Peckris 2

This is the Edinburgh to Kings Cross journey - over 4 hours long!

There's a train simulator series on You Tube - very realistic! - which clearly demonstrates that train drivers regulate their trains according to minute detail every few hundred yards or even less. A driver that is doing even 1mph over the limit would be reported if he/she hadn't braked enough in time. It's quite enlightening!!

"Circulation" includes being kept in the compartment of a purse, wallet, or even clothing. If owned by a non-regular collector it could have worn by frequent taking out, showing off, or even rubbing. The gradual wear might have taken a long time to be noticed by such a neophyte. It's telling that such worn specimens are pretty rare, so their being accepted by traders rather comes into question, especially if only a few score "circulated" in the normal way.

I did store it somewhere - if I can find it (might be a long job!) I'll post it.

That's outrageous. Even though I say they were NOT for circulation, they are legal tender, so it's possibly unlawful for banks and the RM not to change them for other currency. I think we may be using the words 'circulation' and 'currency' in different ways? It seems possible to me that you mean a coin that's neither a proof, specimen, or pattern would come under those headings? Whereas I mean that a coin that was not struck / issued to be spent by Joe Public in shops or other transactions (i.e. not part of the money supply), is neither 'for circulation' or 'currency'. By my usage, Wreath crowns (for example) were not under any circumstances struck for circulation or the mintages would have been significant, and we have it on record (somewhere) both that the Treasury abandoned crowns as an everyday denomination in the early century, and that wreath crowns were only issued in very small quantities to collectors and their ilk. The 1952 halfcorwn is a very interesting case. It is EITHER a pattern (only one ever having been struck) OR is the sole survivor from the beginning of a currency strike of 1952 halfcrowns, the rest of which were melted down when the King died. In which case - and given that the unique specimen DID circulate - it could be regarded as a circulation coin. It's certainly true that if the King hadn't died, 1952 halfcrowns would have been issued. In any case, it's not a crown!! I'm not sure what you mean by 'strict definition'? I'd still claim that a 'first year of reign' is a commemoration. What else would you call it?

Declan Magee created a customised filter to exclude all the dross from searches, which presumably could be adapted for anyone's own use?

This is getting into the realm of unwanted argument! I already said the 1902 question is open though it raises the question of why no other Ed7 crowns were issued. Wreaths were clearly NOT issued for circulation, as can be seen from the extremely low mintages; my understanding is they were issued for collectors or those who liked the design, and may have been sold via ballot? (Or perhaps that was just the precious metal proofs). 1951, 1960, and 1965 we agree were commems, though the numbers of 1965 crowns was so high (public demand?) that it could be argued they were also for circulation though I never ever saw one in change, or anyone offering one as payment. 1937 and 1953 were 'first year of reign' which by definition is a commemoration. In all my time as a collector, I have never seen a single crown of any date in circulation as currency. Never.

Believe me - finding a fully struck breastplate is very uncommon (except on the recessed ear varieties)! That's as good as it gets with a decent obverse. Lovely penny.

Also, don't forget that 2019 is the 20th anniversary of Chris Perkins' coin website - the Royal Mint should commemorate that as it's definitely more of an anniversary than the rubbish excuses they come up with to make money!

Yes, I would class 'faulty striking' as for an individual coin. However, weak strikes especially due to worn dies are quite common (some denomination years are known for it, see above) so I personally wouldn't class 'weak' the same as 'faulty' but YMMV.

Yes, commemorative as in "first year of reign". Crowns were not produced for general currency purposes after 1901 (some might argue for the 1902) and were either issued as specimen proofs (1927), in response to 'coinie enthusiasm' (wreaths), commemorating a jubilee (1935) or special event (1951, 1960, 1965), or commemorating the first year of a reign (1937, 1953). Sorry, I don't understand your point?

I think the position of the 5 is significant. But not the tail of the 9 which can be affected by die wear.

True enough - but the number for 1858 seems to dwarf any other date.

Sorry to be pedantic, but there weren't any currency 1937 crowns - they were all commemorative.

Yes, that's another example where the weaknesses on the reverse are quite normal. I'd say the BU value in Spink is for a normal strike and you could add a premium for fully struck up examples. They're scarce!

Very nice.

Nice tone. Good purchase.

I'd say 'no' - the grade refers to wear. However, a good or poor (rather than an average) strike should be part of the description and would affect the value. Another point to bear in mind is whether the coin in question is most usually encountered weakly struck; one example would be the 1895 YH farthing where the catalogue value takes into account that the reverse is generally quite weak, and a good example would carry a premium over that.

It's no wonder there are so many varieties for 1858. It was intended to be the final year for copper pennies and therefore the reuse of older dies made perfect sense - it was only the drastic delays caused by the problems with bronze that put the changeover back at least 18 months.

Agreed. (Or to put it in terms the RM understands, "a greed")

I wonder if one could treat a coin NOW, that was Unc-BU, with hypo? This could, for example, be recent but the seller hasn't made anything of it and appears to be offering it as a normal 1937. If someone was treating such pennies recently, you'd think they would say "RARE MINT TONING" or similar.

That's clearly hypo toned - but at the Mint or after? It does look just a bit too brown and lacks the purplish tinge of MT examples. It would also bring into question that the War was the reason behind Mint toning, if genuine.

Which moggel of iPad is that?