Chris Perkins

It's because its very worn and only worth scrap value (around £7). They are very common in that condition, in fact the 1821 Secundo is the most common GeoIV crown. Truly brilliant ones will of course sell for more. Condition is the main factor for 'modern' British coins, always.

That'll be a sovereign then, not a guinea (20s, not 21s). Post pictures if you can.

Looking again, that's 1887. That was the jubilee year and a lot of 1887 coins were enamelled and sold as souvenirs. I've even seen 1889 coins enamelled to look like 1887.

Or, more accurately, enamelled. The Victorians did that a lot to their own coinage and to those of previous reigns. They are not really of interest to most numismatists but very pretty ones or completely intact ones are saleable.

Take no notice of £1650! That's just someone quoting you the EF price from the Spink book! That coin is not EF, more like VF, albeit an attractive VF. I'd offer £450 for it and hope to eventially sell it on for £600. PM me if that sounds worth doing.

Watch you don't confuse that for the box labelled 'pants' that actually contains your pants! ;-) Quite often they are not as obvious as that. One coin is often hollowed out and the other reduced in thickness and diameter and glued in the hollowing in the first coin.

No, as with 98% of coins, they are not. Simply little demand for that kind of thing.

It's not really all that clear is it Joe. The bust of Victoria shows a bit of ear, a bit of crown and not much more. In fact it's very nearly a silouette. On an 'as new' one you can see the folds in the veil and the jewels in the crown and practically the Queen's earwax! That's scrap silver I'm afraid, 20 - 30p. I sell them like that for people to munch on in Christmas puds: http://www.predecimal.com/forsale/christmasthreepences.htm Sorry to be the bearer of bad news again.

Maroccan, not as old as they look as they were made like that until the 19th century I believe.

That's just worth a pound or 2 because it's quite worn.

Very little probably. The age is almost irrelevant for the modern machine struck milled coins, it's always condition that counts and the standards that coins have to meet to be 'collectable' are very very high. Attach pictures again and we'll have a look as soon as scottishmoney has admitted he was wrong all along

It's not evasive!

I'm simply suggesting that it was never made with any evasive intentions. It was made to commemorate something, probably the life of George II, or coronation (I thought I saw a death date on the back though). Had it been pseudo-commemorative, about halfpenny size or more resembling regal coinage and crude in execution, then yes 'evasive'. This is none of those. What do the others think?

3.5cm is far too big to be a halfpenny or a farthing and there were no pennies then so it would have circulated at it's rough copper weight. It's not an evasion piece the quality is too good and now the size data also supports my theory. Evasion pieces are always crude in terms of workmanship. Some aren't bad, but none are as good as this medal would have started life. The value is next to nothing though as it's very worn. Couple of quid to someone that wants it.

I wouldn't have called this an evasion piece, the quality of the workmanship looks like it would have been too high when the medal was struck. I think this was struck as a commemorative medal with no evasive intentions. The fact that it probably got spent as a copper coin shows how desparate people were for change. What's the size in mm if you're still there Jow_Mander?

It's not a penny. It's not even a coin. It's a little medal or medalet with George II on it. It may comemmorate the coronation or something political. From the heavy wear I imagine it probably circulated as a coin, either a farthing of a halfpenny (depending on size) when no one would have been able to read it and just accepted it because the King was on it!

"The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" from Rotographic should put a stop to all that!

This'll do it: http://www.rotographic.com/britishcoins2005public.pdf

Liberty Street software use my price data in their UK Coinmanage software. You can download a sample of that, perhaps it has a spread sheet, csv or something similar that comes with it.

Steady, you're not much younger than me! Thanks for the comical cow pictures. You simply can't beat comical cows for humourous effect.

It's a little halfpenny, the decimal type that was stopped in 1984. You're obviously too young to remember them! I was 6 in 1984 and just about remember them. I remember in the road where we used to play, there was one set hard into the road surface. None of us could free it and eventually it was worn flat by the cars.

One of my old books is in the public domain as an ebook: http://www.rotographic.com/britishcoins2005public.pdf The prices are out of date but there are lots of pictures etc.

BU 1983 £1 coin, yes must be worth at least £3 now. Probably more than you'll get for an average Cumberland Jack I'm afraid.

It's the thought that counts isn't it! Our old next-door neighbour Maud (who had long since forgotten how old she was, and no one knew) gave my little sister a 'sovereign' when she was born in 1983. It was of course a shiny new 1983 £1 coin! To Maud it was a sovereign, which is sort of correct in a way.

Yes, UNC means no wear but BU (as introduced by the Royal Mint in the 80s I believe for their UNC year sets) has come to mean no wear and full lustre. A tiny weeny bit of toning could possibly still scrape in as BU if the mint bloom is still there, but a coin with a finger print or any other area where there is no lustre or uneven lustre cannot be BU. There are some coins on that list that are practically completely brown with lustre in the lower parts and they are still described as something involving the term 'BU'. I hate to moan about it but I've had issues in the past with 'Colin Cooke' grading. Don't complain Neil, it's just an opinion and I'll leave the link to your website above!