Leaderboard

It suddenly occurred to me the other day I had put a bid in for a nice looking penny on eBay. I had to put the bid in early as I had a long drive when it was due to mature. By the time I got home the auction was over. Now here is my conundrum. I could check with the web site to see if I had been successful or not. But if I did I might have failed in my bid and had lost the coin. However, if I don’t check it out I could still hold the winning bid, but I won’t know until I looked at the listing. Therefor, I might have won that coin, or not, until I find out one way or the other. I( I have lost the bid then I would be disappointed, so am I in a better position by not looking? Unless I have won it.

Retrospectively, only when you win. At the time it is useful to have a spare set of underwear to hand if a coin in demand has to be bought. Not so thrilling trying to explain that one.

just tacking on to this topic in regards to found in good condition,...... and theses six pence's dated 1911 George V and a young head Victoria 1887 fall into this category, I had these dates already paged however theses are in so much better condition, so need to show and switch them out... 👍

Not only the pennies were good. It was an all-round interesting sale given things like the unique 1847 6d and the Henry VI (restored) farthing. I picked up a couple things, so in a good mood today.

Loddy Heck!!! errrmmmm... This George V 1911 2 pence Maundy is also in nice condition as well 😕 I don't no how has happed but its in nice condition all the same. 👍

I'm not into stacking but I always thought the Britannia looked good. Just because I think that it’s a nice looking silver coin, I added a 1 oz. .999 fine silver Britannia to my collection. Mostly these are aimed at silver bugs but eh, I like it. By letting them send a random year, it was like $10~15 cheaper but I think I got lucky - Liz’s portrait is better than Charlie’s, IMO. From 2018:

It is a very nice design 😊. Consider being a type collector and then you won't need to have more than one example. (Obviously, gifts from family are supernumerary.)

I had the good fortune to pick up a couple of these coins, recently, for a bargain £145 the pair. But when pawing over them, marvelling at how new they looked, in what appeared to be nearly full lustre, I noticed they were from the same pair of dies, and looking suspiciously similar. Further investigations revealed that all the other class VIs I could find out there were also looking lustred and from the same dies…beginning to feel suspicious at this point. UNTIL, that is, I discovered the 1969 Colchester Hoard was linked to a couple of the recent sales, leading me to explore that further. The hoard story is fascinating in that it was added to in at least two distinct lots, spanning at least 12 years, and is also thought to be linked to the 1902 hoard, found in the same street. The Edward I class VI coins, numbering nearly 2000, were ‘fresh from the Bury mint, and from the same pair of dies.’ There was previously only ONE known example of that type, so I can say with confidence that my own two coins will have made up a part of that hoard, explaining their fresh surfaces. The BNS article is well worth a read, as is a google search for the history and speculation surrounding the hoard itself. It has strong links with a Jewish family who were occupying the hoard location during that period. https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/1974_BNJ_44_5.pdf

well its a start

Now you only need 27 other dates and about 35 different privy marks/ varieties

Ow yes the thrill of the chase . !!!!!!

On this coin there seems to be a circular mark on the bottom of the obverse that may be a die crack and could account for the double striking of the date.

Some lovely rare pennies sold at Sovereign Rarities this morning. Most of them have been on the market before with some increasing in price and some decreasing. The wonderful 1882 F112 BU sold for £12,250 which was cheaper than it realised in the Spink Gerald Jackson sale (June 2014 for £15,150)

Noticed on Ebay

I think the 1927 florin (and also threepence?) are a target as these dates are not available in circulation coinage. For the date-run collectors they are appealing once the usual dates have been acquired. The 1927 proof Half crown would be far less appealing as the date can be ticked off with a circulation issue, even though the design is totally different.

I am inclined to agree with you, Paddy, now I see all 3 together. But, keep looking for a 1915 recessed without the broken tooth as they do exist. I have one!

Yes, I would go with repro too. The over-detailed eyebrows and moustache just don't seem to occur on genuine coins, even proofs.

I have a 1927 set in an identical box even down to the remains of tape on the back of the box. I don't know if any 1928 proof sets were ever issued but this looks like a cobbled together set of 1928 coins presented in a 1927 proof set box to trap the unwary at a high price.

The only example I have seen in hand which is completely unambiguous was the Adams coin. You will see that the underlying 3 determines the profile of the last digit with the 3 clearly present, but also clearly overpunched with a 5 given the vertical section to the left on the upper part of the digit. I have seen various others which purported to be over 3, but none with the same profile and arguably contentious. The 1845 over ? that I had stolen at the Midland last year looked to be to be more likely over a different font 5 than a 4 or a 3, but 4 would be a good call if not a 5. Not to say that the coins with a taller 5 are not over 3, but definitely a case of caveat emptor IMO. There are many coins listed as such, but most are reliant on the vendor's description. There is one coin listed on ebay that I thought unusual which is claimed to be 5/3, but it was the irregularity of the date which caught my eye. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335246363284

Post-1752 Maundy coins were never intended for circulation so they are usually in good condition.

And Florin.

I'm not sure Ron Vibbentrop agrees...

Could be double struck with another coin trapped in the dies, but equally could be another coin in a different metal in close contact with it in wet, acidic conditions leading to electrolysis (2 different metals in near contact under those conditions will generate a potential difference. Think in terms of a battery. Given the level of corrosion seen, either is possible.

Ah, the Villy Hall, imagifole, chittery-chattery and sip tilty-elbow from fine chiney tea-cuppers. deep joy