Rob

It's nearly EF, but not quite. It is also a common date, so for value it is probably £30 or 35 at the most. You might make more starting it at 99p because it isn't a bad coin and people see what they want to see. But if you tell them it isn't quite EF they will probably make a mental note to go to the VF price because everyone wants a bargain. Hard choices to be made here.

1853

Good start.

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark, but not cleanly. Both cases could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong. Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40.

Some good tips here. I struggle with images having to discard at least 60% of all the pictures I take. Problems include the examples below: 1. Getting pictures in focus, particularly on proofs because autofocus frequently doesn't. Example (best of 3 attempts). Does anyone else apart from John and myself use autofocus? In the hand, the colours of the first coin are not as strong as but similarly iridescent to this, though you would never think so. 2. The second image shows the problems with different background colouring which presumably is due to the flash not having cooled down to room temperature before the second image is taken. Taking pictures requires a balance between time and quality. I don't have 10 minutes to waste between flashes which would be required to give it time to cool, so tend to live with this one. 3. Many images look as if the coin has been harshly polished despite looking good in the hand - such as this. The coin isn't a proof and does have wear, but the impression should be clear. To overcome this I try to shield the flash using a sheet of translucent paper, but it is a bit hit and miss. Overexposed or underexposed are the usual results in a combination with problem 2. This is the worst of the 3 with problem 1 a close second. Clearly lighting is all important, but I find natural daylight too harsh. It washes out the colours to leave everything dark with a strong shadow from the window and in high contrast which is equally unattractive. Closing out the daylight and relying on the camera auto-focus leads to the problems above. Having said all that, it is still better than a scan. These are scans of the second coin for comparison.

Sod it. I've only got £600 and not the extra £4 for postage or I might have been tempted. After all, it is the rare "with date" variety.

The guy with the feedback of 160 was pushing the boat out a bit with a bid of £2.50 + postage The others were probably shills. Nobody is going to be that desperate to get a worn OH penny. He is probably also an immigrant. Read the English and the items he sells. Everything is EF. He does indeed list almost all his coins as EF. He does not write in perfect English but this does not mean he is an immigrant - I've seen people who are native to this country speak in appalling English whilst I know some German, Polish and Indian immigrants whose English is better than mine. As for his coins: Caveat emptor. His photos are quite good so it is quite easy to grade from the photo. If one decided to pick out anyone who sold an over-graded coin on eBay one would be left with as many sellers as one could count on one's fingers. I know a lot of English people can't cope with their own language. It was the use of specific words at certain places that indicates English isn't the first language (in the foreigner sense rather than simple UK primate sense) such if the item DIES in the Royal Mail, or sending things by Royal Air Mail. Little nuances that say not a native. The rest is a pretty good effort though. If it had been bad English by a native, there would have been many more mistakes and strictly no punctuation.

here is what you want. BNJ vol. 74 (2004) near the end of the BNJs

I've got one for sale on the website. I have to confess I'd forgotten about it.

The guy with the feedback of 160 was pushing the boat out a bit with a bid of £2.50 + postage The others were probably shills. Nobody is going to be that desperate to get a worn OH penny. He is probably also an immigrant. Read the English and the items he sells. Everything is EF.

Yes. But the question has to be asked why you would have a lot of pennies that were only issued in proof sets?

what i find bizzare going from the ebay text is that apparently the only started minting pennies in 1893 I suspect it's a misprunt(sic). It should read 1983, though it could be later. 1983 ??? My god, we're full of misprunts ! Too hasty a reply I'm afraid. It has to be later than 1983 - my mistake. Victorian pennies being bronze from 1860 onwards, lead free pewter Victorian pennies have probably only been available since the EU ban on lead in solder and other such alloys commencing 1st July 2006. Collectable - not.

what i find bizzare going from the ebay text is that apparently the only started minting pennies in 1893 I suspect it's a misprunt(sic). It should read 1983, though it could be later.

Even more bizarre!! They must cost more to make than giving someone the real thing http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/George-VI-FARTHING-1942-1952-Reproduction-Coin-/320673967100 More worryingly, as the first line of your post states, you wouldn't think to check for a copy on modern 20th century bronze because nobody in their right mind would make it. Wrong. It's another area of hassle for sellers, and one where yet again the innocent customer will unwittingly be wasting his/her money. Dealers in general would not be interested in anything other than mint state 20th century bronze. Collectors may buy mint state plated coins thinking they are the real thing and get ripped off, not to mention p'd off when the dealer rejects their copies. Does anyone have a weight or dimensions for these? They have to be either lighter if the right physical size, or thicker if the right weight. Usually castings are thicker because the metal is too soft and they are made in two halves which are joined.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have difficulty seeing the 4 in the date. Looks like 1900 to me, so you may end up with a very valuable washer.

Apparently, this guy received one of these in his change recently. Surely not. link. No jokes about the Welsh being a bit behind the times please.

Considering the huge numbers of these available and consequent low cost given their age, it is surprising that no die study has been made as far as I am aware. If it has been done in the past, the author hasn't publicised it very well!! I don't know what the production was of either denomination, but if the above number is true and you have 21 pairs of shilling dies I would think that you have most of them. An average of 30-35000 ish per die sounds like a reasonable estimate for the expected lifetime of the dies. In 1825, the halfpennies were averaging about 50,000 per die. With an allowance for technological progress over time, 30K plus doesn't sound too far wide of the mark for 1787.

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years? Pretty much so. But as always, SIZE MATTERS That's true! By the way, did you know that the payment on the debts run up by John Major's government were higher than the current debt repayments? So much for 'Britain's credit card is overspent' The danger here is the question of lies, damned lies and statistics. I just read the article where you got your figures from which was hardly a paragon of political neutrality. Public debt rose in the recession of the early 1990's and consequently so did the repayments as there was a concerted attempt to balance the books as the economy came out of the recession. The problem was that Ken Clarke wasn't given the credit due for running a tight ship and rebalancing the books post-Lawson which he was due in my opinion. The FT was emphasising in 1995-6 how important it was for which ever party to form the next government as the economic tea leaves were so favourable. Consequently, when TB came to power he enjoyed the best economic situation for an incoming leader in decades (perhaps even millennia!!). If GB had sat on his hands and done nothing we would still be ok, but as with virtually all politicians, the temptation to bribe the electorate for their votes using their own money proved too much of a pull. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of prudence changed post-2000 to reflect GB's excessive expenditure over income receipts and became yet another acronym - P(ersonal) r(esponsibility for the) u(nfettered) d(estruction) of the E(nglish) n(ational) c(urrency &) e(conomy). I like that one!! The problem was that GB at no point in time embarked on an exercise to balance the finances. Consequently it is easy to pay less back in interest than your predecessor if there is no policy in place to repay debt. You also have to remember that interest rates in 1990 were much higher than they currently are. You are comparing borrowings at double digit rates of interest compared to a fraction of that on recent debt. I know we will agree to disagree on many things of this nature, but don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of some social benefits as a safety net. If the country was wealthy enough with surplus cash coming in from trade and services supplied to other countries I would advocate spending some of the excess on structural social benefits. The quid pro quo though is that structural benefits require pruning if a structural negative cashflow situation occurs. Sharing is not a one way street, so just as we all want a share of a benefits handout, equally we all get a share of the crap. Indefinite debt financing is not an option because the creditor nations such as China, India, Brazil etc owe the inhabitants of this country nothing. They lend us money; we have to pay it back with interest - lots of it. Ultimately it is the greatest social leveller of all, as their standard of living will rise just as ours must fall until we approach global parity. If you want to buck this trend, you will have to export our problems to another country in the form of goods and services that they pay us for over and above what we import from them. Sorry - I get going too easily. Possible case of topic drift here, so rant over.

Looks like the CGS slabbed one hasn't sold off the site and has been entered into this Sunday's Lockdales sale (lot 203) . If anyone wants a nice one, it would be worth bidding on to see what price they are actually willing to let it go for. The estimate of £80-100 is clearly fishing. If anyone collects sixpences it has to be worth a punt up to the £300 level which is £350ish with premium as there is unlikely to be more than a handful out there.

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years? Pretty much so. But as always, SIZE MATTERS

Found it hiding in the for sale trays. 8 over 7 on the left clearly seen as a straight line above the top of the 8. Not over 7 obviously just an 8.

Nice spoof - get it in the Sun. The smaller the number involved, the easier it is for the readers to get their heads around it. I'll keep quiet about the 50000 presentation packs, 20000 Ag proofs, 3500 Ag piedforts, the gold pieces....

What you say makes sense. I was just struggling to see the first letter as a G. It's late. That should have said I was struggling to see the first letter as a G without the second letter being an L. The second letter can only be an L if the first letter is a C, but the style of the C after Dot on the first ticket is not the same. The initial loop starts on the curve of the C in this instance and on the ticket below. The first letter on the other sides all start with the initial loop consistently to the left of the curve which would suggest a different letter. Taking the left curve down and through to the top of the upstroke and back to the base again as a letter would be a good fit for a G in my opinion.

Scan below. The one on the left is the first type with the deeper hollow behind the beard (much more obvious in the hand). The right hand one is the later shallow type. The first was found with both I of GEORGIVS to bead and space, so any 1911 1/- with the I to space is the deeper cut (Davis obv.1). Davies obv. 2 is the same effigy with the I to bead. The shallow neck was introduced in 1911 (Davies obv. 3) and adopted as standard from 1912 onwards, so any coin from 1912 until the end of 925 silver is this type.

Any use? The left says Baldwin 1948. The next three Briggs(sic) - M A Brigg sold his gold & silver in May 1939 and the coppers 4 years later. A really nice collection. The last says Spink. All three were popular sources for Rogers.