Peckris 2

That would place it around the time of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Fascinating to speculate it may have been struck there to demonstrate minting machinery, just as the 1951 crown was struck at the Festival of Britain.

The 1900 is the best grade - edging towards EF. The 1891 is at least F but perhaps a bit better The 1853 has too little hair detail to rate F but getting there The others are scrap I'm afraid

It may or may not attract enough interest to eventually be classed as a variety. Do some research, write an article, and who knows? Gouby listed the 1946 ONE' and claimed it was scarcer than the 1926ME. I used his note in my ultimately successful effort to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, which would have increased collector interest several times over.

I agree with all that. However I'd lay the blame not with Freeman but with Coin Monthly! I started collecting as a schoolboy in the late 60s and the very first issue I bought had a Beginners Page featuring (did they call them "varieties"? Can't remember..) three pennies, two of which have been mentioned here: the 1897 O.NE and the 1946 ONE' - plus a Vic copper penny though I don't recall which date or where the extra dot was. I think that as a result of that notoriety, those particular anomalies became accepted as varieties.

What is, and is not, a variety is something of a 'grey area'. Decades ago, 1961 halfcrowns without the engraver initials EF on the reverse were considered to be a variety. However as soon as it became clear that it was the result of a filled die, it disappeared from the list of varieties overnight. Only very rarely are such things classed as varieties, the exceptions being things like the 1946 ONE' penny. They are accidents of the minting process rather than design changes and therefore only collected by a small group of people.

I have an iPhone 15 Pro Max and it's now my main camera.

Were they the band that had a big hit with Carabao D'Amour?

It looks to me like a repunched R (not extreme). The underlying letter looks offset to the left and a bit lower, and I can certainly see the traces of the right leg of the R

Topless unless my eyes deceive me!

"Your coin will be carefully packaged in protective materials". WHY???

That size would make it a shilling. The one that's dated 1711 is the "no E" type (E is for Edinburgh where many of the post-Union - England and Scotland - coins were minted, and the E would be below the bust). The other shilling we can't see the date of, but it's a "plain angles" type - i.e. there is just blank space between the shields of the royal arms; the alternative would be roses or plumes between them.

I suppose we'll have to arrive at the identity of whoever it is/was by a process of elimination. Could you give us a teeny weeny clue - a long term member or more recent? (Ah, no need. I've seen another 'Guest' post where it was edited before the member left...)

It's a very specialised area - I would guess that the vast majority of collectors aren’t especially interested, or see them negatively as a defect?

No!

It's a bit confusing as the so-called 'single line' actually isn't - it's double but the lines are so close together it appears single, unless you view it through a magnifier

Freeman estimated they were about 1 in 20 - i.e. 5% - based on his enormous survey of circulating coins in the 60s. Good luck with getting a high grade - I bought one from Colin Cooke in the 90s, he told me then that top grades of it are rare.

Just to add a bit more: the first few years of the changeover to bronze saw a helluva lot of repunching of date digits and legend letters. Bronze is a harder metal than copper, and the coins were thinner in size, so dies got worn relatively quickly. As well as that, the Mint is reported to have experienced a lot of problems caused by the change of metal, which the huge number of varieties (major, minor, and micro) in the first few years can attest to.

I'd say those are more than reasonable!

Yes, most certainly a worn die. And a truly shocking price which would be way too high even for a good strike UNC example. Here's a much better example at a reasonable price: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/157378763239?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338946167&toolid=20006&loc=&customid=4581527531114051_710033490_o.9beeaa501cf11ef92efac014f4958c05&msclkid=9beeaa501cf11ef92efac014f4958c05

Nor can you get a satisfactory explanation for his leader's £5m bung!

isn't that where Bowie played his final Ziggy Stardust gig (and hadn't told his bass player and drummer)?

the left hand coin - no brainer

That obverse is such an obvious repro

I used to keep a few, purely for amusement.

I saw them 6 times altogether - 5 with Gabriel, once without. If you want to see the nearest thing to an actual Genesis show these days, Steve Hackett's tours usually focus on a particular era, much as Nick Mason's 'Saucerful of Secrets' tours concentrated on pre-DSOTM Floyd. Hope you enjoy the show! (Just watched The Musical Box on YouTube, at Hammersmith Odeon - they seem pretty good )