Leaderboard

Re the 1919 penny. Although there may be some wear on the King's ear the tip of the mo is fully struck which is something only seen on proofs of coins of this era. A really nice coin. I especially like the black toning rather than the original lustre.

I am glad it meets with approval! It was a long compare with my existing specimen before I decided which one to keep. It came in with a bunch of mostly rubbish brought to me at the market last week. That is why I love sorting through boxes of random coins - every now and then you find a little gem.

It's a beautiful, crisp strike, Paddy, with only the merest hint of ghosting to the reverse. Slight wear to the highest points reduces the obverse to EF, but a superb specimen, nonetheless.

Something like this?

Yes Paddy the 1919 is a decent strike 🙂

Thanks for taking the time gents, very interesting and informative, this coin is in the as found condition, its had a run under the tap to have loose stuff removed. I suppose the grading, like value, is subjective and for me is largely irrelevant as im not minded to sell the coin, i still get a buzz out of holing something the best part of a thousand years old.

Thanks Stu, I’m glad someone was prepared to follow-up my post and I certainly agree regarding eye appeal. Not known to many on this forum, but I do also collect some hammered (over a hundred Henry III and fifty odd Lizzie I pennies, and probably into 3 figs of other issues and denominations including a few gold as well as detector finds in the hundreds) and am used to seeing “VF for issue” and “weak areas as struck” type comments in the catalogues. My point being that particularly for certain issues (for example from say William II until Henry II post Tealby) wear is often considered seperately from strike, which is how it should be. This does not mean that the desirability is not adversely affected by poor strike especially where cleanly struck coins are freely available, but that features such as poor strike, splits and cracks, perforations and plugs etc merit separate comment to wear, a bit like the ‘details’ comments on slabbed coins. I have yet to see a grading system where points are deducted for percentage of poor strike, filled or worn die, poorly centred flan etc though that is not to say one does not exist. It seems logical to me (though I accept I may be in isolation) that if the cleanly struck parts of the op’s coin grade NVF, then so must the coin as a whole - the coin appears flat, limiting differential wear- in that the poorly struck parts are also almost certainly unworn, and this is where the other descriptors that determine desirability come in. I stick by my original comment, that this coin is better than fine, but with non wear related issues. Jerry

Yep, because nobody in politics is prepared to bite the bullet demanded by the public in the referendum. Any contributions to a body over which you have no say is clearly a gross waste of public funds. The suggestion that the proposed agreement will safeguard jobs is just as deluded as the idea we can have anything we want. The EU can put pressure on national politicians to get firms to repatriate any jobs to shore up their domestic position as it would no longer be working against an EU member. The idea of us signing up to a perpetual transition period means we have no way of pursuing ANY strategy. This is a windfall of unprecedented scale for the EU - a competitor that pays you to tie its hands by agreeing a non-competition clause whilst getting nothing in return doesn't come along every day. For all those anxious to pooh-pooh Rees-Mogg's assertion that we would become a vassal state to the EU, I would suggest that a state which is not allowed to pursue it's own sovereign policies independent of the opposing party; where the latter is given additional rights to determine the movement of goods within former's sovereign territory, is quite categorically subservient to the master. We even pay for the privilege of being screwed, but that is much a case of as you were. Everything the EU does is related to their own Great Leap Forward, where the ultimate aim is their European superstate. That any UK politician should willingly sign up to bankrolling that ambition in perpetuity without requiring something in return beggars belief. 100 years from now we will still be unable to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, because the question of the Irish border has not been agreed. The EU can let this one run for as long as they want to get a no-strings financial windfall. Personally, I would prefer to have the flexibility to work myself out of a sticky position without legal restrictions, than be tied to the control of a foreign body that cares nothing for myself, this country or its people. Ultimately, charity begins at home.

Yep, they must think people are stupid. Which in many cases is, of course, true.