Peckris 2

That's the point I was making: either wreath crowns should be regarded as proofs, or - as generally accepted - NOT proofs. In other words, describing certain examples as proofs is not valid IMO. There may be a few VIP wreaths as you say but I don't think those for sale are. 1951 Crowns from the proof sets are not noticeably different to those issued in cardboard boxes, which have often been described as 'prooflike'. It's something of a grey area when you have proofs and specimens which can not really be separated as such.

That's a hell of a time ago!! I would have responded to a reminder... Oh well.

Balloon festival. (No! Really?)

Damn. I'd have loved to make you an offer on that. (If you remember, davidrj's F176 wasn't, though @Rob and I both thought it was). Oh well. Sailor V.

A picture I took in Exeter Cathedral, where the sun shone through a stained glass window:

In one sense, all wreath crowns - like George III crowns - could be considered 'proofs', being very limited issues struck on special dies for collectors. No-one has defined officially whether 1951 crowns are proofs, or 'prooflike'. I don't think those few wreaths for sale are any different from UNC specimens.

I'm no expert, but I think the main drawback is the use of both the circular kaleidoscope graphic AND the photographic colourful interior. If you used either but not both, it would be a huge improvement?

Unlike the obverse (which COULD be a proof) that reverse obviously isn't. Do we know the process by which coins were bronzed, and if via a treated die, could that have been used for a few currency pieces?

Hungerford, near Dresden?

I didn't know that either. It would be great to see pictures of an example or two.

Just specify the pixel count you want after you've cropped. Then you can get the pictures the same size, though the slight difference above isn't an issue for me!

Impressive research! My conclusion would be that you could generate more interest if you were able to separate true varieties from Mint sloppiness (cuds, graininess, wearing dies). I feel collectors would more interested in the former than the latter (which as you've recgnised yourself, there are very few disciples of),

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victorian-1862-Penny-In-Good-Collectable-Condition-R63-/325160503448?hash=item4bb5138898%3Ag%3Ak-EAAOSw7A1iY93V&nma=true&si=Rxbv5INqUmg1Ders9n0juMr1c2k%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

My own estimation is that it's scoring - if graffiti I can't make out anything that makes sense.

AU - but nothing special, a bit shabby in fact. Perfectly average, I used to sell those for £1 and there weren't many takers.

Wants me to sign in to AOL where I don't have an account, nor want one.

OMG. How many coins in it? Well, sort of... if I'm right, that's the standard obverse used in most years. However, most? of the 1970 proofs use the scarce obverse from 1956 and 1968 where I of DEI is to a space and the rim is wider

I don't need to look very far. As someone who has used Photoshop extensively, I'd estimate that any combination of Unsharp Mask, Smart Sharpen, and / or High Pass filters have been used on that image. As a picture of a genuine coin I'd always go with the London Coins image. The blue is a joke. Reminds me of nothing so much as Coin Monthly's Year Book images at the head of each type in the Blue Pages - the isolation of the main design, legend, and rim, with the fields just a blank blue. But they weren't selling coins, just illustrating the different types.

That definitely looks like a new 1953 reverse, presumably from a VIP set?

Really? "Just photography "? Even Photoshop's unsharp mask doesn't paint in lines that aren’t there to begin with.

From the two stains (coincidentally botth adjacent to different I A ), it's obviously the same coin. What I don't understand is that there is flattening of the hair above the ear on the LCS picture, but the Atlas picture shows all hair strands - especially the 1st and 3rd below the ribbon - which don't look retouched.

I think you can probably ignore the mintage figures. This was the final year of the large 10p's, outside the BU and proof sets. My thought is that the Mint overestimated demand and minted far more than ever got issued; possibly a large proportion of the strike was melted down? Michael Gouby has a couple of high grade currency examples for sale at high prices. Certainly, you don't see 1981s offered for sale otherwise, so they are presumably much rarer than the mintage suggests. Other rarities include the very rare 1983 NEW PENCE 2p, and supposedly recent 50p's such as Kew Gardens (not as rare as thought, really), the 2012 Olympic 'swimmer' 50p with the waves across the swimmer's face, the 2008 'no date' 20p though again, its rarity is exaggerated. I don't think the 1981 10p is possibly as rare as those, but it's telling that the ones on sale on eBay are all proofs (even the one described as BU UNC) and cost between £15 and £18, which is far more than proofs of other years.