1949threepence

Right, here it is then:-

No, but you never said it was mint toned, nor did I know that such an issue existed. Yes, if mint toned, I'd be very interested to see the 1932. If you send to me, I will upload onto here.

Yes I know. That's precisely the distinction I was looking for Pete. Couldn't see it, and makes me wonder if they actually exist at all, even as an extremely rare item. I've already got a 1932, thanks.

Just as a footnote, I have searched in all the usual places - collections, advanced search for 1935 pennies on e bay, LCA etc, and cannot see one instance where the specimen might confidently be described as mint darkened, or toned. Therefore, if anybody does see one in the future, or indeed, possesses one, I'd be most interested to see it. Thanks.

Surprising enough that Peck would have made such an error in the first place, let alone that someone as diligent and detail observant as Freeman, would have compounded that initial mistake. Especially given his interest in bronze coinage at that point.

So essentially the message is that in reality, whilst there maybe a few mint darkened 1935 specimens, they are very few and far between. But at the same time Freeman was correct in saying that all 1934 pennies were mint darkened. Dave Groom? Any rate, thanks Gents. That's cleared up a bit of a mystery.

Thanks Pete - was curious as there isn't a massive amount of information available on the matter. Whilst the 1944 - 46 are well documented for MT, there seems to be only Freeman's word for 1934 and 1935. 1934 I can definitely believe as the UNC ones I've seen don't look as though they are brightly lustred.

Couldn't agree more. There was one on here recently which looked like copper or bronze. Just looks odd.

I think the worn penny with the "WW1 bullet" through it, may have been mentioned before. Any rate I came across it while browsing George V pennies, and messaged the seller, and received the reply shown below. link to item Yes mate, it is what it is, and that bullet certainly didn't get there on the field of battle. New message from: daniejorda60 (30) Im know ww1 expert i just sometging i brought to sell on im not lying in my description it is what it is. But i appreciate you taking your time out to message me rhis this information appreciate it bud. If you can tell me anything else that would be great!! Best wishes Dan Jordan Reply Make an offer Your previous message It may be a WW1 bullet, but it certainly wasn't put there in WW1. That coin has about 50 odd years of wear on it.

Being perfectly honest, I think it's just a blodge of some sort, near where a die letter would be. This happens a lot, and I've often pondered over worn coins wondering if this is a die number, or that is an overstrike etc.

Indeed. Same with the florins, and to a lesser extent the shillings.

You just wonder where these things start.

It sounds like you've got some form of spyware on your device.

Another one - "for me" "Tell you what, for me, Gary, that was a clear penalty. He took the guy at knee height....... "

Well, you know, I never thought of that. Know what I mean?

I don't know about the foreign coins, but as far as the British ones are concerned, I can't see any that might be worth collecting. Too worn. However, there is a lot of silver bullion in and amongst that lot, which would fetch some money.

Not to mention "absolutely" (guilty of that myself on occasions).

Another irritation (to me anyway), is why so many people are starting sentences with the word "so".

It did, but as Pete said, it does appear to get worse over the following few years. Good point about the vastly increased mintages.

It's become so trite now that it's used on notifications that aren't even vaguely amusing.

...... and "stakeholder" has replaced "interested party"....

Definitely a con artist. Look at the way those two separate ditties were written. That's obviously a literate individual trying to feign illiteracy, so as to appear like the innocent simpleton, who just accidentally stumbled across this unexpected stash.

It's a beautiful, crisp strike, Paddy, with only the merest hint of ghosting to the reverse. Slight wear to the highest points reduces the obverse to EF, but a superb specimen, nonetheless.

You say that and yet the example I posted above has good hair detail and no evidence of ghosting. The obvious question is, therefore, why did ghosting suddenly start, when, ostensibly, the same build of dies were being used? The poor hair detail I can understand, but that too seems to go hand in hand with ghosting. It's difficult to know why the recessed ear experiment was stopped. We'll never know now, but maybe it had something to do with the war.

Yep, they're almost certainly fingerprints. Completely unacceptable. You'd think they'd be using gloves to insert the coins into place. Difficult to comprehend they could be that careless. With the average person, it's understandable, as they wouldn't necessarily be expected to know. But a member of staff working in the Mint should be fully acquainted with all the ins and outs of how to handle coins. It seems that standards are slipping. As I said in the Royal Mint experience thread, the £2 coin I had struck for me on a visit by a friend, has much of the lettering almost completely unreadable because the dies being used are so worn. Not sure how that is allowed to happen. It's not as if the same dies are used for mass production. Essentially just a few each day and certainly in no way comparable to currency strike production figures.