1949threepence

It's still only VF. Surely no experienced collector would fall for that coin being in EF, given the amount of hair detail loss.

Damn! I'm not going to rush to find them, then lol ~ understandable

Thanks Leviathan, much appreciated

Thanks. Had a look, but buggered if I can find them

Where do you find the mintages, Scott ? They don't sem to be in my coin yearbook, for whatever reason.

I appreciate what you say about cost, but just as a matter of interest, one of the members here, RLC35, has one for sale on his website. The link to the coin itself, is here

I'm no expert on hammered coinage, but a bit more detail than this:- Might have been useful.

I'd say it was genuine ~ first instinct is that it looks old metal. If you look at the obverse, for example, there are numerous little nicks which appear to have been gathered over many years. Hard to reproduce artificially IMHO.

I agree with 400 ~ genuine, but cleaned. About GVF. Nonetheless, my 2009 coin yearbook (which I should have updated but haven't), does warn against recent forgeries of the 1849 florin, just underneath grading to value details of that specific coin.

To me the obverse looks GEF and the reverse an immaculate UNC. Nice coin/gold investment.

I definitely would. The dot doesn't exactly hit you in the eye, and if you weren't aware of it, you might miss it completely. Even in BU it wouldn't form any sort of collection cornerstone for me. Sure, the novelty value is there, but hardly more than superficial, and if you do manage to sell it for a good price, there are other more attractive coins the money you realise, could be put towards.

Not sure if anyone here has got one for sale (I personally haven't even got one at all, let alone to sell). I did see one recently in e bay, and it was only just about fine. Even so, it went for over £100, If I recall correctly. As you are obviously aware, they don't come up very often. Good luck

The only area I'm advanced in is the size of my stomach, but I only collect about uncircultated pennies with as much lustre as possible, and I mean as much as possible and if it's not quite there, then I don't buy it. I am very comfortable with holes in my collection, they don't stress me. Hasn't always been this way, I came into the hobby via a Piedfort silver proof £1 over ten years ago, collected them for a year or so, then saw them for what they were, collected sovereigns as I gradually became more confident spending larger sums of money, then I flirted with hammered gold before realising that I could never afford that and finally settled on bronze pennies because they have everything; 1. They are the coin of the people and have much history. 2. In full lustre they match gold for appearance. 3. They are an interesting series with great, large portraiture. 4. A normal person can afford them, mostly. 5. They are plentiful(ish) To be honest, I've never been interested whether the tip of the trident points to a tooth or a gap, I'm not really a numismatist, more of a fine art collector but in coins. I've got an (A) collection and a B collection, but the B collection isn't very big - a dozen pennies or so, where I either made a mistake or was inpatient. I do exactly what you did on that big table, the difference is, I can do it on my desk. Only my 1915 isn't uncirculated with MOY lustre and I haven't bought a coin so far this year. I have a fund, a penny fund and I wait. I need 6 pennies in tip top to sign off 1900-1936 by year and not type (type is optional I'm the sole judge of whether I should or should not have a KN or H or ME for instance) I can ignore type if I want to, but not an example of date. These are my rules. I have 3 pre 1900's and part of me dreads finishing the post 1900 series, even a complete date run in UNC with lustre might not be achievable now. So I wait, Declan, I wait. I bid £25 for that lovely 1910 (which I didn't need and didn't win, but look at it) so £25 goes into the fund and I wait. I've got nothing but admiration for what the likes of you and Scott do, you're much more useful to the hobby than me, but we each must be to our own. I'm currently practising breathing through my ears - aids waiting evidently, haven't quite mastered it yet. Rgds, Fantastic post. I take my proverbial hat off to you, 400. I echo so much of what you say, especially the bit about waiting. Because that's the great thing about our hobby. You might complete half of a date run, wait 50 years, and then complete the other half, with absolutely no change to the original half collected. To me, that is the enduring beauty of our hobby. Respect & kudos to you for being your own man, and relentlessly pursuing the hobby as you personally envision it, and not through the lens of what "types" are currently fashionable.

With the exception of my brass threepence collection, I've got nothing beyond 1936. Although I do plan on getting all the pennies up to 1951, simply to get the 1950 & 51 examples. But no, a 1954 florin would not do it for me, even if BU.

I don't believe old coins, even in apparent BU condition, will possess the pristine purity of say, a new 2010 2p, or 50p. There is almost always some slight dulling of lustre. Therefore, in my opinion, a "fresh from the mint" appearance of any old coin, might well be a tell tale sign of a fake, and something I'd be very wary of.

Talking about shells, has anyone heard the rumour that WWI shell cases were melted down and added to the alloy for bronze coins? I only ever heard about this once, in a Whitman folder of key date pennies I picked up at auction. Among the 'usual suspects', there was a 1920 and 1921 with what looks like brass flecks scattered through the planchet. The previous owner had added a note that this was due to "WWI shell cases". I've still got them and I guess if there is interest I could scan and upload pictures. When I was in the midst of assembling my shilling collection, I read somewhere that the 1920 shilling was 50% spent shell casing. I thought I remembered where I read it, but when I looked it wasn't there. So it must have been somewhere else. At any rate, the assertion, wherever it is, was totally believable to me, as my UNC 1920 shilling is definitely slightly darker than its peers of that era. Got it ~ click here Scroll down to 1921 Not that some bod on the internet is necessarily going to know more than you or I, but it does confirm the belief. Would have been useful if he'd given a source.

Talking about shells, has anyone heard the rumour that WWI shell cases were melted down and added to the alloy for bronze coins? I only ever heard about this once, in a Whitman folder of key date pennies I picked up at auction. Among the 'usual suspects', there was a 1920 and 1921 with what looks like brass flecks scattered through the planchet. The previous owner had added a note that this was due to "WWI shell cases". I've still got them and I guess if there is interest I could scan and upload pictures. When I was in the midst of assembling my shilling collection, I read somewhere that the 1920 shilling was 50% spent shell casing. I thought I remembered where I read it, but when I looked it wasn't there. So it must have been somewhere else. At any rate, the assertion, wherever it is, was totally believable to me, as my UNC 1920 shilling is definitely slightly darker than its peers of that era.

Just as a matter of interest, this is now a re-listed item as the 1919KN only @ $2299.00, which at today's pound - dollar exchange rate of £1.5372, equates to £1495.58. So rare at that grade, it might just be worth it. I'm still far from convinced by that Unc rating by the seller. It looks no more than EF to me judging by Britannia's fingers on the trident and the hair on the portrait. If it really was Unc I'd be very interested in it, but right now I'm a bit ho hum (though I'd agree it is RARE even in EF). Oh, it's definitely not uncirculated, hence my "EF" thread title. But I must say that I haven't even seen one advertised in EF before. Uncirculated would be amazing

Just idly scanning through USA e bay, when I came across this delightful pair of beauties Price as a buy it now roughly £2,200 for both. Not quite UNC, but given the extreme rarity of these coins at high grade, are they worth the asking price ?

Just as a matter of interest, this is now a re-listed item as the 1919KN only @ $2299.00, which at today's pound - dollar exchange rate of £1.5372, equates to £1495.58. So rare at that grade, it might just be worth it.

Thanks Dave. It makes you wonder if there might even be a health risk from such fakes, consisting as they do, of depleted uranium. Although it does look as though such risks would be extremely slight. link

It worries me that a dealer would sell such a coin without a clear description of exactly what it is, even if it is a 1933 penny which everyone should know about. Still, this thread has been a useful lesson for me, for which I am grateful. It will be a while before I dare buy any coins on eBay! If there's one you find yourself interested in, but are uncertain whether or not to make a bid, why not post a link to it on here, and get the view of the forum ? Happy to help

I was caught out by a couple of fake sovereigns a year or so ago. They weren't particularly well forged and the seller refunded promptly enough, so no problem. However, they were obtained by the seller from the middle east, via, so they claimed, a relative. They were the correct weight and size and as stated had to have been made by plating another metal rather than being made from 22 ct gold. The clue to them came from them being mildly radioactive!! What were they made of - almost certainly depleted uranium left over from exploded munitions from the Gulf war in Kuwait. Uranium is the densest of all metals so its easy to see why it was chosen. The moral of this story? Buy a geiger counter!! A must have for all coin collectors. I must admit, I thought osmium was the densest (and heaviest) of the metals. But yu may be right, it's just an observation and it certainly doesn't detract from your very interesting point

Very interesting & unique insight. Thanks Chris.

Oh sure. As long as we know precisely what is offered for sale. If that is a "contemporary" fake, then no problem. It's the modern fakes offered for sale as the genuine article, that seriously worry me.