1949threepence

But still some interesting date combos left. Next year, for example, we've got 11/12/13 02/02/2020 is a perfect palindrome ~ the converse of 20/02/2002 ....to name but two..... Incidentally, next year is the first since 1987, not to have at least 2 digits the same.

Fantastic ~ I like it

"I am want lot money off you, out of house now and live in grotty bedsit " lol She is gorgeous, mind

Did any one see this one? I did bid all I had, but all I had wasn't much at the time so I got my arse justifiably kicked. Is it what it says it is? It doesn't really matter - the winning bid of around £20 was a pretty spectacular bargain even if it was the bog standard 1865! Wish I'd seen it, but I don't go to Australia eBay I was just thinking the same thing ~ and yes, I'm almost certain it is a 5/3. Note to self: drop in on e bay Australia now and then

At last we get to see what Peter looks like!!!!! Tell you what - that guy makes Norm Peterson look like Brad Pitt! He looks like a cross between Russell Grant and Jocky Wilson

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator. Excellent pic, actually. It would be an odd die flaw, surely ? Odd, yes. But not much odder than a teensy remnant of a 2? So the jury is still out for you on the question ?

Or as it now better known "definitely obsolete system"

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:- I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins. Ask ski - he can quote chapter and verse on it Glad somebody can. Took me ages just to find the bit relating to banknotes That's always going to be a problem if you don't know quite what to look for, and Google wasn't much help (to me at any rate) on this occasion. Still now that we've got the relevant information, we will never be floored by that pub quiz question, or innocent enquiry, again. It does crop up from time to time, and no-one ever seems to really know. Well now definitive information is to hand on both banknotes and coins Incidentally the fine for defacing banknotes was increased to £25 in 1977 (Criminal Law Act, s.31) and to £200 in 1982 (Criminal Justice Act, s.46).". Obviously that doesn't apply to bank clerks who regularly write figures on banknotes

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:- I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins.

and me. Got the 1893 and 1874 F72 ~ which two did you get ? I got the F67 and the F79. Unfortunately a couple of others I would have liked had already gone Both very neat captures, nonetheless. Especially the F67.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator. Excellent pic, actually. It would be an odd die flaw, surely ?

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies Or 1954

I think that might have a lot to do with it, in the sense that the halfcrown would have seen increased circulation compared to previously, but the shilling's circulation would also probably have increased still further. Hence the extreme difficulty in locating a high grade specimen for the year of lowest mintage, 1905. Nonetheless, there are still some strange anomalies within the mintage/circulation/rarity/rarity at high grade equation, which cannot be plausibly explained away. That applies to many denomonations.

Nice coin, just a shame about the carbon spot on the 6 of 1868. Did you find anything out from Baldwins in the end, or draw a blank ? Unless they keep archival records very meticulously, it's always going to be a long shot with a date so long ago. Provenance records always intrigue me, and I really wish they were present with more coins, many of which have obviously been part of a collection, or various collections, since shortly after they were minted. Obviously, you're always going to have more chance with a coin, like the proof specimen above, which is very rare to begin with.

When I look at the picture of the 1903 open 3 on Michael's website the 3 always looks incuse to me. Yep, it does, as can be seen here Compare and contrast that with the other coin in the picture, which appaers as raised. Don't know why it is. Bit of a mystery. Maybe it's to do with the shading.

The optical illusion of details looking incused instead of raised, is only apparent when looking at a photographic image though. To the naked eye the real thing looks exactly as it is. Presumably that's because you are then looking at it in 3D. Although why, on a picture, one should perceive it as incused rather than just flat, I don't know. Any scientists among us that can explain the phenomenon ?

Fairly common, but generally in the order of 5- 15 degrees, in my experience. Never seen one as much as 45 degrees.

and me. Got the 1893 and 1874 F72 ~ which two did you get ? Absolutely. There are some I'd never sell, or upgrade, even though there are better examples out there. But others, I would definitely replace. Not necessarily any particular logic to it either. Well spotted that man

No worries, Bob I'd be very interested to see what they say about the Edinburgh collection if you find the time to post it on here. Here's how Michael Gouby describes the N over N

lol what's a 'Plattipus shiller'? A shiller with a duck bill ? (I'll get me coat)

They describe it as "N over Z (N over sideways N)" Bob, the history of the Edinburgh collection was described in Colin Cooke's monthly magazine for October, which irritatingly, I seem to have lost. Unlike the other collections, there is no preface to the collection on their website. It appears that it was sold as a job lot to Colin Cooke, who then listed them all separately for sale. Can't remember too much about the history given, except for the fact that the guy who collected them, aimed for the very highest quality. All are BU or nearly so. He didn't have all of the very rarest dates (no 1869 for example). But the ones that were there are absolutely superlative. In terms of bun pennies, they are a class collection ~ although it isn't just bun pennies, of course. Far from it. They can all be seen here Makes you want to give up, looking at that lot! Well.........unbelievable isn't it The single minded determination of the individual who put that collection together, is little short of awesome. I wonder what prompted him to off load it

They describe it as "N over Z (N over sideways N)" Bob, the history of the Edinburgh collection was described in Colin Cooke's monthly magazine for October, which irritatingly, I seem to have lost. Unlike the other collections, there is no preface to the collection on their website. It appears that it was sold as a job lot to Colin Cooke, who then listed them all separately for sale. Can't remember too much about the history given, except for the fact that the guy who collected them, aimed for the very highest quality. All are BU or nearly so. He didn't have all of the very rarest dates (no 1869 for example). But the ones that were there are absolutely superlative. In terms of bun pennies, they are a class collection ~ although it isn't just bun pennies, of course. Far from it. They can all be seen here

Die cracks are very common in the bun series, especially the early ones. The O of ONE looks as though it has been re-done as well, from what I can see of it.

Superb, Bob. The Edinburgh collection consisted entirely of very high quality coins, and to get such a rarity in such high grade out of that, is fantastic. Really impressed.

Totally agree. The amount of packaging many people use is ludicrous. The coin simply doesn't need it. Getting into some packages is like trying to break into Fort Knox. Triple wrapped, inside an outer layer of multi sellotaped bubble wrap. Irritating, to say the least. You point about possible damage resonates. I normally pick up new coin purchases from the post office, and sit down on some seats near the town centre to open them (can't possibly wait till I get home). On one occasion, I hadn't realised I'd finally penetrated through to the actual coin, and it went flying off, landing on the pavement.