Peckris 2

A single rare bronze, whatever the emperor, wouldn't be classed as treasure trove. In fact, AFAIK, single coins never are.

Not to mention Spinal Tap...

You would expect to see the whole date, yes. However if it was only partly clogged so that the 4th digit was in lower relief, it would be the first to be worn away fully. My guess is that it's a late 1861 (Obverse / Reverse being the commonest types, i.e. as used for 1862-69) with the 1 worn away and not leaving any traces.

Yeah, that's a possibility also.

A farmer, a priest, and a lawyer were travelling across country when they hit a small town and decided to stay overnight at the inn. The landlord said "Sorry guys, I can only put 2 of you up, but there's room in the barn for one of you." The farmer said "It's my day job, I'll sleep in the barn." An hour later there's a thunderous knock at the door. The landlord opens it and finds the farmer there. "Sorry mate, your cockerel thinks it's dawn and won't stop crowing, I can't sleep there." The priest says "If it was good enough for our Lord, it's good enough for me. I'll sleep there." An hour later there's a thunderous knock at the door. The landlord opens it and finds the priest there. "Sorry, your cow is pregnant and won't stop lowing. I just can't sleep." They all look at the lawyer until he shrugs and says, "Ok, if I must, I must" and stomps off to the barn. An hour later there's a thunderous knock at the door. The landlord opens it and finds his cockerel and cow there.

Could be die damage - if you cast your gaze onwards to the bottom left of the X you will see that it's missing its serif.

I don't have a book recommendation - I'm sure others have? However, the things you list are not errors as such - they are deliberate changes to a die. It is quite possible that such are intended to correct a mistake made, but as those are down to 'human error' then there can be no definitive attribution. Some though are down to re-use of a die in particular overdates.

Thanks, but I'm off to bed, very tired! I might listen though see if anyone else asked.

I just had a look, and it looks very much like the later obverse has been dropped into an altered obverse where the original (older) one has been cut out, in the way that double header coins are created.

I think I'd probably be quite high, having advanced MS ... but there's a theory that people with damaged immune systems would have to have the antibody injection and I don't think that's ready?

Ditto the supposed 4 (or more?) separate varieties of the 1957 'calm sea' halfpenny, which mostly seem to concern the tail length of the 7 and its precise pointing. Most of us probably couldn't care less! Just knowing you have a high grade calm sea is enough for most of us I'd guess.

You wouldn't get anything in your Inbox (the envelope symbol up top) but you might get a Notification (the bell symbol).

If you prefix a predec member's name with @ it highlights their name - @Rob @Peckris 2 @coinkat. I don't know if that generates a Notification (above)?

Yes, there is an overall lack of sharply clear detail on the Type I, not only in the areas mentioned. Just one thing : did the Mint also sell their crowns in the Festival of Britain cardboard cases? I appear to have one such that is apparently Type II

Pictures were also missing (at first) in the 1951 Crown topic. It doesn't hurt to remind members that asking us to comment on detail description needs a relevant picture!

Another difference is the horse's head - much more detail on the Type II I think Rob may have the answer : the dies used at the Festival of Britain may have either been a different engraving, or were allowed to wear more than the Mint equivalents.

@coinkat !!!

If it looks like fake news, if it walks like fake news, if it quacks like fake news...

I have several but they're scattered, I also have a 51 proof set. I don't have the manual dexterity these days, but if you get no other replies I'll try and look a couple out.

Yes, I can certainly see those differences. Could the Type II be from the proof sets? If Type I is vastly more common then that could be the reason.

Your attachment isn't. Nor is the link to PCGS world coin forum. FWIW I have not seen any real difference, but is this the proof you're talking about? It could be a heavily processed image.

Do these also apply to the earlier booklet he sent out in the late 90s?

I'll go £95 [If the seller is reading this, the words "I'll go" under no circumstances constitute an offer to purchase...]

I've dipped for 5 seconds with only a slight loss of lustre.

I didn't. Wonder if he has a predec app ?