1949threepence

I think these are good, and will hopefully not damage your coins.

Interesting, but no doubt a one off flaw. Collectable as a curio, but to be honest, probably not worth that much. But that's just my opinion, which may well be wrong.

Even if there is no overstrike, it is still a superb coin for the price.

So many of those older bun pennies still in circulation, were just worn away to a flat metal disc, with an unreadable date. Even so, it'd be interesting to see them if you have the time to upload, scott.

Thanks for that, chaps. Very interesting. Obviously it was difficult to find high grade older coins direct from change, as might be expected. You just wonder where those older ones in high grade had actually been before being placed back in circulation by an individual with no numismatic interest or knowledge. Had they been at the corner of an uncleared drawer, in an old suit pocket undisturbed for decades, an old wallet or purse. Or even brought back into the country by foreigners, to spend, after their first visit many years previously ? The only "free find" I ever had was an 1890 penny in about EF with some lustre remaining round the lettering, which was at the bottom of a Victorian grandmother clock I bought as recently as 2006. I made the discovery whilst shining a torch inside, checking for woodworm holes. It was slightly stuck to the floor for some reason, which I presume was why it hadn't previously been discovered, and has what I think are oil stains ~ but not too badly & I've still got it. It was a real thrill finding it though, and I speculated that it might well have been in the same spot for over 100 years

That's how I started out, collecting from change, 40 years ago. I would love to have been around in those days of circulating lsd. Not that you had that long. It would have been good to have been 12 about 1950, with about 20 good years of collecting from change, possible I may be wrong, Gary, but I would bet that only the older bronze remained in active circulation, and that you hardly ever got older (say pre 1920) silver in your change. Not sure why I say that ~ just a strange hunch. Did you ever get a pre 1860 young head penny from your change ?

It looks like the kind of effect you get when you leave a coin on a wet surface for a prolonged period. The one side is normal, and the other side goes a funny colour.

and in the case of a properly circulated coin, like say a 1919KN penny, I would agree with that. The cache of finding a perfect specimen transcends the relative ease of obtaning a worn example, and so the coin acquires a "rare" categorisation. Indeed, a fine example would be "rare". Not for proof sets and non circulation coins, though.

Nice capture for £25, Gary No I didn't got to Coinex, and from what you say, I'm glad I didn't.

hopefully this link works 1916 penny Sadly I'll never know - just got this from the seller "es gibt leider ein Problem mit der Münze - ich finde diese nicht mehr. Möglicherweise wurde sie von mir doppelt eingestellt, jedenfalls ist sie nicht mehr auffindbar. Ich habe Ihnen zudem keine andere Ersatzmünze von 1916 anzubieten. Gerne überweise ich den Betrag umgehend retour, falls Sie schon überwiesen haben. Möglicherweise haben Sie auch einen Ersatzvorschlag aus den von mir eingestellten Münzen, es können dann als Entschädigung auch gerne 2 Münzen sein. " My German isn't good, but I think he's not got the coin he advertised. I think this has pretty much been answered already, but just to add some fine detail FWIW:- "There is unfortunately a problem with the coin - I no longer have it. Possibly I sent two coins (sic: to someone else), at any rate, it is not to be found. Moreover, I have no other replacement coin from 1916 to offer. Gladly I transfer the sum immediately by way of refund if you already transferred. Possibly you might want a replacement from the coins suggested by me, and as a compensation also, gladly, 2 coins from the suggestions". Hope that helps

Don't know whether the above is tongue in cheek or not, but I'm pretty certain it's not low tide

I always ask the seller to upload a picture of the missing side before the auction ends. If they don't, I lose interest very quickly. I'd never take a chance on a coin like that.

Just proves the importance of quality photos when buying coins over the internet. On e bay, for example, some are vastly superior to others. Taking a chance on a coin with a poor pic, is a bit "Russian Roulette". I have known them to look better in the hand than in the pic. Those tend to go for a lower price. At least you only wasted £3.00. Not going to break the bank.

Superb and rightly declared treasure trove. Just goes to show that you can occasionally hit the jackpot whilst metal detecting.

First 2009 5p received in change today.

I think it's a good idea, and more attractive to buyers than starting with a relatively high stated reserve price from which the bidding must then commence. Unannounced reserves always strike me as a bit sneaky. The bidding ends and it's then stated that the reserve price has not been met. Annoying.

Yes, ultimately it is the seller's responsibility to make good any loss. Although as I mentioned a few weeks ago, Royal Mail do push items of recorded delivery post through one's letter box, unsigned for, and without removing the tabs. This creates an open door for unscrupulous buyers to say they have not received the item, and get a full refund, in addition to also holding the item.

At the risk of becoming a bore, I'm returning to this subject. A 1903 shilling I bought recently, EF but rather dirty, seems to have an elongated "9" in the date, compared to others. First I've seen like this.

That is a superb coin, and a very clear overstrike, even on the pic. Neat item

Some superb 1860 and 1861 examples in the Crocker collection.

I agree with you. Whilst some subtle differences are apparent, are they obvious enough, or well known enough to command a premium over other "commoner" types ? The other problem is that on new variant discoveries, we don't really know how many there actually are. We might know that some seem less common than others, but the true extent of the type identified, remains largely unknown. I would say that the less quantifiable and/or obvious, the less the interest, and therefore the less the premium.

Yep, and he wants £500 for it as a "buy it now" or best offer ~ see it here I'm not sure it's worth it.

One thing I did mean to mention is that the second 9 in 1909 shillings, appears to be bigger than the first (on all of them). Although I'm not sure if this is an optical illusion, and I don't have a measuring instrument small and precise enough to judge quantitavely.

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!) Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well. Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1. Gary I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die. The 1907 to 1910 ones, all seem to be type 2a.

I've seen quite a few well circulated 1953 pennies on e bay. There were just over a million minted, so there is no reason to suppose they didn't circulate in a similar manner to say, the 1951 threepence, or the 1952 sixpence, which are of similar mintage. My understanding is all 1953 pennies were issued in sealed PVC folders with the other coins of that year so in that sense they are different. Doesn't mean they couldn't be cut open and spent though. Ah right, so there were none released for general circulation as such. Those that found their way out, must have been from sets cracked open. I bet there were quite a few of those, as Peck suggests. Didn't realise that. Thanks RR