declanwmagee

ooh - good question! Error. The 1787 sixpences and shillings without hearts?? Do you think someone decided not to put the hearts on? Or forgot?

ooh - good question! Error.

On the nail, Pies. Although the differences between the two 1896 halfpennies that Scott highlighted in another thread are VERY slight, they are deliberate. Whereas the 1881 xi/ri florin, although recognised in all the literature as a variety, is technically an error. I'll keep asking the Why question though, particularly with micros like the 1896. Why did they make those tiny changes?

Cracking...

Quite right, Stuart. You'd do whatever you thought you had to. Law or no law.

No telly, and Adblock Plus on my laptop - I haven't seen an advert in years!

Better pictures than most enquirers manage though - well done!

Yes but... here are a couple of cases in point. Both of these were fresh out of a sealed 1970 set. Neither qualify for FDC in my view, and in point of fact, left the mint that way, the first because it's got a couple of minor scratches on the bust and the second because some bozo at the mint has stuck his thumb on it! If these were not proof, you could still describe them as Unc, the first for the reason that 'bag abrasions' are permitted, the second because toning doesn't affect a coin's uncirculated status. But as proof coins, they don't as I have said qualify for FDC, 'uncirculated' goes without saying and really doesn't help us much, GEF implies some wear which they patently haven't got and I really don't want to go down the route of calling them AFDC because that is utter gibberish! So what do I call them? Perhaps I ought to get out more... Maybe we should just go back to the old-fashioned way: Impaired Proof. Proof with a pawprint. Proof with a scratch. Maybe only allow one grade for Proofs - FDC, and everything else just gets a description, unless it's got proper circulation wear, in which case it can go into the normal system. Not very smart commercially, of course - may as well consign them to the "Will never sell" bucket!

Well, wouldn't that explain it well?

Obv 1, so if it is a Proof, its Unconfirmed in Davies. All plastic set coins, however, are Obverse 1...

I thought this would be a nice job for a lazy Boxing Day but it's turned into a bit of a headache. I'm trying to match up the Die classification for 1861 Halfpennies used by Freeman and Peck. I do have both books, so I didn't think it would be too hard. Trouble is, both authors seem to use completely different identifiers. I don't have enough of the actual coins to do it that way, so I'm having to go by their descriptions. This is as far as I have got: Freeman: Obv 3 - Obv 4 - Peck Obv 3 Obv 5 - Peck Obv 4 Obv 6 - Obv 7 - Peck Obv 5 Peck: Obv 2* - Freeman: Rev D - Rev E - Peck Rev C* Rev F - Rev G - Peck: Rev E - Rev F - I can't believe I'm the first person to ever try this. Has anyone got any further and can help me fill those blanks? Sorry to be so autistic, but it's a big messy area in my database!

I'd certainly like one. Mal? Could you flog me one?

Quite often I'll overprice a coin because I don't want to sell it just yet - because I rather like having it in the Shop. Some of us weren't born to be businessmen!

Even worse is when they call pennies "large cent"

I think most of us here would agree that you can't really get serious in that area without Freeman, Sheen. Search eBay for "freeman bronze coinage" and you'll see a few there - quite a range of prices too. Even the most expensive one is worth it. Having said that, Dave Groom's book "The Identification of British 20th Century Bronze Coin Varieties" is even better for 1900 onwards.

Do you think knocked off, '49, or die fill? I honestly don't know, Declan. Mine is shown below. As you can see, beads partially missing at between about 10 and 11 o'clock. As though chipped off. Whether caused by die fill or other external damage, just not sure. Only shown reverse as obverse beads complete. Interesting! The damage looks the same type as the penny on Mr Accumulator's site, although I suppose if it was the same die, it would be the same beads filled...

Perhaps we could ask them not to bother with the identification of the variety either - just slab 'em up, please... Just a thought.

And it's a good point, when we know for sure that the number of coins minted in a year, and the number of coins minted with that year's date on it, are rarely, if ever, the same. The contract that the Mint received was presumably "make us this number of farthings", not "make us this number of 1865 farthings". I can't see the Treasury complaining if they were all dated 1862. Wouldn't it be great to be able to get some visibility of the decision making process at that level - why change the number of berries, or the number of leaves? If there's anything really missing from the literature, it's the WHY of varieties, rather than the WHAT.

Do you think knocked off, '49, or die fill?

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

Would have been near VF (but not quite), if it hadn't have been for the gouge in front of Britney's face, Greg. Clear hairline on Victoria's forehead, and Union Flag on the shield more or less clear.

Quite agree, Peckris. Many's the coin I've rejected because a mark is on Victoria's face. If it had been on her clothing or veil, or anywhere on the reverse, I may not have even noticed it.

Hello Mal. How much is it to buy that CD? Looks like a very useful resource for what seems to be an understudied series...

In at the deep end then, Sheencrofter!

oh how exciting! then buy a bag of farthings and start again...