Peckris 2

Well, that is a pretty awesome collection, and yes I'm envious! Can I make two corrections and an observation on what I've seen so far? 1. The mintage figure for the 1869 only accounts for all pennies minted in that year. An unknown but significant number of these were dated 1868. 2. OMNIUM does not mean a long life - it’s part of OMNIUM BRITANNIARUM meaning “(ruler) of all the Britons”, OMNIUM meaning “of all”. 3. One penny that you may still be lusting after is the ?proof 1926ME that has the non-mule, i.e. 1927, reverse, of which I believe only 1 is known?

That reminds me of the reason pewter beer tankards have glass bottoms. It was so drinkers could spot the “king’s shilling” in the bottom of the drink they'd been bought by the press gang - they could then refuse the drink and avoid being press ganged into the navy.

Very interesting piece, but hopelessly overestimated.

Not a hammered coin, so posted in the wrong forum (I only noticed because I generally mark all Hammered posts as ‘read’ as I have zero interest in them).

I'm old enough to remember when 1961 halfcrowns had a variety “EF missing”, the designers initials below the reverse shield. Of course this was just a filled die and that ‘variety' has not been listed for decades.

There are also scarce varieties in 1888 and 1889 where the second I of VICTORIA is missing part of the upper serif (die infill) making it look like a 1. Only significantly more valuable in higher grades.

Good condition but - unless it’s the photo? - it may have been polished. By the way, PENNY is on the reverse, not obverse which is the side with the monarch’s portrait.

The penny ha’penny is a currency, not a Maundy, coin.

Surely both coins have had the I of FID repaired? They both have a pronounced curve underlying the left hand side of the upright, which can't be an aspect of the font I'd have thought. Yes I agree about the die flaw in relation to the date of strike, so it would definitely seem to be two dies. That would point to the punch used - not the master - having the flaw? The top coin - being later - could also have a slightly more worn die, which would account for the difference in the F, which can also be seen on the D as well.

This is the halfcrown reverse - the design (like the shilling) is a bit of a dog’s dinner, but this proof makes it look quite good.

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

I'd like a copy too, please

Alice Walker? I thought she was from Luther?

I did the same - but when I went to cancel they asked me choose “why” … then extended my free trial for another 30 days! And again - I think I got 3 months free altogether.

Welcome to the forums H

I've been wary of 1907 since I saw a reader’s survey in Coin Monthly in 1969 where a large number of ‘varieties' were listed, all featuring the digit 7 and nothing else! They never made it into even the Check Your Change booklets.

A real 1865/3 doesn't look anything like that, sorry.

I would doubt it, for the simple reason that an F would still have its bottom serif. My thought is that it's either die damage or a slight misstrike.

It may appear to be F (or E) over B but please note it's actually B over F/E as it's 'BRITT'. This may be something to do with the way they did the repair.

It's coming up "Lot not found "?

Maths is short for the plural 'mathematics' - how do you reckon 'math' is right??

We have a Hammered forum - for future enquiries, that's the place to post (FYI)

omg blakey, I never knew you were American

so it was way more than 950? probably a zero missing...

someone please tell me how 950 cheddar cheeses can possibly be worth £300,000?