Gary D

Hi Dave, Is this a same treatment that the late vicie to 1918 farthings received as they seem much darker to black than the GVI pennies. Gary

Hi JJVH, I see you have 10 1965 sixpences there. Do you happen to have amongst them one with the second A of GRATIA aligning with a space between two rim beads. If you have I'd be interested in it to compleate my run of EII sixpences. Thanks Gary

A sub prime mortgage is a mortgage lent to someone with a poor credit record and who is more than likely unable to sustain the repayment in the longer term. i.e. a high risk loan. These loans which normally carry a higher rate of interest were then bundled up and sold on to banks that just saw the higher than normal returns but did not appreciate the higher risk. Basically the US banks sold all their dud loans to greedy UK and European banks.

1934 and most of 1935 pennies were mint toned, as well as 1944-46. Freeman states that " some pennies of other years (George VI) also appear to have been treated with 'hypo' unofficially". The 1946 with dot is well recorded and not uncommon in worn grades. Gary

Of the 5 that I could lay my hands on immediately, 4 are thick C and one thin. That's interesting Rod, any chance an image so that I can see the difference. As I said earlier I dont know which type mine is and I'd like to have one of each.

It has the designers initials ON (Oscar Nenom) below Churchill's bust near the edge. This coin was featured in one of the Coin News magazines. Many thanks for the offer wemer but if it does have a scratch it won't make MS65. Hus Correct it's the designers initials. The coin show was a trial strike and it was decided that the designers initials detracted from the minimalism of the design so where removed before going into production if that's the correct word. Looking at my own crown which I saved at the time of issue I think it's better than the NNC offering although I've always hoped to do better.... if I could bring myself to look.

Surely the scrap value must exceed there monitary value buy now. Perhap some rich metals dealer will start buying them up and melting them, 19,600,00 would do for a start.

Oh you must be joking! There's not seriously a Churchill Crown variety!? Can anyone post a picture of the 2 different types, as I'd be interested to put it in Collectors' Coins GB 2009. Davies quote 3 including the satin proof. He describes them as; 1A Thick formed C & H and 1B Thin formed C & H. I would dearly like to have both types but I don't even know what the one I've got is. There is also mention of a plain edge error.... And of course the one in the Royal Mint Museum which I leave the eagle eyed on this forum to spot the difference

hi i have a church hill crown 1965 in what looks to be excellent condition if your interested Is this what you are looking for Hus

For added realism they could make it from steel dipped in oil so that it could go rusty after a couple of week and leave oil stains wherever its left.

Hi oldjoe78 and welccome to the forum, predecemal is the term used to describe Great Britain coinage before 1967 or about then as the there wasn't an exact line drawn in the ground at the point between the old pounds shillings and pence and the then new decimal pounds and 100 pence to the pound system we currently use. If you have a large assortment of coins and are thinking of taking up collecting the first thing you will need is a book. As a starting point you can't go wrong with a copy of Chris's Collectors coins GB.

I'm just back from my trip to British Museum and no further forward, I should have taken more notice of Peck. Although he did catalogue the British Museum collection what I didn't realise was that he also included in his book other collections. The long and the tall of it is that the 2371 was from his own collection not the BM which was distributed widely many years ago. The only way forward now would be to find Pecks piece in an old auction catalogue or such like. I stopping in and had a chat with Mickael Goulby as he is only a few stops along the central line from the BM and I do not often get the chance to pass that way. He seemed to recall that Pecks collection appeared in a Spink publication, coin chronical or something like that but I had already been into Spink's who where unable to give any inkling into what happened to the collection.

This little trinket arrived today. The previous owner said that he found it in a junk box in an antique 25 years ago and had shown it to several dealer who maintianed that it was likely a genuine royal mint error. It may or may not be junk. What do you think?

I have an appointment at the British Museum tomorrow to have a look at their Peck 2171. What else should I have a drawl over whilst I'm there, 1933 penny springs to mind

There are no mention in Freeman or Goulby about 1863 obverse varieties. I would be more inclined to say that the R is rotated rather than the B lower although I'm no expert on vicky pennies. I find your microscope much more interesting, what is it?

Yes I would tend to agree with you. But then on the other hand Peck was just cataloging what he saw i.e. the British Museum collection.

Obviously until I can see the real thing this is pure speculation but I'm not totally convinced that a thin nickel flan would strike up totally. My reasoning: The minting process will have been carried out on a press of a suitable pressure for the job, to lower pressure and you don't get a complete strike. Too higher pressure and you could sqeeze the metal out and possibly break the collar. The threepenny bit was notorious for cracking collars. If you put an incorrect flan into the press several things could happen. Too small softer or similar metal (insufficient metal) would result in a fully struck coin with a smaller and iregular diameter as the metal would not reach the collar or possibly a fully formed but thiner coin. If the flan was of a harder material the set pressure would be reached before a full strike had occurred and again the rim would likely not be fully formed by the collar. My coin and the Peck are both pure nickel. Nickel is much harder than the copper zinc alloy used for the threepenny peice. Obviously I have not seen the Peck peice but looking at mine the obverse is fully struck but the reverse is not. The reason for this is likely due to the greater depth of the reverse design so that the set pressure on the press was reached before the metal had finished flowing. This would also explain the lack of rim. Anyway I think a day out to the British Museum is in order Gary

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. Thanks Rob your a gent. According to Peck the piece in the British Museum is 1.5mm thick and weighs 69.2 grains. I have not measured mine but I estimate 1.5 mm to be about right and the measured weight of 4.52 grams backed up by the Royal Mint's 4.51g works out to be 69.6 grains. I still think I need to see the BM piece but it's looking increasingly more likely that I have a Peck 2371

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

Well, after nearly 7 month the 3d has arrived today special delivery from the Royal Mint with a letter from Kevin Clancy. In his letter he confirms that the coin is infact made of nickel but gives no indication of which flan was likely used. He is of the opinion that it is an OMS made from a blank intended for one of the many overseas coins which were struck at the mint and became mixed in with threepence blanks and was then struck by threepence dies in the usual way, once struck failed to be detected by the inspection procedures and allowed to enter circulation. He suggests that the mint is unable to say how many coins may have been mis-struck and that I should approach a professional coin dealer for a valuation.

I've got the help line phone number, does that make me important It shows on my 'my ebay' page, top right just below the search bar.

Both coins are the same size - one shilling. I didn't notice the Q It looks strange too. The Q is the clue to the different varieties. Reverse A Small garter letters. 'Q' has long loopless tail. Reverse B Large garter letters. 'Q' has almost no tail. Reverse C Medium garter letters. 'Q' has curved looped tail. I would say you has an 'A' and a 'C' Reverse C has the least value, B about 1.5 x C and A about 4 x C being the scarsest.

There are three varieties listed in Davies but we need to see the other side of the cion t identify it.

Apart from a couple of coin shows my main resource for coins is ebay which I've been looking for the A+b for a good two years. The problem with ebay is the quality of the compressed pictures. It's offen not possible to see the beading clearly let alone count them and often only the reverse will be shown. It can be a pain but if everyone was into varieties you wouldn't be able to pick up peices for small money. I picked up an EF F176 for $2 and the A+b for about $3.50.

That's good to know. When we last spoke on the subject of the 1911 varieties I beleive both you and I were still looking for the A+b. Now that we have both got the full set what is your opinion on the scarcity of the A+b as it does appear to be the hardest to find. Gary