Gary D

Hi Hussulo, MichaelGoulby appears to have found another obverse type for the 1903 shilling which he rates a very scarse. The reason I say appears to have found is that I have this one already and searching ebay have found others so I'm wondering if there are really 3 types. Have you come across this.

Hopefully if this has workrd I now have my avatar. It is the thin flan nickle 3d that is presently at the royal mint being investigated.

I've now picked up a silver set which when weighed are very similar to the true maundy coins. The gold coins are of differeing thickness so it's not possible to make a direct comparison between them and the silver coins assuming the weight ratio between silver and gold to be approx 1.8. Does anyone know what the composition of these coins are likely to be.

I'm not really into fantasy coins but this set caught my eye. It was the first time I'd seen these in - using the term loosely - gold. Once I had got them in hand they appeared to be quiet heavy compared to a standard maundy set, the 4d is thinner at 2.94g (1.84g), the 3d is about the same thickness but 2.59g (1.37g), the 2d is about the same and 1.83g (0.94g) and finally the 1d is thicker and 1.25g (0.42g). I half expected them to be a gold platted silver set although not having a set I would not be surprised if they are still far too heavy to be gold plated. Does anyone have any knowledge of these fantasy sets, are these likely to really be gold and are these fanasy sets still made in any number. Thanks, Gary

I must admit I was following that one but couldn't decide if it was anything other than a modern plastic copy used to illustrate rare coins, the sort of thing you buy stuck to a card when visiting an attraction.

And it's only the common variety of the two 1937 proofs

I have just looked at the Coincraft site and there are the silver sets, no gold. Did all of these originate from Coincraft or many different sources. This gold set did not come in a cCoincraft case.

Hijack alert. I can't seem to load an avatar from my pc. It shows this error. "The upload failed. Please contact a member of staff to help rectify the problem" Any help please

That is quite alright you thread hijackers, but as long as we all like discussing our vehicular desires I had a 944 in an ealier life. It's funny how families change things I openned the garage door one morning and it had changed into an Escort estate

Hopefully they are more chaste than some people in public. How do hedgehogs make love. Carefully

I understood it to be the 3d as well although it's not a term I ever remember using.

Now that's what gives coin collecting a bad name

I will post when I hear anything. I had a quick look at the Colin Cooke site but could not find the farthing you mention. As to the wear, reverse looks well worn but the observe although a bit battered is not worn, even on the high point like the ear. Very strange.

I received an email stock reply today from Mr Clancy so I have put the coin into the post to him. Hopefully in a few weeks I should hear something.

I think with the 3d the rim is so proud that you would need considerable wear before it starts to show on the design and especially with only a max of 30 years of circulation. I think with the 3d the rim is so proud that you would need considerable wear before it starts to show on the design and especially with only a max of 30 years of circulation. According to Burton Hobson (Picture Guide to Coin Condition) the points of highest wear on the E11 3d are the center stone in the crown and the bar across the top of the portcullis. And for the 6d the body of the thistle. He shows the GV1 3d down to very good.

Thanks Rob, I have email the pictures to the royal mint. The more I look at this the more I'm beginning to think that this coin is in actual fact not a OMS 3d at all. I'm gradually coming around to the idea that it's a trial strike for the 1942 Canadian 5C. The obverse in particular is much more 5c than 3d. Ok it's obvious that 3d dies were used but they would be ideal to modify for a trial strike rather than sink new one's. Although not mentioned by Peck there were two George VI obverses, the early one and a later used from late 1937 to 1952. They can be identified by looking at the pointing of the B in :BR: the early die has the strike of the B pointing to a corner whereas the later has the strike of the B much more to the right of the corner. So we have two dies of no further use, idea for the job.

The tooling was still being produced in London at this time though. Also the 5c was pure nickel which looks to match my coin. It was seeing the 12 sided 5c that made me think it may have been that flan that was used but on further research the 12 sided 5c didn't appear until 1942 and then in brass, not until 46 in nickel. There is a striking resemblence though

The tooling was still being produced in London at this time though. Also the 5c was pure nickel which looks to match my coin.

If it were pure nickel it would be slightly magnetic. Cupro-nickel isn't magnetic. Sorry Ed not for sale although I'd be very interested in what a realistic value would be though. Rod, that's a good idea. As an engineer I should have thought of that myself. Anyway finding a magnet is not the easiest things to do, so not to be outdone I used a bit of lateral thinking and found an old loudspeaker in the loft. I applied the coin to the magnet and it nearly broke my fingers as it snatched it from my hand and I had to take a craw hammer too it to knock it off again. So I guess it's magnetic, where do we go next?

Gary, Peck does state that "As first struck for trial purposes only they were relatively thin coins, but at the last moment reports came in that they were sometimes able to actuate certain shilling and sixpence slot machines. To obviate this their thickness was increased sufficiently..." This could be a possibility, but the coin does appear somewhat mistruck, and I have to admit, before I got to the lower posts I thought canadian 5c Peck does reference a thin flan example but states it as "pure nickel; thin flan" Rarity [Probably Unique] Thanks Colin, Yes, I do remember reading that trials were done on different thicknesses, I believe ranging from 1.5mm to 2.5mm but these where in Edward VIII's time and I assume all in Copper /Zinc as all 3d were. " Peck does reference a thin flan example but states it as "pure nickel; thin flan" Rarity [Probably Unique]" Interesting, I like the word 'probably' althought I think the 5c theory more likely. Even so, as the dodecagonal was an experimental shape can I assume that 1937 was the 1st year of issue for the 5c aswell.

I seem to remember a note in Peck about errors and trials. I don't have a copy so cannot check. The vague memory is probably what drew me to the coin. Does anyone have a copy to hand.

Have you weighed it and do you know what a Canadian 5c weighs? I hadn't, it's 4.52g. I have no idea of the weight of a 5c but they look about the same size and shape plus being Cupro-Nickel. I assume mine is Cupro-Nickel.

If I was to guess, which it would be. I'd say Canadian 5c

This batered example arrived today. Freeman and Spink don't mention it, not even CCGB so it must count as unlisted

I can't help with the special proofs although their numbers will have been preserved unlike the circulated coins which in some cases will now be as scarse if now scarser. I'm not sure about the order of your list as 1949 and 46's being low mintage were probably put away in large numbers whereas the higher mintage weren't bothered with. I would probably drop the 1951 in favour of 1948 and make the list 1950>1948>1949>1946