Rob

OK, so long as all existing coins don't have to be re-punched retrospectively!! Could be worse. Could be Deep Fried Mars Bar over Rampant Lion - I'll add it to my list.

I haven't seen the full article, so can't comment other than to say that this is likely to be the northern cities yet again complaining that all the English investment takes place down south, which happens because foreign companies want to be in the London area. Scotland has made an effort to secure inward investment since Holyrood opened for business and presumably this sentence reflects these concerns. Any regional development bodies are usually a waste of time, so it depends on what the above statement refers to. Scotland is definitely better served in this respect than the north of England. For all the Scots' worry about Westminster, the north of England isn't even on the map for people in government, and the further north you go the more remote you are from Westminster, whose radar ceases to function north of the Watford Gap. How about the north going on its own too and forming a country broadly based on the ancient Mercia?. The M62 corridor and north accounts for about 20% of GDP.

Overmarks are common throughout this reign. The larger gold pieces can have up to 4 overmarks on the same die. This overmark is quite logical and would have been done to extend the life of the existing dies following the previous pyx trial. The bell mark is less common than others for gold, but not rare. The coin looks a bit mushy and no better than fine and possibly polished(?), but it's a bit bright to be be certain.

Anyone with existing citizenship of the UK will presumably retain it. You can't just remove citizenship without due cause, such as being a terrorist etc, so grandfather rights would apply here. However, anyone trading in their passport for a Scottish one should not expect the same rights, though I suspect the same policy as that applies to Irish citizens would be the realistic position. Whether Scottish only passport holders would be allowed to serve with the UK's armed forces though is another matter.

Given the future of the Union is going to be decided by less than 10% of the population and it is a possibility that the Scots will vote for independence, I am surprised by the lack of discussion around how the UK will be restructed in the aftermath of the vote. In the event of a Yes vote, if the parties in Westminster don't pursue policies solely in the interests of the remaining parts of the UK, this would represent an abrogation of responsibility and the people of this country will likely hand the reins of power to a party that does have our interests at heart, for which read UKIP. It is inconceivable (to me) that the government departments should have HMRC's and other departmental functions outsourced to a foreign workforce, given their importance to the country. HMRC Cumbernauld should be repatriated to areas of the country where there are more than enough unemployed English, Irish or Welsh residents. If the Scots want to go it alone, then they should do it without expecting the UK government to subsidise their economy by continuing the status quo when it comes to public services. A messy yes we are independent, no we are not, is in nobody's interest. Scotland doesn't want Trident. OK, build a new base near Barrow to facilitate repairs. Reopen a shipyard on the Tyne or Wear to replace Rosyth, Both are feasible if you use Devonport as a stopgap measure. Milliband's claim that we would have guards on the border is not fantasy. A Scotland outside the UK and by extension outside the EU should be treated just like any other foreign country in the same position, with full customs procedures put into place. Scotland can't just walk into the EU because the new member states have to fulfil certain conditions to be eligible for membership. An exception to the rules would not go down well. A reduced UK would want to renogotiate it's relationship with the EU when it comes to contributions, as nobody could reasonably argue that this doesn't represent a material change in circumstances. That would probably mean the loss of the rebate, and that in turn would further bolster the prospects of UKIP. We live in very interesting times.

They have already done so. My 1839/41 proof halfpenny (labelled as a straight 39) is still the only one that has appeared to date (though others must be likely). It was only graded 63 so not worth having. It also had an inverted die axis (not noted). The inverted die axis example in London Coins yesterday which was a straight 39 made 700, 300 or more than the upright axis example. A William I PAXS penny of Derby bought for less than a third of market value for a coin of that mint because it was only slabbed VF50. Furthermore, the fact that there were only 3 examples of this reading in the Beaworth hoard out of a total of 6500 coins and that this hoard accounts for probably 95% of all examples of the type means it is a good proxy for absolute rarity. Shedloads of hammereds are rejected by the TPGs because they have peck marks, scratches etc. Helpfully, they always give details description and the reason for rejection rather than attributing the coin on the label. Fill yer boots. I sold a proof G3 halfpenny to a collector on the PCGS forum because he wanted one for his registry set. It came back MS62 despite previously being a proof 64 and Peck devoting a full page to the description. Bad day at the office for someone and a wasted submission fee for the collector. On the plus side, if he hasn't submitted it again for rectification then there is a nice proof halfpenny available sometime with a sub-$200 ballpark price tag.

Currency, proofs, and a few odds and sods. Despite it being modern with many things worth only a quid or two at most, it was actually a nice collection. Where he had tried to get the edges in both orientation, the second was usually taken from circulation and maybe only gVF or EF, so he kept those to spend. Notwithstanding that, it was still an exercise in dedication with a few additional pieces left over from upgrades. A bagmark was unacceptable unless he hadn't found better. Hats off..

The thing is though, decimals are increasingly collected and they have been about for more than 40 years - a lifetime for half the population. I picked up a collection of them yesterday on the way back from London Coins, virtually complete and nearly all mint state. The market for them is actually stronger than you might imagine, with serious collectors (capable of grading) participating rather than just the bloke who picks things out of change from time to time. If you include varieties such as the orientation of the edge (ok, random I know) and those in Dave's book, then you are looking at something approaching £1000 of face value (excluding the gold) and a market value considerably higher when the prices of a few rarities are included. The beauty for many people is that it is affordable and can be done on a casual basis without having to engage in frenzied bidding.

The latter unquestionably happens in the US for British coins. You only have to think back a few years when someone paid $600 for a 1901 penny simply on the basis of 'finest known' - Spink price at the time was either £15 or £30 in UNC. Other silly prices included $400 for a WW1 shilling as I recall.

Ebay had an offer last week with 100 extra free listings to be made over a 5 day period if you accepted something. This is likely to be the reason given their normal free listing quantity is now 20 per month.

The inverted 1860/59 went for 3600 and the normal one for 4200 or 4400, both to the same phone bidder. Re the inverted one, in the hand the border teeth do not look so thick as in the image. There is no double line on the second fillet and what looks like a raised dot is actually slightly inset, so was probably a small flaw. Michael Gouby gave it the ok and I must admit it looked a lot better in the hand than the image. Some bargains, some OTT and others were run of the mill. i.e. a normal sale.

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=2851&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue Looks more like 58 than 85.

I'm down tomorrow, so we will see who puts their head above the parapet. Of course, it could go to a book bid. I see Accumulator was logged in today for the first time in a while. Wonder if he will be there as it ought to appeal if ok?

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't. Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies. But that's exactly what I said, Rob... that an 1860 copper issue was a rush-job, as they thought the bronze might not get issued in time. When it was (albeit in smaller quantities than anticipated) they might have felt able to melt down what was a very much larger copper issue which was being held in reserve, but then not needed. The precious few 1860 coppers that DID get issued might well have been souvenirs that evaded the meltdown, perhaps as thank you's to everyone involved in getting the bronze out just in time? A bit of topic drift here. The original point I was making was not the circumstances under which they were made, rather the differences between the normally seen coins and this inverted die axis piece. I still haven't seen anything to reassure me that it is kosher to date. It wil be interesting to see what it goes for and who is bidding in the room.

I'm a member of the South Manchester which meets in the Nursery on Green Lane, 1st and 3rd Monday of each month (Sept - June). Alternatively you have the Lancs and Cheshire which meets at Manchester Museum on certain Saturdays, but I'm not sure which ones.

Quite a lot of reds up Newton Heath way too.

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't. Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies.

I agree. Chronologically, the inverted one would have to be the later strike given the recutting seen, but the consistency of the teeth doesn't fit with die blockage as it is too consistent. The overall mushy hair worries me too. We need someone with a database of no.WW penny images to input here. The die clash ought to be known somewhere on an 1859 penny as all the 1860s show this as far as I am aware.

Agreed, but I'm not convinced it is (genuine).

The cleaned one is a later striking if genuine because the R of VICTORIA has been recut. The lettering is thinner in general on the good one. So if later, where did the second line on the fillet come from? If you were going to add that later, you would at least re-engrave the hair in front of the earhole which has all the attributes of a copy.

Mushiness of the hair in front of the ear, extra line to the back fillet, thicker lettering on the obverse legend, less clear hair detail in the bun area. All raise questions.

The raised dot below the ear on the left coin is not in the centre. On my screen the dot is 56mm from the bottom edge, but 65mm from the top edge. As the thicker letters suggest the left one is the later coin, there is no dot on the right one, so should be a rust spot if genuine.

It has definitely been cleaned. The worrying thing for me is that the teeth on the 2 obverses are nothing like the same. Given they both have to be derived from the same obverse die given the clash below the chin and the flaw below the bun, why are they so different when there is very little apparent wear? Does anyone know how many dies were used for this date, or are there any other examples with the features of the inverted axis coin? Chingford?

Absolutely, I agree that it is a poor term to use - but I think all the TPGs use it, not just CGS. With low populations it inevitably leads to silly situations, like this 1826 'finest known' 6d, which is graded as 10 (VG) http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=retailv2_details&uin=0028502 So presumably this was just another example of a dodgy coin on ebay? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-R2-1826-SIXPENCE-George-IV-Silver-6d-Six-Pence-coin-S-3814-Garter-522-/271567703887?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D23775%26meid%3D8807698347321956939%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D10165%26rk%3D7%26rkt%3D10%26sd%3D180734551614&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=Tv947VbiGYL8mqe7nGt%252BtQqHyqU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Anyone with any ideas on this? Given the anomalies and the hefty price tag likely, I thought there might be some interest. You see, this is what happens when people post a topic like this and don't include a link. I have Googled in vain and the only reference to LCN pennies auction is this thread which is first in the Google list. Nothing else. PLEASE people, if you're going to post things like this, POST A LINK WITH IT. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2666&f=o&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2666&f=r&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2667&f=o&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=cat&l=2667&f=r&s=l The lack of interest could be that pennies are old hat having been discussed to death.