Peckris 2

It's the difference between a strictly UNC example and - e.g. - GEF; the waves start to merge with the exergue line rather quick. Here's an AUNC 1939 reverse and you will see that the waves are still a bit distinct from the line. On Type 2 reverses there is a distinct gap between the upper line and the waves. Also, I believe that the so-called 'single exergue line' is actually 2 lines so close together that they appear to be one? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I paid Colin Cooke £20 for mine in the 90s:

Interesting that you called it "F139" - time was they were invariably called "2mm".

That's where the vast difference in condition comes into play.

I see what you mean, but given the big difference in condition I don't think you can say definitively that it's enough to establish a separate variety (it would only be a micro variety anyway).

Lustre is the special gleam you see on newly minted coins - it's created as part of the minting process. "Shine" imparted artificially is a world away and can be seen not to be lustre. As a rough analogy from stamp collecting : a genuine postmark is part of the stamp's value, but someone simply writing over it destroys the value.

DON'T CLEAN COINS! As a rookie, use that as a general strict rule. With more experience there are some gentle methods which can be used, but for now, don't... 1967 pennies - very common indeed. However a few choice (absolutely fully bright lustred) examples could be kept. A reputable dealer will sell them for 50p or £1. There are a few misstruck pennies, if you see any of those put it aside. For example I have one that is obviously genuine but doesn't ring when you drop it, it just clacks.

probably two different dies but from the same punch.

We come back to that thorny old question: in a year when proof sets were issued, how do you distinguish a VIP proof? If different dies were used, then it's easy, but if not...

The 4K being the so-called '1968' obverse on 1967 halfpennies?

He did the s**tting in other words..

does the Big Banana go down well with the Big Cheese?

I remember when PROOF sets were a fraction of that.

Let's hope all is well with him.

Agreed - I wouldn't either.

Is that 1949Threepence?

Casascius - wasn't he the Emperor of Wallet and Grimace?

Generally you need to see it in hand to be sure. However, there are ways of telling a coin is unlikely to be a proof - if the teeth are not of uniform length, spacing, and evenness; if the rim is not of even width or the coin is even slightly off centre; if there is slight flattening to bits of the strike of what appears otherwise to be an uncirculated specimen .. then (for post-1816 coins or post-1797 for copper) I would cast doubts on its being a proof.

yeah, HS2 is a big white elephant but as Andy Burnham says, if you're going to have it then have it go to the North not end at Birmingham.

There's a general predecimal group - can't remember the precise name but if you search "predecimal" you should find it. (I know Declan is a member.) Once you've joined you'll get a Notification for every new post so you can catch up. Mind you, I'm in Facebook every day so not a problem for me.

there is indeed - rather than the overall Facebook search, groups have their own search field (side rather than top) where you can restrict search to only the posts in that group. The only thing s - I don't know how far back it will go.

I've seen a couple of Facebook groups, but they seem to be relatively inexperienced collectors excited by very average stuff. Oh and convinced that the odd cud is a rare variety!

Even if your lot number was correct, it wouldn't be the same coin - I've had mine for many years! I bought it as an ordinary 64 6d and noticed the missing character.

I was thinking more of the I of GRATIA missing (die fill).

Do you have this 1964?