Leaderboard

It's in his BNJ 1967 Addendum: https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/PDFs/1967_BNJ_36_26j.pdf

Peck, I think you missed the point about evidence - a small population makes it difficult to make judgements other than there is a small population. That would not of necessity prove anything. We have no idea if there were different dies trialed and especially if in scant numbers, if more were struck and then destroyed, lost (or ? whatever). Obviously many alternative hypotheses may be advanced. What would be the point of a die trial in any case? We can only infer. Why, if the hypothesis of trials is advanced, can it be excluded that more than one die combination was trialed? Numbers extant alone would not be proof of either motive or event.

I'd not seen that - many thanks for the link. Really interesting. Richard

Well not long to go for 1933. She's now claiming it's a pattern penny, demonstrably false as shown in comparson with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1933_Pattern_Penny.jpg eg look under the foot (fake is the bluish pic)

The thing is, if there is no mintmark there is no mintmark which is my point about the 1922 "Plain" cent with no D mintmark. We are virtually certain all 1922 cents were struck at Denver and all were struck by dies that probably originally had "D"s on them (although that point can not be proven of a certainty), just that one or two dies were struck by dies with the "D" filled or worn off or possibly not applied to begin with I suppose. These are readily accepted and bring strong prices. I also am not convinced by the converse: only one die set was used to strike coins sans "H". That seemingly would be impossible to prove, and given the paucity of "no H" specimens of the "correct" die type that it makes it doubly hard to prove. Rather, I would think logic dictates that the accepted die type is indeed "no H" but would not exclude that other no "H" coins might have been legitimately struck by another die combination(s). And metallurgic matching would not necessarily exclude the latter as of course the possibility and even likelihood is that other "no H" coins would come from different batches of metal. BTW, are all accepted "no H" coins matched metallurgically? And so if a coin leaves the mint with "no H" that it is "no H", and horror of horrors would be so whether struck at London or Heaton. Now that is rather a sacrilegious statement! If it takes a microscope to present even ambiguous attribution of an "H", that seems excessive as conclusive exclusion would IMO require unambiguous exclusion.

My 1970 edition contains the numbers you mention. No mention of missing H and I don't think there's a later edition ?

Maybe the public bidder is "her" as well - after all we know "she" has at least two ebay names. I'm no expert but out of interest I compared her penny with the real thing https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/1933-and-all-that-165-000-for-britain-s-numismatic-superstar/ and there are many detail differences. I've attached pics of some text from each - see how the serifs are much straighter/cruder in her version (fake over real).

Yeah there were certainly a few different systems in place. Looks like Canada and Honduras had 50c = one florin and Hong Kong had 50c = a half crown India, Mauritius and East Africa all had a rupee half way between the florin and half crown so they didn't quite match any denomination. All the lsd colonies had coins that were almost the same/the same (though Jamaica and Nigeria had some coins were a couple of mm off). I think Cyprus and Demerara and Essequibo were the only two that weren't lsd that had most coins match British coin sizes more or less. And India probably needed to decimalise more than any country with a system like that.

Ha, yes Indian coins were something else. The following list if coins were still all being produced in the time of George VI. Amazing to think that twelfth Annas were being minted, and there are 16 Annas to a Rupee.........the Rupee itself now worth slightly less than the UK new penny. 1/12 Anna 1/2 Pice = 1/8 Anna 1 Pice = 1/4 Anna 1/4 Anna 1/2 Anna 1 Anna 2 Annas = 1/8 Rupee 1/4 Rupee 1/2 Rupee 1 Rupee