Peckris 2

It may just be a temporary glitch, but today the main Unread Content button missed loads of topics, which I gathered from the bottom of each topic which showed other unread posts. Yet the main Unread page showed only one topic per forum unread.

No, this was strange behavious on just one day - it only showed one post per forum even though there were several more. But it's ok now.

Sarawak, Sarawak, karakakola ka karakak (karakak karakak) Sarawak, shy shy Sarawak... (Some of you will now be scratching your heads and saying "Wha--?")

Paywall. Sorry...

When you're in a wheelchair it's a lot easier to negotiate a computer than a book. Anyway, the newer Macs are very low on power as they're using 5nm chips, and before long will be down to 3nm which consume ridiculously little power.

Do you mean ESC or the Standard Catalogue?

nevertheless, it's a very nice spoon!

"Bob" pronounced as in Blackadder Goes Forth, of course...

Apparently someone here messaged her in her dimondgirl guise and addressed her as 'marleybob' - he says she never replied which doesn't surprise me in the least!

Because *IF* (and it's just an if...) the pennies were struck just to test out the new electronic presses, then it makes sense they weren't testing dies but merely the equipment. If that wasn't the reason, then yes, it's all up for grabs.

...

Au contraire: the very few examples of London Mint "no H" 1882 pennies surely proves that only one die set was used. Moreover, the examples extant could quite possibly have been struck in order to test the new electronic minting apparatus; given that the entire mintage for pennies had been 'farmed out' to Heatons, there would have to be a special reason for striking a few pennies at London. Testing the equipment seems as good a reason as any, and once struck, the few examples for testing would have been released into circulation as no-one would have thought then that the existence or otherwise of a mintmark would have been of interest. (!) If a coin leaves the Mint with no H , then it is definitely a "no H " wherever struck. But given the very large number that appear on eBay (worn), it's clear they left the Mint WITH an H and it has been worn or filed away; however if such an example with the wrong dies is in high enough condition e.g. VF, one would then - in all reasonable suspicion - look to the expertly created 1933 penny fakes and strongly suspect that a machinist had been at it. As for 1922 cents with no D caused by die fill, fetching large sums, I guess that indicates the gulf between US and UK collecting. We had a 1961 halfcrown variety with the designer initials "EF" missing on the reverse; initially this was thought to be a die error and examples fetched a pretty modest premium over book price. Once it was discovered that the 'error' was caused by die fill, interest fell away quite quickly, to the extent that you will find no reference to them now.

Also, the 2 looks a bit suspicious, with a definite vertical change in colour to the left. Given the expertise with which machinists can drop a 3 into the last digit of a 1933 penny - often with little or no sign of disturbance - it's not too big a stretch to think it could be done with a 2, especially given the monetary value involved (reworked 1933s only fetch a few hundred..). Martin's negative picture is of interest too.

On the other hand, if the only "no H " specimens that aren’t that die combination are extremely worn, then it's too much of a coincidence to think that no better example exists anywhere; I'm happy to believe the H on these has worn right away.

Someone could be about to be badly burned. I think we should send her a PM saying she should end the listing or else.

"Luke... hsssshhh hhhsssss... I am your optician"

Not surprised - it must be as rare as the 1933, if not rarer!

That compares nicely to the one I got off Richard last year. 😊

That's where my own design of database comes into its own. I began it in the mid-90s - before that it was in a little book, where the dates before early 90s were just the year. I'd be lost without my database, but it has many backups including a couple in the cloud.

FWIW I've seen many many wide dates in that series and don't regard them as significant. However, I've not seen an example of 1895 before, so yes, scarce indeed!

Possibly because bronzing copper made more sense than bronzing bronze?

I assume Peck was referring to currency pieces? And presumably when he says "care must be taken" he's talking about beginners, or experts making hasty, superficial, lazy, or downright dishonest judgements?