1949threepence

There wasn't one, Terry. Just the reader letter.

Does this show up? I dropped in a copy of the previous effort as it was too big to import, and whilst it shows up on my personal devices, it doesn't on anyone else's. Nor on my work surface pro. Had this issue before. No idea what it's all about, but I've now compressed the snip to well below 500 kb and just imported it in the usual way this time. You should now be able to see, hopefully,.

Interesting reader letter from a Nigel Palk in the August 2020 edition of "Coin News", in which he refers to two varieties of 1902 LT penny. Here's a screenshot:-

Indeed. I just wondered if Bramah had copied bits directly out of Christmas's book, without modifying them such that they would fit in with the time he was writing. Probably didn't but it fleetingly crossed my mind.

So not quite a 2:1 ratio in favour of the PT. Thanks very much Ian. Once again, incredibly useful info. It's odd, isn't it, that Peck made no reference to date width, size, and digit design (for want of a better phrase), except for 1857 to 1859 "small dates". Especially given that date differences prior to 1857, especially 1853 and 1856, are very obvious to the naked eye, and far from subtle. Bramah mentions 1857 (specifically) having a much smaller date variety, presumably because of a report in the Spink Numismatic Circular of March 1895. Apart from that he seems somewhat dismissive of date differences in terms of collectable varieties, because of the sheer number - "innumerable", as he points out. Yes, Bramah mentions Henry Christmas's work "Copper and billon coinage of the British Empire" (1864) in his bibliography. Something he says at page 108 seemed slightly odd in view of the fact that by 1929, 60 odd years had passed since demonetisation of pre 1860 copper. Yet he says: "......it is very doubtful if any casually-acquired hundred specimens would in practice contain any examples of those dates to which 1 per cent is allocated. The simple reason is that the scarce dates are retained by collectors and will not be found in promiscuous assemblages". Where would anybody have "casually acquired" 100 specimens in 1929? Certainly not from change. By definition they would only be available for sale as collectors items, or the odd few in jam jars etc. Of course, I'm pre-supposing that huge bagfuls of random copper coins weren't available then, in the same way as they are now for pre decimal bronze.

To be honest, Chris, I'm not sure. But what you say closely describes the 1860 to 1901 version, which is in a ring binder and loose leaf, with pictures of all the obverses and reverses described.

I've got "The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1901", but not "The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1970". Michael has the former for £50 but the latter is sold out and has been for a long time. We could do with a re-print. If you can't get one from Michael, Mick, one might hopefully come up for auction at some point.

Query about the 1856 penny. I hope someone can confirm my thoughts. Peck records the 1856 ornamental trident (ref 1512) as "very rare", and the 1856 plain trident (ref 1510) as "extremely rare" (page 407) . Conversely, Bramah, at page 109, considers the 1856 OT as "very rare" and the PT as "scarce". This isn't about the differing qualitative terms used by each, but about the actual relative rarity. From my observations so far, I'd have to say that the 1856 PT is much the commoner of the two, within otherwise scarce parameters, and that the 1856 OT is - in fact - very rare. So Bramah appears to be correct on relative scarcity, which leads me to wonder why Peck concluded the opposite - unless it's a clerical/typing error. Thanks in advance.

Simples 😼

You've heard of the lion rampant - well this is the cat rampant:-

50p's certainly seem like a popular collecting item. Quite surprised £2 coins aren't more popular than they are, for modern era collectors.

Although it is 99.8% positive, and with that level of feedback you're always going to get some dissatisfied customers. Even so, I'm always slightly wary at anything less than 100% these days, as I've been shafted on one or two occasions.

It's a shame - the verd seriously detracts.

For an F8 that price was an absolute bargain. I bet most of the potential UK buyers completely missed it. Not a bad coin.

I just couldn't resist, Jerry !!!

Looks like it could do with an overnight soak in balsamic vinegar.........

Probably so, which would explain.

Hmm...either way it's an impaired proof.

One very minor word of warning. Don't lay it on any light coloured fabrics as it leaves a lot of black specks behind. That tendency will probably disappear in time.

So trying to sell them he'd have had norfolk_n_chance.....

Mine arrived yesterday - very pleased. It'll be useful.

Problem these days is that the West is so acutely distracted with other things, that the Russians might (not unreasonably) assume we'd gone soft. It's noteworthy that they don't care one jot about the things we care about, nor do they ever receive one jot of criticism for not doing so. It's as though they're 100% exempt.

Agreed. Once you get a one party state in power, the right of the ordinary person to criticise or make fun of the political operators, is immediately negated. Not a pleasant prospect.

Are the Chinese government for real? First they blatantly renege on their commitment to honour the one nation two systems concept for 50 years, then they get angry because the UK has apparently "broken promises" by potentially granting UK citizenship for up to 3 million Hong Kong people. I don't think they were expecting this swerve by the UK, and they're well rattled, as they obviously don't have an immediate effective riposte to it.

It's a wonder it wasn't 99% in favour, in the time honoured way of the old communist bloc.