1949threepence

On the other hand "jan1213" might be a nice looking woman.....jan, janette, janet ? ....OK, I'll get me coat --------->

For anything over about £500, I'd say auction would normally be best.

Hmmm, exceptionally rare, but with a starting bid of only £99.00 this time. Nice coin, nevertheless. It is rare, but so is a winning England football team and I haven't seen one of those on ebay either Is it just me or does that look like the twopence? According to Peck, the KH6,7 halfpenny pattern obverse/reverses have legends that take up the full wdth of the rim. On that photo, the legend only takes up 2/3 of the rim, just like the twopence. And if it really IS the rare halfpenny, why hasn't the seller included a ruler in the picture to prove it? I'm suspicious. Looks like the bidders are too. That's a very good point. I might ask him to include a pic with a ruler included.

Hmmm, exceptionally rare, but with a starting bid of only £99.00 this time. Nice coin, nevertheless.

I've been looking at the edge of all £2 coins that have passed through my hands for the last 2 or 3 weeks, and there are indeed examples in both camps, but with a preponderance of lettering the correct way round, with the obverse up. Maybe 3:1 That would not suggest total randomness. I'll keep looking.

Based on those recommendations, looks like we'll have to buy Gouby as well. No doubt about it. It appears that both books have their respective strengths.

My 1892 is exactly the same as Scott's, with the 8 looking smaller than the 1 (or slightly raised above it). By contrast, this doesn't occur on any of the others in the 1890 to 1894 series that I have.

On second closer look, I agree with GVF. There is a bit of wear apparent on the hair and in other places, which escaped me on first glance.

£154.95 from Amazon Couldn't find anywhere else, including e bay.

£2.50 for a Freeman. That's what good days are all about Actually your stroke of good fortune prompted me to look on Amazon, just on the off chance, and I found one, apparently "like new", for just £19.95, from a UK based source. So I've ordered it. Bit more expensive than yours, but still pretty good value. here it is

With 292 feedbacks he's obviously quite a new, or infrequent, seller. As you indicate, 400, photos can be very deceptive at times.

Thanks, Red. Very interesting article. In my experience Royal Mail do not help. I've lost count of the number of times I've had recorded delivery, and even special delivery items just shoved through the door. For a dishonest individual these occasions would have been a gift.

Good topic. I'd love a copy of Freeman, but they're so damned expensive.

Very lecturing tone from someone who probably hasn't been dealing in coins for the last 55 years. I'd also say that as Edward VIII was on the throne from 20 January 1936 to 11 December 1936, the majority of coins dated 1936 were struck during his reign, not George VI. Not to mention that he was wrong.

In nice condition, although is that a spot of verdigris near the I of IND ? Is it lustrous ? Lustre is so difficult to assess from photographs I find. I guess everyone has a different collecting experience, it's just that as I come near to signing of the GV series in AU 85% lustre +, it's interesting to reflect on how easy each coin has been to hunt down compared to the projected rarity figures one encounters in Freeman et al. OK I haven't turned over every stone in the world looking and I've also been collecting the EVII and old heads in parallel, so there is absolutely nothing scientific about my observations, but here goes: Leaving varities to one side for now, I expected 1922, 1926 and 1934 to be difficult and so they have proved. 1915 and 1916 were so difficult I compromised on condition, and 1920 and 1928 just haven't seemed to turn up for me, yet. I'm having a struggle not compromising on condition, must stay strong I'd say it was definitely lustrous, and it may be verdigris by the IND. Nice coin. I've got an NEF 1928, with just a trace of lustre, but also a weird slight stain on the obverse.

Clearly that's a highly probable explanation for many, and one which I never thought about. That too, sounds quite plausible, but why 1928 in particular, peck ? Oh, what I meant was, after the designs changed. Could have been any year really! But perhaps people liked the old designs and were sorry to see them go? I see the connection. Thanks.

Clearly that's a highly probable explanation for many, and one which I never thought about. That too, sounds quite plausible, but why 1928 in particular, peck ?

Noted Sir, although I had spotted it. Do we know why the 1917 seems to stand alone among a generally wretched series from 1915-20 as being well struck ? Interesting observation. The 1917 I've got is definitely better struck than the others with the exception of a really good '18H. As to the reason for this, I haven't a clue and it defies all logic. Perhaps a new master die was cut in that year which rapidly wore out due to the unprecedented demand for pennies? As I said, I'm guessing though... There are plentiful BU 1917's, well struck to be had, it's odd isn't it. As I've said before, I do wonder exactly how many original collectors we owe our supplies to today. Maybe it isn't anything to do with the striking, maybe it's to do with who was around and interested at the time ? Such a shame that we can never have a definitive answer and must speculate into the sunset. Absolutely. We'll never know where that UNC 1917 was hiding all those years. Was it by design, or by accident ? Maybe in a collector's box, or a long forgotten child's piggy bank. Possibly in an old suit, left to languish, or an army uniform left over from the Great War. Even tucked away in an unopened drawer somewhere....... .....We'll just never know for sure.....

Probably a silly question, but who's Tim Everson ?

Hello Stacey ~ is there any chance of seeing a scan of the coin ?

Even out of focus you can easily tell it's a fake.

Your 1819 crown is superb, jd2010. I note that you say many of your post 1900 pennies (including the 1900 itself) are in pretty good condition . In addition to what has already been said above, may I also suggest you look out for 1926 pennies amongst the collection. 1926 is not a common date to start with, and there is a certain type, called a "modified effigy" (which is just a slight alteration to the King's Head), that is extremely rare. If you can find a 1926, please scan it, and we'll give our opinion. Pennies dated 1912, 1918 & 1919, may have a small prefix of either "H" or "KN" just to the left of the date. Meaning they were minted at either the Heaton or Kings Norton mint in Birmingham. These are scarce, and if you can find one in good condition, please scan it.Note: the 1912, only has the "H" variety.

Yep, what happened was that there was a very low response on the night, and my £31 was bid more in hope than expectation. Incredibly, however, I was the winner. But the coin had failed to reach the reserve price. I asked the seller to let me know what the reserve price was, as I might be willing to meet it. In the event she let me have it it for the £31 ~ thanks, therefore, to Julie Sutton. The coin truly is BU, with no signs of wear, and all the hair detail ~ such as it is in that series ~ intact. The only blemish is a very light brown stain on the obverse, and ever so slightly between the legends in places. But still a gem of an example.

If it was genuinely uncirculated I'd say that was not far off a fair price. IMO 1921 is by far the rarest shilling in that series in Unc - yes, rarer than 1925. But I assume you're pointing us at the scratch on the neck, and what looks like wear to the hair detail? And as a 5+E the most numerous of the 1921 series. I'd have put it at sub £100 and would have been desperate to go more than £60. I agree it's the commonest of the varieties, but what I was getting at is that NO 1921 shilling is common in Unc. Even in Spink - not the most enthusiastic listers of modern silver varieties - it's over £100. I'm not sure what that ebay dollar price translates to exactly? Hmm, mine is better than that, and I got it for £31 last year. Incidentally, the example Gary linked to would have been about £151 at current exchange rates. I think the difficulties in obtaining a true UNC example of any of the varieties of the 1921 shilling, are already well documented on here. I got lucky.

Well, it is nice especially the rev but something just does not sit right with me on Georges head. It kind of looks like he has been carved out of a rock, cannot see the definition in his hair very clearly. I wouldn’t have bid any more on the sovereign myself, this nicer one sold for £850 this year at London Coins: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/webcatalogue/128/L1770.JPG The Kings head is never well defined, especially on the earlier coinage of his reign, a fact that he used to complain about himself as an avid coin collector!A very nice Penny and other than the odd bag mark/rim nick difficult to see anything wrong with at all. I never realised that George V was a coin collector !! Thanks for that.