Sylvester

CIVITAS also means city in this context. You may even find some Edward pennies that state VILLA, or town. I believe Bristol would be one such example. Pre-Edward I coins normally state the moneyer and the town/city. So if you have any Long Cross or Short Cross pennies, they state things like: WILLELM ON LUND (William of London), RICARD ON WINC (Richard of Winchester), ROGER ON NICOLE (Roger of Lincoln) etc. You can find whole lists of moneyers that are currently known about - coin books/internet sites etc.

Edward I era pennies, the mint is stated in the reverse legend. The Class 9 is Canterbury - CIVITAS CANTOR The Class 10 is London - CIVITAS LONDON

I stand corrected! I am no expert on errors, it was never a speciality of mine.

This is a die clash. Basically it stems from a flaw in the design of George V's coinage. The king's head was quite large in profile and of high enough relief to mean that when the coins were struck, the metal of the blank would be pulled into the obverse side more than the reverse, leaving a ghost impression of the obverse on the reverse. The dies have thus clashed, it's also known as ghosting. It's very evident on all George V coinage from 1911-1927, it occurs on all denominations from Sovereign down to farthing. They solved the issue by making George V's head smaller from 1927 onwards.

Where is everyone? This forum used to be a real hive of activity. I used to struggle to keep up. It seems eerily still these days.

I've seen a few of these touch pieces for sale, some being hammered angels converted for the purpose and others of Charles II and James II vintages being token angel-like coins specially struck for the purpose. Some fascinating bits of history, thanks for sharing some of your wonderful collection with us! I guess, like myself, the history plays a big part of your interest in coins? It's always what drove me to get the items I've ended up with.

Has anyone found any 2023 ten pences in circulation yet without the privy mark?

I love these! Such character coins of this era have. A whole guinea worth t'boot.

Yep. I've bought a few from him, but he didn't have any Type 4s and the Type 5 was only EF, one of which I already have. No UNC for these types though.

I'm looking for BU/UNC 1992 small ten pence coins of Type 4 and Type 5. Type 4 has L,I pointing between dots on obv and 1 in 10 pointing between dots on rev. Type 5 has L,I pointing at dots on obv and 1 in 10 pointing at a dot on rev. I only have VF specimens, I would love some UNC specimens.

Out of interest, how many of you out there have managed to find the Type A reverse on the 2006 10p piece? These seem very hard to find. The 1 in the 10 points at an edge dot. These all went into circulation and seem to be a mere fraction of the mintage. All the mint sets and the vast bulk of circulation issues are Type B (between dots). See photos below. Thus far I've found 2 Type A's out of change and bought a third from eBay last week. A pretty low result rate for 17 years of searching for them. Rarer than the Kew Gardens 50p? Type A below.

I'm quite partial to a Charles I shilling, feel free to share!

Coin prices have gone bananas somewhat. Very strong indeed. Probably more a reflection of the falling purchasing power of out fiat currency.

See this thread: https://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/14903-type-4-5-1992-ten-pences/

I've certainly seen much worse Tealby pennies though!

I didn't know I had photos of these - a bit blurred, but the best I can do as I don't have the coins to hand.

It's not fake. It's a genuine coin. The 1920-22 issues were struck with manganese in the alloy, it's that metal which accounts for the awful yellowish streaking coins of this era. My Coincraft catalogue stated it was just 1920-22, but I've seen 1923 and 1925 coins in similar condition, so one wonders. They amended the alloy in 1922 to 50/50 silver to copper. It was modified again with the new coinage designs in 1927/8, they added something like zinc or tin to the copper portion, and coins from this point onwards tarnish much nicer imho.

For a Tealby that's a very clear and well struck coin! They are about the worst produced English coins of all time.

That's a great looking specimen for sure! I think the earliest types are by far the best.

True... Especially since the mint has been withdrawing the cupronickel issues and melting them down since 2013. They'll be rarer still.

Ironically, one if the prettiest hammered coins I managed to find was this Henry II short cross coin. I usually find most short cross coins a bit crude or poorly struck. This one caught my attention immediately. Sure it has a few flat areas on the high points, but it's a cracking looking coin in hand. The photos do it no justice.

I love Norman era coinage, this is one of my historical interests so no surprise really. It's always the danger of collecting coinage of this period in that you could pay thousands for an extremely rare type, for a hoard to then come along and crash the price irrevocably. I will pick up the William I and II coins one day. I did get an Henry I some years ago, I can't remember what type it was. It's locked away. I would have more if I could actually specialise, but I've always been a more general collector, and I keep getting distracted! I got a few Watford pennies though. The only one I have a photo of is below, and it's probably the least well struck of those I have.

Stunning coin, even being clipped. William I is another monarch I've yet to get. I get keep getting distracted by Stephen's!

I dabble mostly in silver coinage and I would concur, most of us are happy with one of each date. That said this might include some slight variants, perhaps overdates if well known or maybe 'small date'/'large date', 'Arabic 1/Roman I' types.