5th Variety of 1931 Penny discovered

[nealeffendi]

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

[drakesterling]

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

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

[echidna]

" />

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.

[fred lever]

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.

[JeffH]

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

Just inspired guesswork from a state of ignorance eh?

Others might not but I believe you Fred.

[echidna]

" />

More scratching around date numerals.

[fred lever]

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.

[echidna]

" />
" />



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

[fred lever]

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

[nealeffendi]

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

[echidna]

" />

Thanks Neal.
Three matching die markers now.

[Basil]

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

Is Neal back yet?

[echidna]

" />

" />

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.

[Basil]

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.

[fred lever]

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.