Peckris 2

George IV crowns aren’t so very hard to find and are much cheaper than William IV (the hardest).

The 1897 dot penny, and the 1946 ONE' penny were given prominence in an early issue of Coin Monthly (beginning of 1968?), and are arguably the most collectable - ironically caused by their comparative lack of rarity therefore giving collectors a better chance to own one.

There's any number of online HEIC > JPEG converters.

Type collections don't just contain common coins!! (I speak from experience..). Also, I do have date runs for a few favourite series, e.g. George V halfcrowns 1927-1936, and bronze pennies 1895-1967, though I don't lose any sleep at all over the odd gap such as 1914 in UNC, but I would love a high grade 1946 ONE' penny so I do take your point about filling gaps. But as I say, I really don't lose sleep over most gaps I have.

how weird, I'm sure I just replied to this, but where is my reply???

Surely they must exist? I do remember the Sandhill cases from the 60s, which held each denomination for a particular year. However, if you picked up a few of these cheap for 60s dates (you will want a 1965 which will hold from Crown down to halfpenny, and a 1966 to get the standard halfcrown down to halfpenny), you could adapt them to hold denominations for each monarch from 1816. Otherwise you might have to bite the bullet eventually and get a cabinet, or if that proves too expensive, you could go for Lindner trays instead.

1972 proofs compared to other proof sets might pay an interesting look - same situation.

hey, we won didn't we?!

Can you please post pictures? It might not be a crown but a coronation medal for example, or a crown struck for one of the colonies. Or even a private mint.

Do remember this: it's far better to have one UNC coin of a particular type, than a date run in F (for example). Just saying...

Google "convert HEIC to JPEG"

If a coin looks bright and shiny, don't immediately assume it's been cleaned. Here's one way to tell: IF the fields look bright and shiny but the design and legend are not, then it's unlikely to have being been cleaned. However, if the legend looks bright but the field between the characters does not, then it could well have been cleaned. Remember that cleaning will affect the highest parts more than the lowest, especially between the legend.

I meant printings, not editions. I know about the 1985 edition, but I imagine there may well have been more than one printing of the 1970 edition?

I actually have the 1970 edition - I wonder if those errors were corrected in later printings? I bought mine new and I don't remember seeing that insert.

Yes - 1920 was the last year they only used the deep cut obverse portrait, which 'sucked' metal away from Britannia, and caused a 'ghost' of the portrait outline which you can see clearly in the top example; it's more common to see between 1911 and 1920 than fully struck up reverses. In 1921 about half the pennies use a shallower portrait which partly alleviated the problem, but it wasn't until the Modified Effigy from 1926 that they reduced the effect to small enough not to worry about.