Rob

Run over by a train probably.

Agreed. Is that a trace of a crossbar on the second V? i.e. an inverted A. Worth a check as it isn't recorded for the 3rd bust, but equally could be a random mark given the condition of the coin and the fact it isn't well struck up..

correct

Given there is a mark at the same point on both sides, the options are a thin flan at that point or slightly pinched. I would go for the latter given a few transverse marks to both sides.

or me?

Freeman 329A is the bright one, the one on the left is Norweb's F301 (1867 bronzed proof). In my opinion, the letter quality of the Heaton coin is inferior with shallower angles to the sides of the characters and the tops are slightly rounded. In hand the field is not as good as the RM coin for this or other years. I've got Nichoson's 1863 proof on the website, and the same criteria apply. https://www.rpcoins.co.uk/products/00003521

Not very seriously I won't. If I inadvertently come across something, then you could reasonably expect me to milk it, but o/w the only things I look for are the obvious things like wide/narrow date, die number, halfpenny numbers, open 3 or obvious legend errors etc. Anything not passing the audition gets weighed in. There are too many low grade things out there which may or may not be worth something, but by definition are unlikely to be, which are better off melted. And I'm not going to start checking every Elizabeth II penny I come across. It's bad enough dealing with worn bun heads.

It is the response you give when offered an extremely rare 1967 penny for no more than a few pounds.

Mostly not, but Hobson's Choice, you bet.

My F329A is ex-Freeman. He says proof, I say not. And so the discussion rumbles on.

I think we can safely say the description is a lie. I don't think Mr Brand would appreciate being linked to that one.

A hotel worker? You would need to top up your wages somehow in Central London. The address has been used for a while now, so can't see it being a paying resident.

From Schneider's article in the BNJ vol.29 p.101-127; Group D, bust 7a, crown type 9, shield type 4, reverse crown type 6, harp n and a note that crown is frequently struck over bell on either or both sides. I have a group D with the tun over anchor both sides. As yours but with a slightly different reverse crown and harp.

It's crown over bell both sides.

TBH, as long as the person concerned isn't causing financial grief to themselves or their family, it doesn't really matter how much is paid for something. Clearly, if a purchaser is pleased with the acquisition then that should be a box ticked. After all, this country is full of houses with a couple cars on the front pavement that have cost something approaching the market value of the house. Apparent frittering of hard earned wealth isn't the prerogative of buyers at coin auctions - some people waste their money when there is no requirement for an instantaneous decision. The logical alternative would be paying an exact amount for a coin that has been correctly assessed with regards to condition, i.e. graded, and then a fixed price applied and paid............... hang on a minute. We all find it easy to reference another person's in terms of ourselves, but we aren't the person spending the money. We've all bid a little bit more at some time or other.

There's 3 different 1569 dies for anyone doing a die study.

Looks ok to me. Third coin below uses the same punch. Inverted 6 is a 9 and vice-versa.

The O is far too big - it's partly off flan. On a more serious note, it isn't very convincing.

I suppose £5.50 is cheaper than the cost of getting some liquid nitrogen to pop the middle out. Not sure why I would want to though.

So, how much would you be willing to pay for it if bought from a dealer? Or perhaps the question ought to be how many dealers are likely to stock things like this, and correctly identified? If you ask a customer what they are looking for, they will inevitably say just browsing, so it is always going to be difficult to know how popular a niche is. I say with a large measure of confidence that individual areas are inhabited by a very small number of specialists, with the type collector far surpassing any specialist group. Just maybe, the tidal wave of 50p, £1 and £2 collectors are closing in on the type collector, but suspect that is transient and driven mainly by the tabloids.

The argument for calling them VIP proofs was that sets were thought to be made in limited quantities for people in high positions. It was also thought that having received one, the same people would be unlikely to advertise their prior ownership indicating their having made a bob or two from a gift, hence the lack of provenances indicating receipt directly from the mint. It all made for a feasible story. Having said that, I have also heard an unverifiable story that a visit by a party to the mint on one occasion finished with each of the participants striking a coin to take away as a momento. This was allegedly a proof, but as I said, unverifiable. It was however, one of the pieces that appears to crop up more often than others. Only the RM can provide a definitive answer - not the collecting or dealing fraternity.

As I said - from 1926 onwards. There were various trials and off-metal strikes in the first half of the decade, but from 1926 onwards, things like the Derwent Wood and McMillan patterns aside, they conformed to the regular currency designs.

Never heard of it happening. All the plated things like Barton's Metal were on previously prepared sheets as far as I was aware

Historically, or at least say 10-20 years or more ago, VIP was only attached to those years in which proofs were made in limited numbers (a handful of examples), i.e. the years in which sets were not made for the masses. The years in which it applied started from 1926 onwards when a few proofs were struck of all current denominations and continued up to the early 1960s. Notwithstanding the debate about the first year which some contend are not (though I'm happy that my 1926 halfpenny is one), there are coins extant with proof quality finish for all years in between, though not necessarily all denominations for every year due to gaps in the dates of currency issues. It should be noted that not all proof coins of these rare issues exhibit frosted devices. During the past 10 years, the phrase 'VIP' has been misappropriated in my opinion to include superior strikes with a cameo effect with a resultant explosion in the number of 'known' examples. There has been an occasional example of a set in contemporary boxes that were different to those issued for the masses, which if it could be proved were genuinely issued to 'VIP' recipients by the mint, could therefore be justifiably be classified as such. As VIP means very important person, it should include the likes of the Chancellor or the Queen, not Mrs Smith of 16 Acacia Avenue, Bognor Regis. The whole thing is a case of semantics in my opinion, and arguably a triumph of marketing over reality.

There are a few varieties, but nothing of any notable value because few people collect them.