1949threepence

Ah that one. I must admit I've never looked at it before. Yes that is a very nice specimen and now takes first place of the ones I've seen. ETA: the obverse side anyway.

That's a 164, Jon. We'd just changed the narrative slightly to the 164A.

I didn't think you were on facebook

By a country mile the best I've seen. None of the known others better than (at best) NVF, and most sub fine.

It's useful for the interest groups, for local (otherwise unpublicised) news, and in finding old friends you've not seen or otherwise heard of for many years. But much of the general day to day interaction is tedious beyond belief, unless you actually want to know the minutiae of other folks's lives, some of whom you barely know.

Unless they were collected (eg: the H's KN's and ME's of this world) absolutely. The vast majority would have been totally unaware, for example, of many varietal types of Edward VII and George V & VI. Hence, as I referenced in an earlier post, why some which are now extremely rare, were never collected pre demonetisation. Some weren't identified until Freeman's time, and the enthusiastic collectors of the mid to late 60's were probably using those small "Check your Change" booklets, which, whilst obviously very useful, did not cover the lesser known varieties. So they nearly all disappeared in the melt and probably many more in the subsequent unofficial melts which still go on to this day. Having now got nearly a full complement of Coin Monthly's from November 1966 to February 1971, it's also noteworthy that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever, in the sales ads, of many of the 20th century Freeman types we now know so well. A 1913 penny, for instance, was a 1913 penny. No more than that.

A related question, and may I say, a very interesting one. The "UNC" percentage seems to vary considerably from coin type to coin type, and although there is obviously some absolute relation to overall rarity, there are some definite real terms differences, which can be difficult to explain. For example, off the top of my head, amongst the rarest coins there are some, such as the F14 penny, the F8 and F9 mule (all 1860), and the 1862 F38 mule, which seem to have more than you would expect as UNC examples. There are others. Whereas such pennies as the 1864 (plain and crosslet), and the F98 1879 narrow date, which are not that desperately rare in lower grades, are extremely difficult to locate in top grade. The F90 1877 narrow date penny, which is roughly on a rarity par with the F8 & F38 mules, has nothing above fine among its ranks. Obviously I'm talking exclusively pennies here, as it's my specialism, but the same principles must apply across the board. In some cases I think there are more UNC specimens available because they were collected by default shortly after mintage, as part of a date run (the collector having no idea of the coin's significance at that time). In other cases, it's very difficult to know the precise reasons for either a surplus or deficit of UNC examples. I imagine we never will and are left to speculate.

Apologies for the industrial language, but I do think it's otherwise funny and just about sums up facebook at times.

Bob, I think there's a lot in what you say. Those ongoing unofficial melts, plus the lost coins mentioned by Jerry, probably account for a very substantial percentage of the bronze still existing after the RM official melt. ETA: I'd also bet that a faIr number of rare varieties have slipped through the net, due to loss of concentration when checking large numbers of coins. It'd be a lot easier to miss varieties when checking for a very few amongst a large number, than it would be when checking and classifying every single one, as Court did. So in conclusion, I'd estimate that from the accumulated losses <1% of Court's original estimates now remain extant. Considerably less than 1% in many instances.

I definitely think that applies to the F169, where the toothed border is often so worn, it's impossible to determine the type, either way.

Not to mention those eye wateringly huge buyer premiums.

Glad I've already got one, Terry. I've seen it evidenced a few times just how well read this forum is by non members (and probably members who never post).

Isn't there just.......you going for it, Jon?

Very nice, Terry, and what a bargain. Have you got a pic of the reverse as well?

In fact, let us narrow it down to pennies in particular. If we assume that Court's estimated mintage figures are correct, and we also accept a generous reclamation rate of 90%, that theoretically leaves the following current figures of extant pennies for the following varieties:- 1903 open date - estimated mintage 37,300 - potentially still in existence 3,730 (extremely unlikely to be anywhere near as high) 1905 F 160 - estimated mintage 3,231, 359 - potentially still in existence 323,136 (plausible, but unlikely to be that high) 1908 F164 - estimated mintage 1,166,550 - potentially still in existence 116,655 (plausible, but unlikely to be that high) 1908 F164A estimated mintage 55, 550 - potentially still in existence 5,555 (extremely unlikely to be anywhere near as high) 1909 F169 - estimated mintage 23,200 - potentially still in existence 2,320 (almost certainly more would have come to light of this extremely rare and sought after variety) 1911 Gouby X - estimated mintage 188,000 - potentially still in existence 18,800 (extremely unlikely to be anywhere near as high) 1913 F175 - estimated mintage 1,733,500 - potentially still in existence 173,350 (extremely unlikely to be anywhere near as high) 1913 F176 - estimated mintage 948,750 - potentially still in existence 94,875 (extremely unlikely to be anywhere near as high) So that leaves three possibilities: 1) The reclamation rate was much higher than 90%: 2) Court's figures are incorrect: 3) There are many thousands sitting out there somewhere, still waiting to be discovered. I find it difficult to accept that Court's figures are that much out, as he was working from a substantial pre melt population, which should be representative of the whole population then still in existence. I also think it highly improbable that there are so many thousands of the rare varieties still sitting out there, given that nearly 50 years have elapsed, several generations have passed, and surely most jam jar/kitchen drawer/garage collections would have been looked at by now, and profits turned, wherever possible. That just leaves one possibility - that the RM withdrawal rate of pennies was in fact, ultimately much higher than 90%. Maybe as high as over 99% in many cases, especially on varieties not at that point well known. Moreover, given what I've alluded to previously on this forum, that a fair percentage of F175 & 176, for example, are high grade, it would suggest that they had previously been collected and put away by default, purely as date types. Their much rarer significance having not been known about by the collector at the time. Very interesting topic and no easy answers.

Further crossings out. Now just four months of the original eleven still outstanding.

An article about them in today's Daily Mail. Apparently the very limited edition quickly sold out - link But the "good" news is that profiteers are selling them for a handsome mark up on e bay - further link Actually even at the enhanced price, they might not, ultimately, be a bad investment.

You've got a cyclone right now in Western Australia haven't you?

Thanks - I hadn't realised they went earlier. Elementary, but nonetheless very useful info for those who simply didn't know. As you say there are many complicating factors, not least the staggered demonetisation which ultimately took place over many years. It's basically down to guesswork. Although as @Mr T suggests, maybe the RM do have some figures in their annual reports from that time. Pennies would be especially interesting in this regard.

Hmmm, bizarre. I wonder how many times a year it was polished to cause that degree of wear.

As you say, insulting. Not to mention supercilious and breathtakingly condescending.

Pompous idiots. How many of the population actually give 2 wotsits either way? They just see a 50p and the vast majority never even look more closely than that. I hope they were tongue in cheek remarks.

You mean in the sense that "BRITT: OMN: REGINA" was still on the 1953 coinage specifically, but the "BRITT OMN" disappeared from 1954 onwards? I assume they dropped it because it was the wrong meaning - although I don't know for absolute certain. Could certainly have been replaced by just "BRITT REGINA" or a contracted version of that. As per Victoria with "BRITT REG" - "Queen of all the Britons". As far as no national markings like "GREAT BRITAIN", we never really have had. "BRITT" was probably the furthest it got. I suppose the reason is historic, but could be interpreted as either self important or self effacing, depending on how you view it.

"BRITT OMN" translated from the Latin, means "King of all the Britons". Therefore won't be on current coinage. Obviously wasn't on Victoria's either. But was on the coinage of the intervening KIngs, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI coins. When Charles accedes to the throne, it'll be on again. We will never see "IND IMP" again though.

Which lot No is it Richard? I couldn't find it.