Rob

It is on my wants list as a Hobson's Choice piece and is not displeasing to my eyes. It is ESC1476 which Rayner gave as R3. They trickle through occasionally and I would guesstimate there are probably somewhere between 10 and 20 out there, which in Rayner-speak is R4. A lot of patterns are given as R3 or R2, but the numbers appearing down the years would suggest they are rarer than that.

I've got more than 10 available too. That doesn't mean to say the one you get will be mark free though. The one in the picture isn't, and the other side isn't shown. The picture may or may not be the coin you receive.

Peter, this may come as a surprise, but I too will have to acquire a Churchill crown to fill the Oscar Nemon slot in the attributed designers section of the collection. I'm still looking for one with minimal bagmarks though. I can't bring myself to pay nearly £1K for a satin proof, but will stretch to a fiver(!) for a bagmark free one. My appointment with a man in a white coat is at 2 o'clock.

It looks almost as if the coin was picked out of a very shallow solution almost the consistency of treacle and then left without any attempt to dry it off by hand. The interesting thing is that it only appears (or at least I have only seen it) on this particular type, suggesting a deviation from the normal method. Usually the bronzing is even on the Soho pieces with the possible exception of some early pieces. Taylor's bronzing by comparison was very patchy and so many of his products exhibit irregular tones across the flan.

Could be that was the contact point at the bottom of the vessel in which the coin was being toned. Possible, but it looks as if the coin is more bronzed at the ring which contradicts the assumptions I would make for contacting surfaces where I would expect less bronzing action to occur. A possibility is that it's due to contact with a concentrated area of bronzing chemical. It isn't due to contact with the vessel rim containing the chemical because the bronzing continues outside the ring. A useful starting point would be knowing how the process is physically carried out.

That's silly. The whole set of 29 costs less than £100 from the RM. I can't believe that he has sold 29 partial sets.

Yes

Yes there are quite probably a few VIP proofs (ultra rare) that surface once in a while. Someone here will quote chapter and verse on when the last one was up for sale. I guess that means me. VIP proofs are not excessively rare as a type, but individual dates vary in rarity. They do crop up in a few (proper) sales every year, in fact the last DNW sale had a 1947 2/6d. A ball park figure for one in good condition is £500-1000 for the Ag/Cu-Ni denominations and £300-£1K for the bronze. All denominations exist as VIP proofs.

Yes. I'll post this via photobucket to save having to refer to different threads. Below left is a 1956 currency obverse, centre is a 1953 proof obverse from the RM set in the red case and right is a 1958 VIP proof obverse. All uncleaned. Although a scan washes out some of the detail and tones, the differences are obvious.

It is a currency piece that has been polished. You may well be able to see your face in the fields which you could do if it was a proof, but you won't find any sane person willing to pay £500-1K for a coin which was worth a few pounds as an uncirculated shilling, but whose value headed south following the cleaning. The legend is blocked with a cloudy deposit which is probably metal polish residue. A VIP proof has the recesses within the legend as mirror like as the main parts of the fields. And if it is 1956, I would expect it to be frosted like the others. Age old advice, but if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Probably is if the discolouration on the D at the top is relevant. The lighter areas are where the top loop of the S would be.

Why not the loft, I thought that would be quite a good place !. Not safe from burglars of course, but if it's DRY (it doesn't matter about the temperature) it could be a good storage place. It does if you have tin coins. Tin being allotropic will change its crystalline structure below 13C. If the period spent below this temperature is sufficiently prolonged, you will end up with a small heap of powder. This is tin pest which seems to start from the inside and work its way out for some reason. It manifests itself as the blistering seen on some coins where the change of state has only partly completed. Below is an example where a few blisters have formed.

Easy Coinery. You return to the subject at twenty to two in the morning - like now. Patience isn't a problem either because the same questions are asked every couple of months or so, year in year out. We get quite used to it. If you hang around long enough and become fully conversant, chances are you will end up doing the same!! Peck - The earlier comment about not being able to tell easily, I was referring to a single coin without any reference present. Unless you are familiar with a type or what purports to be normal, then you are unlikely to be able to make an educated decision.

The penny hasn't quite dropped. The RM produced proof sets in 1826, 1831, 1839, 1853, 1887, 1893, 1902, 1911, 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951 and 1970, plus each year subsequent to this date for collectors. Single coins from these years that you may encounter are usually from broken up sets. They are struck from polished dies and blanks with the exception of the 1902 which had a matte finish - a silky non-mirror finish. The effigies may be brilliant and smooth or frosted. Early pieces are frosted, whilst the common years of the 20th century tend not to be. From the recoinage of 1816 onwards and many years in between the above, there were a handful of each denomination struck from specially prepared dies. These are anything from rare to excessively so. Rare in this instance refers to a maximum of a couple dozen pieces struck, with excessively rare being one or two known examples. Prior to 1816, proofs were generally struck at the beginning of each issue, but not all. The exception being 1746 when rather more proof crowns, halfcrowns, shillings and sixpences were struck. As Peck said, the 20th century silver may or may not be actually silver and will depend on the metal used for currency at the time. The proofs will be very reflective and brilliant as that is how they were made. They will not have been made from silver automatically, though some issues are now produced in both gold and silver. The mint will issue these in a presentation box with a certificate. Trust no one who says it is a silver issue when not accompanied by all the relevant documentation, and even then be wary as there is nothing to stop an unscrupulous person substituting a cupro-nickel example. On its own, you probably wouldn't be able to tell. I notice in your instance, the 1990 5p was produced in both silver and cupro-nickel, but both as part of sets. The former was a two coin set with the old and new sizes/designs. If you want a silver 1990 5p, I suggest you acquire an intact set in its original packaging. There are also a good number of off-metal strikes and patterns, particularly in the 19th century. Patterns are prospective designs that were not adopted. They tend to be expensive and not normally encountered. They may be struck in silver, or alternatively may be off-metal strikes in a number of other materials such as gold, silver, copper, bronze, tin, aluminium, nickel, Barton's metal etc. Off-metal strikes are those metals other than the normal currency pieces.

Up to the reign of William III you often find flawed Es where the middle bar looks as if it is an H. I think it the same in this instance because there is also a spur on the central bar and determining an underlying letter is problematical.

Time to drag this one out again. Scroll down to post number 8 in the link where you will see a scan of 3 shillings. shillings For those that haven't seen it before, the one on the left is a normal currency piece, the middle one is from a 1953 proof set and is brilliant (hence the fields show up dark due to minimal light dispersion) and the one on the right shows a VIP proof shilling with the cameo frosted effect arising from highly polished fields. Sorry, don't seem to be able to copy the image and paste it as a link without attaching the rest of the thread.

No coins for me this Christmas, but given it came early on a few occasions during December and is likely to do so again in the new year, I mustn't complain. Potentially far more valuable were the accrued brownie points from Mrs Rob's birthday present.

It's so badly worn and damaged that all one can say with any certainty is that it's an early milled copper farthing, which were produced from the 1670s to the 1770s. Worth its own weight in copper. Do you not think the bust is too close to the edge top and bottom for a farthing? Coupled with the weight which is at the top end of the range for farthings and with undoubted metal loss given the irregular flan, I thought a halfpenny might be a better option.

Probably a William III first(?) issue halfpenny with a reduced diameter from what is visible. The ties look to be the first issue type and the bust is too big relative to flan size for a farthing or halfpenny. Normal weight is anywhere from 8 and a bit grams to 10g.

First of all it is a halfpenny, not a penny. A forgery is possible given the normal weight range quoted in Peck is 141.3-152.2 grains which is 9.15 grams at the lower end. You'd never know from the detail though. Has the rim been filed down? Keep it as a curio because they are probably the commonest halfpenny of all and a nice example can be acquired very cheaply. Pennies are 34mm dia and 3mm thick, 1806 halfpennies are 29mm dia and 2 - 2.5mm thick.

What, you mean that was a straight statement? Not used to that round here. Ok, now prove it. Picture please.

Innuendo clearly has no limits

Your penny is definitely not a proof. Proofs other than for 1937, 1950 and 1951 are extremely to excessively rare. A proof will have mirror fields and very sharp features which once you familiarise yourself with them are obvious in most instances.

Looks to be a wrong flan rather than a chemically induced low weight. The teeth striations on the obverse go all the way to the legend which could be explained by the flan spreading? But there isn't any corresponding stretching in the legend. Odd. What dimensions are the portrait and is the legend at the right diameter? The correct weight for a 1/2d flan is about 5.6-5.7g. Is the overall diameter correct?

I'd say a bit short of EF.