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.

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.

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.

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!

[attachment=3992]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: '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?

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."

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.

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, 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.  

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.