Peckris 2

I didn't see any claim in the description that it's a flaw? But I agree with you, it looks like a deliberate punch.

I think the "list value" in the early 70s was very much nominal-only - your chances of getting even half that from a dealer was nil. However, what is surprising is that pre-47 silver was being bought even then at ?twice ?4x face value, in any condition, so whoever put them into circulation obviously didn't realise this. I do remember the occasional high grade florin turning up, as I was a Birmingham student 70-73, but not in the quantity you saw. The whole point of florins and shillings being the same size was that their value equated exactly to 10p and 5p, which meant that they could be introduced from 1968 and got the public used to decimals 3 years before D-Day, making the transition gradual and much easier. The cost of production was absolutely not relevant at that time, but when their intrinsic value began to exceed their face value (and remember how rampant 70s inflation was; 1967-68 RPI bore no relation to 1990 RPI) then the Mint took the obvious step of reducing the size of all CuNi from 1990-1997. The old shilling vanished in 1990, and the florin 2 years later, so if the article says "having shillings & florins still around in 1990s was just a bit silly", it's barely even true! I'm very surprised that Coin News should not understand this.

Should have kept it - it will soon be worth more!

Free post - you can see it propping up the door on the right of the picture..

That's exactly why it survived - there was a big public protest at its imminent demise (it was to disappear in 1971), so the Mint relented and it hung on for another 9 years. It all goes to make the story of decimalisation even longer and more complex. And that's without the ridiculous theory - STILL being touted in a Facebook nostalgia group - that decimalisation caused 70s inflation!!!

Just a slight shame about the scratch on the cheek.

I think that's the obverse identified - Maria 1 of Portugal. The reverse could be something like this: Except it's upside down in the original image. What looks like STAL could well be ET AL following (perhaps) PORTUGALIAE. AL being the start of ALGARBIORUM, which the website says is the Azores, though I'd say that Algarbiorum is the Latin name of the Algarve, which is close enough. If correct then this is almost certainly a Reis denomination, though quite which I don't know enough to say.

There's also DEI GRATIA on the reverse. It could be STAL or STAI. Then LERIO or possibly LEPID or any combination. I tried Googling but nothing has come up, sorry. What I would guess is that it looks like something from the mid 17th to late 18th Century.

I would say not, but difficult to tell from those photos. There arent cleaning hairlines present so I'd say probably not, and maybe the difference between obverse and reverse is due to it being stored with one face down and never turned?

One flaw in that theory : there's both large and small pictures of that coin, and there's only large pictures of the coins with high estimates.

I thought Malt came from Japan? "Distilled on the bonny bonny banks of the Okinawa".

Michael Gouby has an AUnc 1981 currency 10p on his list for £100, as he claims it's rarer than the Kew! He won't get it of course, but even so...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so much of yellow/green toning, ESPECIALLY when it largely hides the standing figure of Britannia. I'll be absolutely gobsmacked if it reaches estimate, on this side of the Atlantic at least.

Am I missing something? Lot 46 (1902 florin) has an estimate £1000-£2000. Is there a rare variety I'm not aware of?

Pretty much.

Thanks Mike. Lots 109 and 112 have large pictures on the pdf I'm looking at .. which makes me ask, How on earth do they certify the halfpenny as a definite proof (£5000-£8000), while the penny (112) is described as 'prooflike' (£200-£250) only? I defer to the experts of course, but I do wonder how they made that distinction. Could all be just a matter of opinion.

A direct link would be useful.

Purely guesswork but.. this was the first 3 in a date since bun pennies. Could the open 3 be the first attempt which was replaced after an unsatisfactory production run?

Classic result of the horrible red card case of the 1950 proofs having an effect on (presumably) the side facing upwards.

From those pictures, and the one Mike posted, it looks very much as though the serif was added separately. Maybe due to a later decision to add one, or perhaps because it was difficult to engrave a 3 + serif in one go?

Quite so. One thing hard Brexiters just will not accept is that there are very many reasons people voted the way they did in 2016, on both sides. Who knows what the sentiments are now, but if there is to be a second referendum (based on what we now know rather than the vague information and promises made 3 years ago) then both sides must accept the outcome, whatever it is. You say "unfortunately" but in the case of Ireland and Denmark, the voters overturned the result of the previous referendum so it wasn't their government who decided the outcome. The case of Greece is different - the government there ignored the result of the referendum and settled a deal with the EU. You'd have thought that Greek government would have been thrown out at the next election but amazingly they were re-elected. I think the FIRST referendum did untold harm to the political system already, but as we may be seeing seismic changes in the traditional 2-party FPTP system, that may not prove to be a bad thing in the long run. A single party exerting a stranglehold for 5, 10, 15 years is not really a good system for the modern era.