Rob

The only commemorative 50p dates are 1973 (EEC), 1992 (EEC presidency) &1994 (D-Day 50th) for the old (larger) sized issues, but since the introduction of the smaller pieces, there has been a commemorative every year and sometimes 2. Or sometimes 29. In 1992 there were both standard and commemorative reverses. 1994 was D-Day only. The small ones have been issued in both standard and commemorative.

As I was informed when I tried to interrupt an attempt, Ebay's fraud dept have a policy of not dealing with members of the public, only the police. Individuals are therefore p'ing in the wind if they think eBay will stop fraudulent acts on their behalf or if you try to report it to them. You will probably only bypass the system because you have reported an item that is not as described which is against ebay rules rather than against the law. As far as I was aware, selling something you don't own is effectively fraud, so as a rule you are on a hiding to nothing if you try to be a good citizen. Selling a triple unite based on the image posted in the listing is therefore as described. Rhetorical question, but why bother?

You could find either in change if someone has broken up the set and spent them.

I'll probably put that into LC next time as somebody would want it. At around 3p it hasn't broken the bank, so no rush to cover costs..

Thanks Steve. I'm not going to retire on it, it's just that I don't follow pennies with a great deal of enthusiasm.

F164A is much more exciting Rob! On a personal level, neither are exciting. It isn't something that would grace a collection - it's horrible. i.e. one where I would prefer the attractive red felt On a more serious note, it has marginally less wear than AC's on the reverse, the obv is similar.

Thanks Declan, I didn't think I would make a fortune on it. The only other thing of note was an F164A, but at least there is data on that variety on the LC site.

I just picked up a load of shi*e and it happened to have an F175 around the fine mark on the obverse, the reverse a bit weaker from ghosting..

As the title reads. It clearly isn't a stratospheric piece, but must be elevated to some degree. Thanks.

I would take the 1837 penny every time.

Happens all the time.

Very good question! Some get included, some don't. It's all down to who compiles the literature. This one has been in all the books for years, so it's widely recognised as a variety, when strictly speaking, it ain't. What makes die fill NOT a variety, when a die flaw is? I don't think either should be varieties in the hyped up way they are. It isn't a case of unambiguous varieties where there is a clear legend error for example, but a case of a change in die state which people initially wanted to highlight to make a case for something more valuable than it should be - because they had one or more stashed away. They serve to satisfy the individual's desire for self importance and from a collecting point of view permit an expansion of the collection. As long as there have been reference books, there have been entries which are questionable. From the die filled ESC 773A - no colon after OMN on a 1926 2/6d, to the die flaw inverted A in GEORGIVS 1722 1/2d (P802). There are an infinite number of sub-divisions of the variety whether it is the die fill progressing or in the case of Nicholson 194 http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part3.html clearly shows the inverted A to be an extended flaw to the left of the V - yet people still persist in calling it an inv. A for V error. Again we have an infinitely variable error. All these errors do more to satisfy the individual, than to act as a rigorous categorisation of variety. Both categories are a function of die use and should be recognised as such. I include the silly random dots in legend in this category, such as the Irish sounding O'NE PENNY, or the 1946 flaw. They have a place in a die study, but inflated prices for general wear and tear features is unwarranted.

£120-130 is probably about right. It's a bit better than VF and close to gVF, but nowhere near EF as the flattening on the laurels is wear as opposed to a weak strike or die fill. I would take 130. The reverse might be slightly better, but is fuzzy. Even with a tailwind, I would say £150-160 tops.

I do indeed. Thank you.

I don't understand why halfpennies are so difficult to shift. They are much cheaper than pennies, only slightly more expensive than farthings, probably a bit harder to find than the other two in top grade, but the larger of the two denominations that have been around since 1672. Collectors prefer larger module coins for some reason, so they ought to tick a lot more boxes than they do in practice. Ship reverses only cover a couple of decades. Britannia reverses cover nearly 3 centuries. You can pick up an EF or better early G3 halfpenny for a few hundred pounds. Try finding a much younger bun head penny in top grade that isn't a couple hundred minimum. The only bun head halfpenny you are likely to pay 4 figures for is a top end letter by lighthouse 1862. They're cheap.

I'm not sure whether the decimal point should be moved one or two places to the left. Somewhere close to one I suspect. Most of the olympic issues will have been bought by non-collectors, so I suspect the collector base to be a little thin. How many people actively collect mint state decimal coins? Lots of people collect from change, but they usually draw the line at spending a premium to face value. Having said that, I have noticed a few people buying decimals of all denominations at fairs. 3 or 4 years ago there were only occasional purchasers, now they are regular visitors to the table.

Have you tried emailing Jeff Cope? He doesn't have it.

You have fallen into the trap like so many people who know little or nothing about coins - they automatically assume they have found the rarest of the potential options. The gold pattern on the first link is unique or nearly so. It is solid gold, not plated, so you wouldn't find underlying copper which is what the dark marks are when you rub it. Contemporary forgeries are common and are typically a copper core with a silver wash applied. They may also be brass. Both of these degrade in the earth, but the outcome will depend on the pH of the soil, though corroded is the norm. They were made because people could make money from counterfeiting. Nothing has changed. There was a national shortage of all metals during the Napoleonic Wars leading to a hike in prices. This in turn had a knock on effect on the coins which were frquently trading above the value at which they were previously issued. The mint wasn't going to make coins with a face value of less than the cost of the metal. Forgeries were usually lightweight - this was the counterfeiters' profit.

Thanks Colin

It all depends on whether people brought silver to the mints for coining. As the coinage was changed every three years approx. by a new design, the existing one is likely to have been superseded as soon as possible, but it is unlikely a blanket ban on striking would be imposed. The world was full of current coins, so adding a few others of the previous monarch whilst awaiting instructions would not upset anyone.

wish I could. sorry.

If anyone has copies of the following, please could they send me scans as follows: Royal Mint Report 1963 (pages specifically referring to the Petition Crown) The Mint by Sir John Craig p.151-158 Thanks.

Welcome . We have already met.

Yep. Been there. It's basic, but good. And the locals eat there too.

I was assuming it had been deciphered correctly in hand. Anyway, the date doesn't matter because it's a grotty example of a base forgery/token whatever, so no real value.