few years at most so they should be in great nick.
Now the REAL test is searching for the military record of the father of Fred Coote, because if his father didn't enlist then this whole story falls apart. So did any thirtysomething named Coote enlist in that district? Does the local cenotaph/memorial hall or whatever list the names of those from the district? Maybe the local RSL can help.
As it is I found the NAA lists the names of 92 men who enlisted in WW2 named Coote and assuming he was at least 20 in 1931 and enlisted in NSW then there are less than 30 possibles. Anybody know the name of either the father or mother of Fred Coote as the NAA enlistment records show both the recruits name and their next of kin.
One final test is to confirm if the sister was born in 1931. Anybody from that area see her obituary or knows somebody who knew her (for all we know the sister was born in some other year or even never existed and was invented to explain why the '31s were supposed to be collected).

If someone wants to spend the time then some of that information might be found at Trove. (https://trove.nla.gov.au/)

A lot of old newspaper records there -death notices, marriage reports, local events etc.- but it can be time consuming.
I easily found enlistment details and service record of a WWII veteran on a trench art coin I found. He did have his name and service number engraved on the coin which made it a breeze.(https://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10055/139/NZ_12F2_crown_1.jpg)

Hi Jeff, without knowing the sisters Christian name or her name after marriage it would be hard to track her. BDM doesn't lists births less than 100 years ago nor deaths less than 30. As for which of the couple of dozen possibilities being the enlistment of the father it would be hard to pin down which one he is/isn't without more to go on.
Would anyone know exactly which North Coast town  to focus on for the Coote family? Is Fred Coote still in the town he was born because I'd hate to think that many hours will be wasted trawling through Trove looking for a needle.

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='124220' dateline='1611049576'Would anyone know exactly which North Coast town  to focus on for the Coote family? Is Fred Coote still in the town he was born because I'd hate to think that many hours will be wasted trawling through Trove looking for a needle.

Ebay listing says Bronte, NSW.

Everyone, thank you for your feedback.  I will try to address the substantive points you made and hopefully cover most of them in this post.  

1. Basil, regarding your concerns over the disturbances near the date area, I suggest you review my website at https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home/further-research 

You will find information that should allay your concerns, and also some hi-res images of Unicorn Pennies (on the Gallery page) and high-power microscopic images of the date areas etc.
  
2. Echidna, your point regarding wear on the coins is a valid one.  Frankly, I don't know the correlation between wear and time on pennies under normal circulation conditions.  Have there been any studies done on this question?  If Fred's dad found one of the coins in say 1938, how much wear is ±7 years of circulation going to show?  I honestly don't know, but I also can't exclude the possibility of significant wear, particularly if the coins were experimental (which may have affected their original quality).  

Another relevant point is that in the 1930's communities were much more localised than they are today, resulting in the turnover of cash currency remaining within a given area for longer periods.  This was exacerbated by the economic pressures of the Great Depression, which substantially slowed national economic activity.  So, if the coins were released into a certain area in the 1930's it's not impossible that they continued circulating in that same area for many years.  

Finally, what I guess wasn't clear from my earlier post is that while Fred's dad started his daughter's 1931 penny collection, Fred sister continued to collect these specific date coins for some years thereafter.  So, it's not impossible that some of the Unicorn Pennies were added to the collection after the father left for WWII.  

So, while the observation regarding wear is a valid one, it can be explained when taking all of the above into consideration.  

3. Echidna, you wrote:

a) "Yurist has conveniently forgotten that the JNAA no longer supports the "Unicorn" any longer."  

Are you suggesting that the JNAA have withdrawn my article or have published a statement to that effect?  Funny, since nobody told me about it.  I also just checked the JNAA website and my article is still there:  http://www.numismatics.org.au/pdfjournal/Vol29/naa-journal-vol-29-rapoport.pdf  So, can I please ask you for the sake of maintaining some degree of civilised dialogue in this forum, that you refrain from spreading unsubstantiated rumours and making unfounded allegations.   It's not doing your credibility any favours.  

b) "Yurist has conveniently forgotten that Mr Coote is a known seller of fake altered date pennies - 1930s and 1931s."  

Again, more unsubstantiated allegations.  Instead of blindly repeating the same accusation, simply show us all where you get your information from.  I will gladly consider it and address it.  However, if you don't have the evidence, then you should consider refraining from making such serious accusations.  You're not only making yourself look like a cheap rumour monger, but you're actually defaming Mr Coote in a public forum.  I'm not your lawyer, but if I was, I would advise you to think carefully before making such statements.  

c) "Yurist has conveniently overlooked the fact that the note from Jim Noble simply says that Mr Coote's penny is a "Unicorn" which is correct. Doesn't say anything about the Unicorn being genuine."

Echidna, you're making yourself sound rather silly.  What you are actually implying is equivalent to Jim Noble inspecting a 1930 penny and saying "yep, that's a 1930 penny alright", without considering whether it was a genuine or a fake, but then issuing a certificate with his name attesting to it being a 1930 penny.  For your information, Jim Noble is an international authority on numismatics, a former president of the Numismatic Association of Australia, and a recipient of the ANS gold medal for his work in the field.  He is not an idiot!  If the coin he inspected was in any way suggestive of being a fake, he would have called it out.    

(d) "Yurist still has not provided one proper high res image after all this time."  

Not true again Echidna.  I have provided hi-res images on this forum and I have also provided a link to my website where there are ultra-hi res images including high-power (x1000) microscopic images.   

4. As for the research on Fred Coote's family history, I have to seek Fred's permission to publish the details in this forum.

These coins all show significant wear.
No way they were put away in the 30s or even the 40s.

I noticed that you modified your post Echidna.  Originally, you posted that Fred Coote had one bad review on eBay, which you relied on as evidence to support your conclusion about him selling fakes.  Thank you for that.  You've just shown everyone that from a total of 716 reviews for Fred Coote, he received 715 amazingly positive reviews and only a single negative review from one UNREGISTERED user.   That hardly makes Fred a fraudster, now does it?  

There could be dozens of possible explanations why that single unregistered buyer was dissatisfied.  A misunderstanding of the ad could be one, or simply the buyer was an idiot who bought a 'complete' penny album for e.g. $100 and expected it to  contain a genuine 1930 penny.  God knows there are many idiots out there.  

What other nonsense evidence do you wish to offer?    

Good call for deleting your above post.  You know, there's an old saying... "Sometimes it's better to remain quiet and appear knowledgeable than say something and dispel any doubts."

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='124223' dateline='1611065171'These coins all show significant wear.
No way they were put away in the 30s or even the 40s.

Are you an expert on coin wear?  Do you know of any studies conducted on this question?  Please enlighten us with your rationale.  How do you come to this conclusion?

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='124221' dateline='1611059848'

Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='124220' dateline='1611049576'Would anyone know exactly which North Coast town  to focus on for the Coote family? Is Fred Coote still in the town he was born because I'd hate to think that many hours will be wasted trawling through Trove looking for a needle.

Ebay listing says Bronte, NSW.

Hi Echidna, Bronte is an expensive beachside suburb in Sydney (Eastern suburbs, just South of Bondi). A few hundred miles from the North Coast so clearly not the home town.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='124225' dateline='1611074700'

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='124223' dateline='1611065171'These coins all show significant wear.
No way they were put away in the 30s or even the 40s.

Are you an expert on coin wear?  Do you know of any studies conducted on this question?  Please enlighten us with your rationale.  How do you come to this conclusion?

Yuri,blind Freddy can tell these Coins are heavily circulated,i admire your passion with this Coin but regulary in your Posts you show a naivety as far as pre-Dec. Coins go.
I don't think you had much of a collector/researcher background in Oz. pre-Dec before you jumped on this bandwagon,i still don't understand your motives & over the top passion,it can't be money as if these are sold as genuine & PCGS or the like consider them altered dates the sellers will be in court.

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='122389' dateline='1589970344'Firstly, what is required are proper high res pics.
Until then this debate will just go around in circles.
Because its impossible to prove anything much until then either way.

Next, we actually need images taken with a digital microscope of the date areas.
If they are fake then there will be ample evidence of alterations.
If genuine then it will be obvious.

Regarding the issues with the date numerals, the ideal way to demonstrate the variations is by ortho rectifying the images.
Its mathematical and precise down to the individual pixels.
I can do this, but its not worthwhile with the low res images provided so far.
Happy to provide further info about this process.

Regarding the question as to why the fakers would use a 1929 Indian, its a matter of cost.
Technically the best donor coin would be a 1931 Indian die with the normal date I guess.
Cost wise about $50 a pop.
Next best is a 27 Indian, again about $50 each.
A 1929 Indian can be picked up for a few cents.

Further to this issue of 1929 Indians please check these images.
There is a die flaw visible on SOME 29 Indians.
I can see the same flaw on Unicorn number 8.
Again the resolution is frustratingly not good enough, however it looks like a match to me.

(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/9JAuS4b.jpg)" 
(//%3Ca%20href=)(https://i.imgur.com/y6SYqLM.jpg)" /

Yurist says he has posted ultra hi res pics on this site. Please compare Echidna's image of the 29 and Yurist's of the 31....I have checked ever post from day one and cannot find a pic by Yurist anywhere near as good as Echidna's...Yurist should either front up or shut up.. :dodgy:

Stan, I don't recall claiming to have posted "ultra hi res pics" into this thread.  However, I definitely said that there are such images on my website including 1000x microscopic images.  In fact, some of these images were then re-posted into this thread by others.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='124231' dateline='1611095970'

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='124225' dateline='1611074700'

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='124223' dateline='1611065171'These coins all show significant wear.
No way they were put away in the 30s or even the 40s.

Are you an expert on coin wear?  Do you know of any studies conducted on this question?  Please enlighten us with your rationale.  How do you come to this conclusion?

Yuri,blind Freddy can tell these Coins are heavily circulated,i admire your passion with this Coin but regulary in your Posts you show a naivety as far as pre-Dec. Coins go.
I don't think you had much of a collector/researcher background in Oz. pre-Dec before you jumped on this bandwagon,i still don't understand your motives & over the top passion,it can't be money as if these are sold as genuine & PCGS or the like consider them altered dates the sellers will be in court.

Basil, I've only had some 40+ years experience collecting and researching the Australian penny.  But, I'm not a dealer and have never sold a single coin in my life.  I do it for the pursuit of facts and clarity with the aim of shining a light onto some of the darker corners of Australian numismatic history. 

As for "blind Freddy", he may need a little schooling on the experimentation that was taking place at the Melbourne Mint around the relevant time.  It's a well-established fact that different steels, dies, and die markers were being utilised to optimise production and track the coins.  What steels were used to produce experimental coins and how durable these were in terms of wear is now a moot point.

Yurist, OK. My mistake. It was Hi Res Images instead of Ultra Hi Images on the thread. Which are just as CRAPPIE as your ''Ultra Hi Res Images with 1000x microscopic images on your website..Is it that you just do not have the Tech-Equipment to post an image as good as the 29 or does Mr Coote and company have something to hide..If they where my coins i would be abusing the shit out of you for posting those pathetic images of my coins...

Stan, Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about.   Have you actually seen the image gallery on my website?  Since I populated the website with the ultra high res and microscopic images, I haven't received any complaints from anyone (other than yourself) about them being insufficient in any way.  Some of the microscopic images have since been copied and referenced in this thread.  Sorry, but I can't do more than 1000x magnification, and there is little that can be hidden under a microscope.  If that's not good enough for you, then I suggest you get your eyes checked.  By the way, for your information, Echidna's image that you're so fond of is around 50x.

I should point out that the level of magnification isn't the most important thing in examining the finer details but the resolution is. Echidna's 50X image has fairly high resolution (but still short of being high resolution let alone ultra high resolution). Blown up photos (to high X) just produce fuzzy images, lets just say most of the '31 images are way too fuzzy to be useful. Have a look over on CCF at some examples of Extreme Macro Coin Photography where they can spend hours doing layered shots on fancy setups to produce crisp images of tiny details.  Those are the sort of images that are needed.

Quote from: 'Yurist' pid='124238' dateline='1611150519'As for "blind Freddy", he may need a little schooling on the experimentation that was taking place at the Melbourne Mint around the relevant time.  It's a well-established fact that different steels, dies, and die markers were being utilised to optimise production and track the coins.  What steels were used to produce experimental coins and how durable these were in terms of wear is now a moot point.

Yurist,that's pathetic,not even worth replying to but for the last time,your egs. are heavily circulated Coins ,there is no way these were removed from circulation in the early 1930's.
If you can't see that then you better seek a 2nd opinion.

Basil, I actually didn't say that all Unicorn Pennies were taken out of circulation in the 1930's.  In fact, in my post #250, I said:

"...what I guess wasn't clear from my earlier post is that while Fred's dad started his daughter's 1931 penny collection, Fred sister continued to collect these specific date coins for some years thereafter.  So, it's not impossible that some of the Unicorn Pennies were added to the collection after the father left for WWII."

I've been reviewing my records and speaking with Fred Coote about it again.  He notes that his sister actually continued to collect 1931 pennies from her loose change up until decimalisation.

FYI, following my request, Fred Coote graciously allowed me to share some of his family's information in order to allay any concerns from those who have doubts about his credibility and the truthfulness of his story.  

Fred's father's name was Frederick Edmund Coote.  He was borne on 25th March 1908 and owned a dairy in Lakember, NSW.  Following the economic struggles of the 1930's, his father enlisted in the RAAF and served as a mechanic from 1939 until the end of 1945.  

In August 1930, Frederick's wife Isabelle gave birth to a girl named Heather Margaret.  In July 1933 they also had a boy who they named after their father (Fred Jnr.).  

Fred Snr. worked as a milkman before the war and collected pennies of two specific dates that were left under billy cans.  Every 1933-dated penny he found, he gave to his son (Fred Jnr.) and every 1931-dated penny that he found he gave to his daughter (Heather).  While he obviously wanted to gift his daughter 1930-dated pennies, unfortunately there were no pennies officially minted that year, so he resorted to gifting her 1931 pennies instead.  

Heather passed away a few years ago and left her extensive collection of 1931 pennies to her brother Fred Jnr.  

According to Fred Jnr., Heather "collected 1931 pennies... from every day shopping until decimal currency came in on 14th Feb 1966."   

I will attach some documents that confirm the above.

[attachment=3992]

Sorry to all the die-hard sceptics out there, but the provenance turned out to be true!  

Shame they don't have a middle finger emoji.   It would have been so fitting now!

Quote from: 'serenitystan' pid='124209' dateline='1611016677'Hi, Just my two bobs worth..No One Numismatist can authenticate a coin. This must come from a unanimous group decision . 

I just noticed your post and it raises some good points. 
There is a dearth of knowledge,IMO,at the moment as the older Numismatists/Dealers retire/pass-on,the newer brigade are hooked on PCGS/NGC etc. and accept their decisions,mostly without question.  
When i first got involved in collecting in 1960,the Numismatic Society of NSW and the Australian NS(NS of A?) had verification committees that looked at disputed Coins,mostly 1930 & 1923 due to the large number of fakes starting to appear,but also various varieties and unique Coins needing ID.Gilbert Heyde was the Chairman of both committees  
We need something similar again that is available to rank & file collectors not just the elite arguing over a Roman Coin they know nothing about except for overseas research that may or may not be accurate. 
Ancient Coin forgers had people write Books & Research papers to verify their fakes.

A fellow collector up here on the North Coast of NSW is ex-Police,he said at Xmas a statement that stuck in my mind,you have to look at the Facts & Evidence in any research,not hearsay,peoples opinions,what the Mint may have or may not have done 100 years ago is just a diversion/tangent.Mint Records may be incomplete,falsified,corrupted or just plain covering up illegal activity like the Sydney Mint.,they only can be used as a guide,not fact. 

The facts & evidence here are the Coins and finding Die pairings that actually struck the Coins,not trying to divert attention to Hubbing problems,Mint experimenting with Blanks/Planchets & Strike pressure etc. 

These Coins needs a thorough examination by several experts including a X-ray of the date area and an explanation of why the Patina seems to show the whole Coin being heated. 

Until that happens i'm not wasting any more time posting.

Fair enough Basil.  I just can't help but get the feeling that even with more experts, more hi-res photos, more documentary evidence and x-ray analysis etc., there will still be someone out there that points to something like the 'patina' they noticed on a bad quality photo of a coin and conclude that all the samples were probably heated.  Frankly, I don't think that Jim Noble, nor most other highly reputable experts, routinely x-ray every 1930 penny that they authenticate.  With many years of experience, you know when you're holding a fake coin and when it's warranted to put your name behind a genuine one.   I, as many other experienced numismatists, who have had the opportunity to personally hold and inspect these coins, view them under a microscope, subject them to UV and Infra-red light etc. etc. etc. all concur with the observations that John Dean made back in 1965, that these coins are genuine.   I rest my case for the time being and will continue updating my website with further evidence and information as it comes in.

Thanks for those excellent details Yuri. They are clear evidence that the father was a milko, served honourably and had a wife and kids. They all strongly support the family background.
There are a few quibbles I have though.
They were married at Chatswood (1929) and were living at Gordon (1940). Plus a search of electoral rolls found him living in North Sydney in 1930, 1931 and 1933; these are all North shore suburbs. In 1935 he was enrolled in Wentworth (the Eastern suburbs). In 1936 he was enrolled in Lang (which at one stage included Lakemba) and that area is in the Southern suburbs. In 1943 in Parramatta and in 1949 and 1954 in Bradfield (North shore, includes Gordon). Later on he was in North Sydney until at least 1980 (BDM gives his death as 1989).
Now the reason that I raise all these details is that he wasn't in Lakemba until circa 1936 (and was back on the North shore by 1940) so if he collected there then he only had 3-4 years to do it and more importantly his daughters additions through life as she was shopping would not be there. Or alternatively he (and his daughter) collected them on the North shore. Now if it was the North shore then again there are issues. If collected pre 1936 then they should be in less circulated condition than they are. If collected 1940 on then the father was away (so no milk run pennies) and the daughter would only have a limited number of pennies go through the house (pennies were in acute short supply and hence the extra pennies supplied by the Indian mint). If post war then yes the father might have become a milko again and the daughter as she grew to adulthood might have more pennies go through her hands (perhaps she worked in retail and had good access to plenty of pennies?). But then the issue is that the North shore was well populated with a population in the hundreds of thousands and just across the bridge from the rest of Sydney. So it isn't like these pennies were circulating in some rural region or coastal town but in the biggest city in Australia among 2 million people post war. Gordon, Chatswood and North Sydney are all on the North shore line and any pennies would have quickly diffused up and down the line and into Central as both change for rail fares and as workers and shoppers headed each day into department stores like Mark Foys, Buckinghams, Farmers, Marcus Clark, David Jones etc etc (all long gone except for David Jones).
Plus why did they collect 1931 pennies if the daughter was born in August 1930 :huh:  Ok now I accept the logic that 1930 pennies might have been unavailable so why didn't the father collect the halfpenny instead.
I understand Yuris frustration with us Doubting Thomas's but when the mule halfpenny first surfaced they did run tests like x-ray analysis. So it isn't unreasonable for sceptics to want LOTS of evidence before they will commit. And visual inspection by experts isn't enough to detect many fakes (if it was the PCGS and NGC wouldn't have slabbed so many fake pre decimals).
I would actually be happy for the Unicorn to be proved genuine, but for the time being I'll be agnostic.

Neal, I think you're slightly over-complicating your analysis and perhaps missing the main point here, which is that Fred Coote is not some fraudster, as he was made out to look by some  contributors to this thread.  

So, let's put things into perspective.  Fred has been selling on eBay for the last 15 years, over which time he received (according to eBay) a 100% positive rating.  His story about the origins of his 1931 pennies held up to scrutiny, tracing the Unicorn Penny to a collection that was started in the 1930's.  We don't know when each Unicorn Penny entered his sister's extensive collection, but we do know that she collected them in a habitual way from loose change up until 1966.  She was not a numismatist and did not buy or sell her 1931 pennies. This accounts for all the concerns over heavy wear.  

We also know that John Dean documented the coins some time prior to 1965.  We also know that the coins have been subjected to essential testing and that the date numerals are not glued or welded on.  In fact, photos of microscopic analysis (using normal and UV light) clearly show that the numerals are fused to the base of the coin.  

Finally, at least one of the sample coins has now been personally inspected and authenticated by Jim Noble - one of Australia's top authorities on coinage.  

Yes, we can continue thinking of new questions that we can ask such as "why didn't the father collect the [1930] halfpenny instead [of the 1931 penny]", but whatever the answer is, it will not change the facts above.  Maybe the father felt that his older child should not settle for a half-penny when his younger child was getting a whole one.  But it doesn't really matter.  These questions are of no consequence to the obviously growing body of evidence that is supporting the Unicorn Penny.  Every time we dig deeper into it (be it a physical inspection or a historical one), we only uncover information that falls in favour of the coin being a genuine 5th variety of the 1931 penny.        

You have the right to be agnostic if you wish, but I will stick with the evidence and remain a believer.

Yuri,one final question to keep a friend of mine happy,where does John Spence,"the Penny Man", from Lismore fit in to all this. I'm told he knows you but we were wondering if he is related,or friends with, Fred Coote as apparently John had one of these Pennies for sale last year, i didn't see listed anywhere but a fellow collector said he was selling one.

Also where did John get the "minted in India" 'fact' from.?

Whether any of these "Unicorns" are proved to be genuine or not i've never seen such BS & just plain crap written about any Coin in my years of collecting.

Basil, it's probably not your final question, but I'm more than happy to answer it.  I originally heard of the Penny Man from eBay.  I've not met him nor have I heard of any connection between him and Fred Coote.  Fred Lever sent me an email a little while ago about John Spence claiming to have found another Unicorn Penny, and that he was referencing my name in an ad to sell the coin.  I took a look at the ad and noted that it only referred to my article in the JNAA, which is in the public domain.  So, no legal lines were crossed.  

Much of the BS that was written about the Unicorn Penny was motivated by healthy (and perhaps a little unhealthy) scepticism.  But everyone is entitled to express their opinion and I started this thread to hear what people had to say.  I found the feedback challenging and provocative, but sometimes that's what a researcher like myself needs in order to test their findings.  Overall, it's been a rewarding experience and I take this opportunity to thank everyone for their contributions.

I have been enjoying this thread. A good, robust debate.

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='124254' dateline='1611274746'Yuri,one final question to keep a friend of mine happy,where does John Spence,"the Penny Man", from Lismore fit in to all this. I'm told he knows you but we were wondering if he is related,or friends with, Fred Coote as apparently John had one of these Pennies for sale last year, i didn't see listed anywhere but a fellow collector said he was selling one.

Also where did John get the "minted in India" 'fact' from.?

Whether any of these "Unicorns" are proved to be genuine or not i've never seen such BS & just plain crap written about any Coin in my years of collecting.

"Hey Basil... :i_agree: . You cannot converse with a Delusional Narcissist. Me I'm going fishing... :yahoo:

A bit tough SS,that's how people react when their beliefs are under attack,he does write some silly statements but for the most part his posts are reasonable.

I agree with Jeff,interesting Thread and reasonably robust as far as Forums go.

Anyway nothing more i can say or do,up to people above my Pay grade to verify these Coins.
PCGS is the obvious but they have problems of their own.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an-examination-of-the-counterfeit-slab-epidemic-scope-and-advice.355364/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cointalk+%28CoinTalk+Update%29

Quote from: 'Basil' pid='124258' dateline='1611358906'A bit tough SS,that's how people react when their beliefs are under attack,he does write some silly statements but for the most part his posts are reasonable.

I agree with Jeff,interesting Thread and reasonably robust as far as Forums go.

Anyway nothing more i can say or do,up to people above my Pay grade to verify these Coins.
PCGS is the obvious but they have problems of their own.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an-examination-of-the-counterfeit-slab-epidemic-scope-and-advice.355364/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cointalk+%28CoinTalk+Update%29

I also agree, Yuri doesn't deserve nasty comments. Of course we have to be thorough in our criticisms and Ill do that to friend and foe alike (you should see how much I red line Freds papers when I fact check them :blackeye:   ).

Just like a new/controversial scientific discovery the proponent has to defend his thesis and Yuri has made a respectful attempt at; but there are still too many problems that exist (the wear, image resolution, independent XRF and x-ray analysis).
I would also agree that PCGS isn't the mob to verify this variety. If they were I wouldn't have a whole lot of slabbed fakes, wrong mint mark identification, wrong variety attributes and wrong country slabs in my collection.

Well, here we are a couple of years down the track on this interesting subject.
I am primarily interested in linking the progression of Master and working die appearances in pennies between 1922 and 1931 where a derivative of an early CBL die may have made it to 1931.
I have asked a question that concentrates on the nut of the subject and received negative responses.

Has anybody in the last couple of years seen or held any 1931 dated penny with Curved Base Letters on the reverse?
(I do note the appearance of one as recorded in a rural newspaper)

After all the preceding hoopla I would have thought that more CBL 1931 of any die pairings should have turned up at club or auction level.
Just as rarities like the 1920 Penny  dot over bottom scroll English Obverse  or 1916 halfpenny Indian Obverse  finally surfaced once the first was known about.
Those rarities were viewed by many, and some went through public auction with appropriate scrutiny.

In research I have only held or seen 100's of 1931, other researchers have viewed 1000's of 1931, over the years, but no 1931 date CBL to be seen.

Anyone?

Fred.

Hi Fred, There's a 1931 penny on Ebay, item number- 185695597167.

"Slightly Cleaned"!

Thanks Stan and Jeff. That was a beautiful coin once.
Looks like it has been through a fire.
Yep its UNC check out the features, but.................should be described as damaged.
Anyhoo, its a free country and if I want it I'll buy it, or not.
The reverse letters are very sharp and dainty just like a unc strike with no flattening from wear.
Are they CBL, well just like all the other interesting 1931's in auctions we see a blurry photo of the reverse and that puts me right off!
Thanks, Fred.

AFS coins were kind enough to re photo the coin for the site ad.
The new photo was good enough after a photoshop to see it is a FBL reverse.
I have no interest in it.
The coin indeed is a sharp strike with little wear and from that point of view is about UNC strike state.
The damage you can see indicates the coin needs a lot of work to conserve it.
Not sure what grade it would get as it is (Fine?)  would have to see it in the hand but it looks like it has had an unhappy time.
Reminds me of coins that have been through a fire and discoloured.
Shame.
Fred.

Opinions please, Australian penny 1941m PCGS 64rb..Verification no 24159181 recently sold for $1200.00??  Numismatic bid auctions, Could this coin be a 41y with die filled dot??

Stan, it is hard to tell. Maybe the only way to be sure it is a filled die would be to match it to another coin from that die pair from an earlier pre fill strike. Not much in the way of die markers to make the job easy; no cracks or blobs. about the only die marker is the doubling of GEORGE.
Even if genuine is it worth $1200? Population of 15 with 2 higher doesn't warrant such a high price does it? Plus is it overgraded as it has lots of contact marks, a couple of green spots and not the eye appeal of other roo pennies in that grade.

The reverse looks like a Perth strike, not what would be expected from the Melbourne Mint in my opinion.

Thank you Neal + Auto for your professional opinions. it's just that $1200 bucks for a 41m in 64 RB is crazy unless someone placed a$1200 pre-bid or bidders believed it to be a 41Y as there is what looks like a dot after the Y. I don't think PCGS would go to the time+expense to look at die markers on a weakly struck  41 penny to determine if it's a Perth strike.