Leaderboard

Hi Mike, just catching up after getting home from holiday, sorry for delay replying. Guess where we were staying? I'm sure I have come across several bronzed current pieces. Like Peck, I haven't got too excited about them. If you read his pages 206/7 (under George III), and then Page 405 (Victoria) where you will see that he says Victorian "current pieces subsequently bronzed to resemble proofs are not uncommon". Half way down Page 405 he then describes "specious bronze patina", and I am sure that most Victorian 'Young Head' penny collectors will have noticed the 'patchy' type of coin which he describes within their own collections. I'm pretty sure that the reason why he doesn't bother to categorise them with separate reference numbers is that he didn't consider them anything special, just copper pieces treated post-mint. I think this is why he has simply added a footnote at the bottom of his Page 407 list. Specious means "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive". This increased attractiveness was probably a good little earner, particularly if the treated coins could then be passed off as genuine bronzed proofs. Personally I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time searching for bronzed current coins. It does help to have an 1839 penny to see the clear differences.

I still have trouble with this. It's like someone got things muddled up years ago, and everyone since blindly followed. My problem goes like this: I realised many many years ago, medals can be lifted, but if you twist them, this will probably damage the pin or the cloth. So you mount a medal so that if you want to read the back, you lift it up, like an old-fashioned nurse's watch, not try to rip it off the wearer's jacket. I then found out the orientation labelling was the opposite of what made sense....!!!!!!!@ What?? Why? Medals have a horizontal 'hinge' at the top, intentionally. If they were to be twisted, they would hang from a single, rotatable point......

Is there any reason why the RM changed the orientation of the reverse design on half crowns when the jubilee coins were issued in 1887?

Good question Blake, I had never thought about it. Perhaps due to the solemn nature of the award, the reverse may be intended to be viewed by the owner and not by a curious bystander. When he lifts the medal when being worn, the orientation will be good for him and the ribbon provides slack to do so. He turns it inwards instead of outwards. I also think that using a pivoting mount would result in an occasionally reversed medal on the parade ground. It would be interesting to know the generally accepted reason.

I have two 2013 Birth of Prince George £5 silver proof coins and I noticed a difference of the horse’s tail between them both. I wondered if this was evidence of a different dies or different stages of a die, or something else? The first coin (highlighted with red). The horse’s tail shows less separation of the hair strands at the end, whereas the second coin is more divided to a higher point. The second pair of photos show some more minor differences, but I only noticed these with the extra magnification. The easiest to spot was difference in George’s foot, the first coin shows quite a chubby foot compared to the second. There was also a difference between the dragon’s wing membrane. The first coin is softer/curvier with a ridge along the edge of membrane. Whereas the second coin has a spikier overall appearance.

A really nice MS64 RED 1913 F176 from Spink on Wednesday ,not attributed. Interesting that the coin has sold now at least twice by two major auction houses and owned by different vendors ,however nobody has looked to see what type it is.

Bits missing from letters are usually filled dies, and much less often from a broken punch. In the case of the latter, the character would normally be repaired, e.g an 'F' with the bottom bar added separately to make an E.

According to personal communication, the uncirculated copper nickel $1 and $2 conch and flamingo coins of the following dates are quite rare evidently as the total struck coins (versus number authorised): One Dollar Conch: - 1989. 300 pcs in sets - 1991. 200 pcs in sets - 1992. 200 pcs in sets - 1996. still unknown, likely much less than 100 - 2000. still unknown, likely less than 50 Two Dollar Flamingos: - 1979 300 pcs -1980. 80 pcs - 1989 does not exist -1991. does not exist in CuNi uncirculated, but is known in silver uncirculated - mintage 600 pcs of the latter

Managed to get an 1831 proof penny (the commoner type with the reverse inverted). It is true to say there is a small but visible edge knock on the obverse side, but that apart the coin is immaculate.

The dies have had the fields polished to differing degrees. The greater the percentage of field visible, the more it has been polished, and the corresponding reduction in peripheral relief detail is clear.

I agree with the definition. It certainly seems reasonable to presume all post mint changes are graffiti. But how to know if it is post mint? I think that requires judgment based on whatever evidence we can glean. So I will keep an eye out for any further evidence as to whether the marking up practice was common in the Royal Mint. Here is another that seems to be “marked up” with a score line horizontally through the horse.

For what it's worth, I think any kind of intentional change to a coin post mint is graffiti unless there is convincing provenance that it was done at the mint itself for a serious purpose. Perhaps the most practical approach is to assume that all post mint changes to be graffiti unless proven not to be the case. Otherwise, there will be endless attempts to explain why damage on coins was done for legitimate purposes.