Peckris 2

Pictures of said coins would not only be appreciated, but are a must!

Welcome to the forums You can always ask here for advice, especially about where to buy from, and what to get. What are your main interests?

Creating those historic prices was a right bit of hard work! So I've only done it for coins in my collection, but luckily I've got all the relevant Seaby/Spinks for the years listed.

I created my own database set of tables using FileMaker Pro - this is just four of the tables showing one of the coins:

wouldn't be a joke in America where they pronounce it ‘booey’ not ‘boy’!

there's a hammered forum here

my best guess - and that's all it is - is that they might have been an attempt to try and resolve all the problems caused by conversion from large thick copper to smaller thin bronze. The sheer number of varieties that occur between 1860 and 1862 shows the scale of the issues they had, the repairs needed, and the huge number of dies involved.

the 1806 is a halfpenny not penny - but quite common in that grade and not worth expensive treatment. if you didn't mind the resulting retoning (paler) you could immerse overnight in balsamic vinegar which would dissolve the verdigris into darker patches. not to be done on a more valuable coin of course

if anything at all it might be a 6 … or a cud

that is alarmingly convincing for a repro

the 1929 is a florin not a shilling - as you can see from the reverse!

That's long overdue, but how could it be done?

To give just one example : Satin numbers (John Jerraims?) which are assigned by one expert to his post-Freeman observations of new varieties. However, we then have to have Peck, Freeman, Gouby, Satin, numbers. It does make life confusing but what other way is there?

Ok, I take that point, but… 1. it’s an obverse / reverse combination unknown on circulation pennies and therefore surely desirable? 2. it could very strongly be argued that NONE of the 1933 pennies was intended for circulation. Nevertheless an incredible collection.

Well, that is a pretty awesome collection, and yes I'm envious! Can I make two corrections and an observation on what I've seen so far? 1. The mintage figure for the 1869 only accounts for all pennies minted in that year. An unknown but significant number of these were dated 1868. 2. OMNIUM does not mean a long life - it’s part of OMNIUM BRITANNIARUM meaning “(ruler) of all the Britons”, OMNIUM meaning “of all”. 3. One penny that you may still be lusting after is the ?proof 1926ME that has the non-mule, i.e. 1927, reverse, of which I believe only 1 is known?

That reminds me of the reason pewter beer tankards have glass bottoms. It was so drinkers could spot the “king’s shilling” in the bottom of the drink they'd been bought by the press gang - they could then refuse the drink and avoid being press ganged into the navy.

Very interesting piece, but hopelessly overestimated.

Not a hammered coin, so posted in the wrong forum (I only noticed because I generally mark all Hammered posts as ‘read’ as I have zero interest in them).

I'm old enough to remember when 1961 halfcrowns had a variety “EF missing”, the designers initials below the reverse shield. Of course this was just a filled die and that ‘variety' has not been listed for decades.

There are also scarce varieties in 1888 and 1889 where the second I of VICTORIA is missing part of the upper serif (die infill) making it look like a 1. Only significantly more valuable in higher grades.

Good condition but - unless it’s the photo? - it may have been polished. By the way, PENNY is on the reverse, not obverse which is the side with the monarch’s portrait.

The penny ha’penny is a currency, not a Maundy, coin.

Surely both coins have had the I of FID repaired? They both have a pronounced curve underlying the left hand side of the upright, which can't be an aspect of the font I'd have thought. Yes I agree about the die flaw in relation to the date of strike, so it would definitely seem to be two dies. That would point to the punch used - not the master - having the flaw? The top coin - being later - could also have a slightly more worn die, which would account for the difference in the F, which can also be seen on the D as well.

This is the halfcrown reverse - the design (like the shilling) is a bit of a dog’s dinner, but this proof makes it look quite good.

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.