Rob

I'm still hoping in my heart of hearts that it can be attributed to be a Peck 2171 and take its rightful place in my 3d collection. I think I need to see the piece listed by Peck, I assume it's in the British Museum. If so how do I get to see it, just walk in or would something like that not be on display. To anyone out there with a copy of Peck, if it's not to cheaky to ask, would it be possible to have a scan of the 3d pages, it can only be 2-3 pages. Thanks Gary Send me your email address & they are on their way. The P2371 in the BM was a gift from the Royal Mint.

You're missing a few. There are VIP proofs for most years other than when sets were produced and there are also edge varieties for 1941 and 1948 where the corners can be either sharp or rounded. There are also a few Edward VIII pieces if you are feeling particularly flush.

Try collecting them 2 at a time. Colin Cooke was doing 2 1689's for the price of 1 when the farthing collection was sold. 2 farthings = one halfpenny and so can be collected as such- see lot 662. I was going to attach an image, but it doesn't seem possible any more? I thought about it! In the end I decided I needed a currency example more - so I bought lot 664. So you got 662! Much cooler than my coin - you have your own Peck footnote. Lucky for both of us - we bought at the lower end of the estimate. Did Colin list who he bought the coin from? A good job you wanted a currency example because I was only interested in it as a halfpenny. Colin bought it from Peter Viola in 2004. The history I have on it so far is Spink 16 lot 824 sold for £410 and SNC 2/92 no.269 listed at £1500 - which I suspect it didn't sell for given it is nearly x4 the price a decade earlier. Nothing after that until PV. I don't know when the 'Bn' reference in Peck was noted. It came with a Spink ticket written by Mark Rasmussen and PV's ticket. Without question it's the most I have paid or am ever likely to pay for a Chas II halfpenny in poor!

Try collecting them 2 at a time. Colin Cooke was doing 2 1689's for the price of 1 when the farthing collection was sold. 2 farthings = one halfpenny and so can be collected as such- see lot 662. I was going to attach an image, but it doesn't seem possible any more?

There's nothing they can do about the originals in private hands and many of them will still be around. My wife is German and her parents had one (passed down from one of their parents) as it was virtually compulsory to have one in the 1930's but not to dispose of them in 1945 and so unless the owner felt particularly nervous about keeping it there was no incentive to throw it away. (How many books do we acquire but never dispose of?). It's quite interesting insofar as the text is gothic, but I never got around to reading the book.

They look alright for design and don't seem to show any signs of plating - picture notwithstanding. The weight is not very helpful because a quick weighing of 50 random KG6 farthings gave a couple of outliers at both extremes weighing 2.64g & 2.66g at the low end and 2.94g & 2.95g at the high end whilst the majority were in the 2.80-2.85 range. The two 1949s in the sample both weighed 2.88g. The variation in weights is therefore greater than the difference in densities between Cu-Ni, Bronze or Ni, so no conclusion can be drawn. You could check to see if they are pure nickel or a plated ferrous base as this would be magnetic, but this property is lost once it is alloyed with a certain %age of other metals. I can't remember what this percentage is, but think it is around the 10% level (?) and so your normal Cu-Ni coinage is not magnetic. Not very helpful I know, but you really need to see them in the hand.

The Norweb piece was lot 1908 and sold for £280 hammer. Whilst it is possible that any number could have been produced, the fact that this person has two makes me suspicious given it should be due to the random accidental inclusion of the wrong blanks. To have two errors like this owned by one person is like winning the lottery - twice.

The higher digits aren't significant varieties although Davies listed the 8 higher in date for 1818 which is probably why it is listed in Spink. In this case the 8 is considerably more misaligned than yours being about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a character higher. The 2 on the left coin looks bigger(?) in the picture. HI Rob , yes the 2 is slightly bigger which makes it slightly higher i think these are my 1818 coins which i think one of is the higher 8, what do you think The right hand 1818 is a higher 8. Davies 85 if you want to know the variety number. There is an example illustrated in the DNW archive, lot 330 7/10/2003.

The higher digits aren't significant varieties although Davies listed the 8 higher in date for 1818 which is probably why it is listed in Spink. In this case the 8 is considerably more misaligned than yours being about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a character higher. The 2 on the left coin looks bigger(?) in the picture.

That's the lithographic reprint of the 1964 edition.

The most complete description with some background info appears to be in Linecar & Stone - English Proof and Pattern Crown-Size Pieces p.54

This AT is seriously p'ing me off. As a naturally toned piece it would be worth a couple hundred maybe. As an AT piece make it £39.95

Based on some of the other things on offer and their grades or description I suspect the former. This was discussed previously in this thread on pages 8-10. Dubious lolights include the 1886 "proof" shilling offered for £2150 - doesn't look like a proof to me. The rims are not those of a proof but he still paid £700 for it on ebay. The seller would not have let a proof shilling go for this price when they are fetching over £2K hammer.There is a "gilt proof twopence" which to me looks like a penny. The trident points to the second N on a 2d and not to the right of the second as in this case. If it is a proof it is a poor example of a Peck 1130, but could equally be a gilded currency piece Peck 1133 given the state of it. The image isn't good enough to positively identify the variety. The grade of FDC is also somewhat inappropriate here. There are others which are equally dodgy, so suggest it is a lack of knowledge coming to the fore.

An 1839 bronzed proof halfpenny which has been made from an 1841 obverse die after the 1839 die was deemed to no longer be fit for purpose. The use of an 1843 die for the same reason is already known, but this appears to be the first time one of these has been reported. ex Goldberg sale last September lot 446. the die axis is inverted (cf. P1523*)

A dangerous sentiment. You could wind up with another Stalin or even President Blair We've already got Comrade Brown with his 5 and 10 year plans.

The original 1839 die was deemed to be worn out and so a later date obverse die was changed to 1839 to satisfy the need for the 1839 proof sets which were produced later than 1839 and according to demand until superseded by the 1853 sets. The use of a modified 1843 halfpenny die is already documented, but an overstruck 1841 die has not previously been recorded.

It isn't a problem as the hammer price ($775) is listed on the website as are premiums payable. The total cost was about $920 including postage. My maximum was higher than the hammer and it takes two people to reach this price, so I appreciate it could possibly sell for more. Firstly, it has been removed from the slab which will put a significant number of Americans off. The slab grade of PF63 is not very high so will also put off those who collect by numbers. It would only really appeal to knowledgeable collectors which is probably a good thing. It is unlikely to be slabbed as 1839/41 because the variety isn't in Peck or Spink. Having an inverted die axis will increase its value as these are decidedly uncommon and interestingly the die axis is not recorded on the slab insert, a listed variety that could easily be identified by anyone with an IQ of 80. Hussulo's point about grading companies not guaranteeing the variety on the slab, but guaranteeing the coin is genuine will probably come into play here. It is a perfect oxymoron. They have with a cursory glance attributed it as 1839 which it isn't and if studied carefully is obviously not a straight 1839. If they had identified it as 1839/41 would they then have slabbed it as a seemingly improbable overstrike? Or would it be rejected as an altered date by someone other than the mint given it isn't recorded in the "official" books?

Not as bad as this ebay listing was.... <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018" target="_blank">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018</a> Great coin Rob. It's a super find. BCC I saw that listing too and even from the bad pictures thought it can't be a small (narrow) date. Which brings me onto a post I had on another forum in were I was shocked to hear that NGC do not guaranty the authenticity of the slabbed coins claimed variety, only that the coin is genuine. As you know the difference in a coins variety can be big difference in value. So if you bought this coin and it was genuine but not a small (narrow) date variety NGC would not give you the book value of the small (narrow) date coin. Moral of the story I guess is if buying a slabbed coin don't accept what variety it is stated to be on the plastic but do your homework on varieties before buying. I'm not surprised they don't guarantee the variety and only that it is genuine given the number of incorrect attributions. It all suggests that they value the number of dollars coming into the business rather than their reputation for accuracy. Most respected business acquire their reputation for doing what they do well. This is more a case of "we slab coins, so any coins can be slabbed. Just don't take as gospel what we say. We're only in it for the money and any accurate attributions are entirely coincidental and unintentional".

I still can't believe they missed an overdate that clear when preparing the auction. Congrats on a great find, nothing quite like the buzz of bagging a bargain. I aslo echo Art's comments, it is a beauty of a coin!!! It's not perfect. There are imperfections to the hair detail as a result of being a recut used currency die. I'm also not convinced it was that much of a bargain after premiums and shipping costs, although quite reasonable for an unambiguous unrecorded variety. They may or may not have noticed it when drawing up the catalogue. However, it would probably be frowned upon to list it as an 1839/41 when the "experts" have positively identified it as an 1839. Don't forget that Peck didn't list either the 1839/41 or 1839/43 and so ipso facto they cannot exist. That's another incorrect attribution folks, bought to you (almost) exclusively courtesy of NGC.

Still no images available to guests unless they register and log in.

The dies are slightly different as you point out, but the amount of 3D relief (or depth of detail which is what I was trying to say) is comparable - just not very well articulated. The hair looks to be worn in parts and the edges of all the oak leaves on the reverse also look flat. It could just be due to the lack of contrast in the picture, but if you compare with an uncirculated coin you can see the hair strands from the crown of the head to the wreath are continuous and well defined lines.

And the reverse.

q A shilling is one twentieth of a pound. Before we converted to the decimal system in 1971 there were 12 pennies to a shilling and 20 shillings to the pound. What you have is a 3 shilling bank token issued by the Bank of England towards the end of George III's reign. These were struck to help alleviate a dire shortage of silver coinage due to the Royal Mint having produced only minimal amounts of silver coinage throughout his entire reign. After the death of George II in 1760, a few silver pieces appear to have been struck after this but bearing the old monarch's bust and dated 1758 which was the last issue of this reign. After this a few shillings dated 1763 (called the "Northumberland Shilling" after the Duke of Northumberland - another story) and the issue dated 1787 were the only silver coins struck for over 50 years. Some captured Spanish 4 & 8 real coins were countermarked from about 1800 onwards with the head of Geo.III and passed for current halfcrowns (2 shillings and sixpence) and crowns (5 shillings) respectively with South American 8 reales passing for 4 shillings and ninepence. They were only in circulation for a relatively short period, being superseded by the new coinage issues from 1816 onwards. The even tone to the coin suggests that it has been cleaned which will reduce its value somewhat. There is some wear but not a lot. I would grade it a bit better than VF and almost gVF. There is wear to the hair detail and wreath. Attached is a picture of an uncirculated 1 shilling and 6 pence token which has the same detail for comparison. Value of yours? - probably about £30-40 given the cleaning. Spink 2007 gives a price of £60 VF and £175 EF.

q It appears that you can only see images if you are logged in. If looking as a guest, you get the message this feature has been disabled and don't have permission to view.

You can only see the image if you are logged in.