Peckris 2

The difference in head size is quite dramatic, and you get a feel for it. However, 3 quick ways of spotting it: 1. the point where the chins meet the neck is well over halfway down on the 2d, about halfway on the penny 2. the back of the head is vertically over the back edge of the lower bust on the 2d, but WELL to the right of it on the penny 3. On the 2d, the chin is vertically above the front of the lower bust, on the penny it's the tip of the nose It does make you wonder why the same bust wasn't used on both denominations.

Is that the 1974 edition? It does seem strange that the Mint should give false information, unless the relevant records and personnel had gone by the mid-70s. My research and article were done mid-90s. I would say that when the ESC were writing, the 1921 shilling with the pre-1920 obverse was not yet known about, but when you compare it with the normal 1921, the difference is obvious and yet both were struck from the same alloy. In one sense the Mint was correct: it IS the same bust but with minor changes to lower the profile. It is not, as in the case with the ME, a new design.

If you're going on pictures alone, and don't have the dimensions, the easiest way is to glance at the portrait. Although the same original design on both denominations, there's more of it on the penny, making the head proportionately smaller. I'll try to find examples to show side by side (twopence first) :

Someone got it for £205 - bit of a bargain there, I'd say.

It's a twopence, quite possibly genuine?

I have two pieces of evidence that the obverse WAS redesigned: 1. an illustration of the 3 silver obverses used *note that George's nose points between V and S pre-1920, but direct to S post-1920 2. A comparison of two halfcrowns done for an article I wrote for Coin News long ago, as a result of which Coincraft amended their catalogue preface to admit that there had been a new obverse: ......................................................................................................1915 1923 (1) Size of portrait from top of head to tip of truncation 24mm 25mm (2) Presence of serifs on ‘E’ of ‘DEI’ and ‘REX’ ................ yes no (3) ‘I’ of ‘DEI’ points to a border tooth........................... no yes (4) Hollow in the back of the neck............................ no yes (5) Large or small ‘A’ in ‘GRA’ ................................. large small (6) Distance of truncation tip from border............... 1mm 1.5mm

I'd suffered a bad example of a 1948 3d for too many years - my 1946, 49, 50 and 51 were all better! - so when this UNC example turned up for (I think) £39 I just had to have it and my offer of £35 was accepted. It's actually better in hand than the pictures, being virtually BU.

It was more than just a new alloy - the obverse was recut with a shallower portrait to try to reduce ghosting. This means that the hair detail was 1) less crisp, and 2) wore much faster.

Yes, the bottom part of the crown is usually (always?) mushy.

Yes, that sounds like a dipped coin.

I'd vote "not a proof".

Not a chance. Dipping doesn't give a mirrored polished look. If anything it makes silver more dull, though does remove unsightly tarnish or bad toning.

And no-one knows how many 1981 currency 10p's survived - from the following year until demonetised in 1992 they were 'sets only' so it's probable that most of the mintage was never issued. Put it this way - you NEVER see them offered now. Yet their low book price is laughable.

You've already been "had" over Victoria! However, the obverse of the IOM 1798 halfpennies is the same as the 1797 copper 2d and 1d. And the 'cartwheel' design is also the same.

I don't think £25 is a lot for a BU 1871 space filler - especially as the repro is scarily realistic.

Do we know why cartwheel halfpennies were never minted? Yet they were, the following year, for the IOM.

There was a documentary showing the tech involved in building the pyramids - apparently watering the sand ahead of the rollers made them much easier to move.

Further evidence, I believe, that 1858 was intended to be the last year of copper coins. Then delays struck and we got 1859 and even some 1860.

Mality. Mality. Mality. Mality. . . . . Well, that's got the formalities out of the way.

When you're sat in Row Z And the ball hits your head That's Zamora...

How did you know it was the same coin/seller?

But it actually gives it as a % - e.g. "99.9% positive feedback"

I think I've only ever once seen a BH auction using different software?

How is it possible to get a feedback higher than 100% ???