Peckris 2

I'm not sure Ron Vibbentrop agrees...

No, a brockage is where a coin gets stuck below the die, so when the next blank arrives the stuck coin imprints itself on it giving an incuse version of the entire design.

The 'compelling reason' is whether there's a currency version of the proof coin (e.g. the shilling) or whether the 1927 exists only as a proof, e.g. the threepence.

Looks like a cud?

Wow. I've seen the "original" (which you have?) and have always assumed - correctly or not - that it's a proof or pattern created to test the actual true non-mule type that would be seen in 1927. By the way, D+d cannot be a mule, unlike the actual 1926ME - it's what the 26ME WOULD have been if they hadn't been in such a hurry to 1) get the small supply of 1926 pennies where they were unexpectedly needed, and 2) were fully resourced supervising the changeover to the Modified Effigy for all denominations, plus preparing the new reverses for 1927.

Seriously? Or joking? If you really have, are you up for selling one of them?

I would say poor strike, as the lettering on the garter is perfect, and that's among the first areas to wear. Difficult to grade without seeing in hand, but I would say the second one is AUNC.

I never logout so can't comment on that. However if I try to see messages or notifications, it just spins forever without letting me in to see anything. Also, I can't seem to 'Like' posts - there's just a warning message about 'reacting to this content'.

I'm not an expert on the Anne pattern farthings!

That's supposed to be silver??

Sorry to burst your bubble Paddy, but I'm almost certain from the pictures that it's NOT a recessed ear.

The light striations in the obverse fields indicate it might well have been wiped or cleaned in the past. As for polishing - is the mirror finish only in the fields but not the raised design (difficult to tell from those pictures)? If yes, then not polished, but if shiny all over then it most likely has been.

His last name wasn't Kuryakin by any chance?

Ok, but you did say "the US stole the silver from the people as did the UK earlier"

You'll have to be more specific - this topic is 13 years old!

That's exactly what I'm referring to.

Difficult one. The obverse looks good - VF I'd say - but I do have some problems with the reverse, which looks somewhat too detailed for a coin of this grade. Having said that, this type did have a wider/thicker/more protective rim on the reverse compared to the obverse, so it may be kosher. If it is, then you have a very nice coin.

Yes, probably repunched. You can in fact see traces of something underlying - just above the I, between the red lines.

I'd be very interested to learn the sources you used for the knowledge you've acquired? No accusations, I'm just genuinely interested!

Not quite sure what you're saying? The Mint stopped using 92.5% silver from 1920 as the price of silver during WW1 had risen to the point where it exceeded the face value of the coins being struck. Yes, it came down again a few years later, but the Mint were never going to reverse their decision. The same thing happened after WW2 when silver was abandoned altogether but this time it never came down to make using it for coins cost-effective. I'd treat YouTube videos with a large pinch of salt!

It's not the thinness - it's the recessed area as you say. On the left coin you can clearly see a hollow surrounding the ear which is absent on the Unc example.

Those prove my point about it being easier to see on more worn examples - the ear on those is far better preserved than you'd expect looking at the obverse as a whole.

You're thinking of skanga!

For me it grades AUNC with lustre. A nice coin at the right price (I wouldn't care to say what that would be!)

It's a weird one - I remember when I was searching through bank bags as a schoolkid in the late 60s; now and again I'd see 1915 or 1916 pennies where the head just 'looked weird', especially around the ear. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I did notice each one when it appeared. It may be that the difference is more obvious on a more worn penny than on one that's EF or better? In other words, the ear is less worn than it should be and seems a bit more sunk than on normal examples.