Peckris

You are correct with your assumptions, most of the VAM's are blob's die cracks, and minor stuff...all of which are not listed in the Redbook. The real varieties...0 over CC, 7 over 6, Dbl Die, 80 over 79, etc have separate listing and pricing in the Redbook. Some dealers do expect more for a coin, with a VAM number, but I am not one of those people. I would not pay a premium for a VAM coin! BTW...I am going to be in my Father's Family homeland (Scotland) in late September. Going to Glasgow, Laggan, Airth/Falkirk, and Edinburgh (also England and Wales). BTW...what is haggis? Is it any good? Ha,Ha! We are going to have a dinner in Edinburgh that has haggis on the menu! We are on a Trafalger tour. Don't ask! Just to say that Mrs Beeton's recipe started something like "Take a sheep's stomach and place into boiling water with the long intestine hanging outside the pan". No. Just no.

Not sure - it's definitely not a matt proof, but it has a superb obverse strike. Perhaps 'specimen' is the 'new Choice' ?

Uploading here direct from your own computer, takes about 10 seconds. (And I could take ANY of your images and convert it to a manageable 150K!) Or possibly just a poorly struck 3 or a poorly struck 5? Nor me. It's a worn coin anyway, and it appears to be a 5 that's slightly damaged, probably post-minting.

I'd go along with that Jaggy. (One of London's 1913 sixpences is actually a 1912 )

Sounds a good explanation to me - yes, Edward VI was the reign during which the awful debasements of his father's silver began to be rectified. So using a date on coins would make sense if the population were to have confidence in 'silver dated after ....' (whenever). It may be done to make a political point. Take GC's Henry VIII Tournai groat which is dated 1513. Up to that date, no coin issued in the name of an English monarch had been dated, but for some reason it was decided to date this issue. It can be no coincidence that it was the year Henry resolved to recover some French soil following the loss of Calais nearly 60 years prior to this event and clearly made the political statement that the English were back in France, for which he was duly paid-off the following year. Nice little earner if you can do it. Or it could just be a fashion statement given the earliest dated French coin was 1491 and so the 1513 groat was issued not long after. Based on the design, it was obviously intended for circulation in the local economy. Yes, it sounds as though 1513 was used for political reasons, perhaps given the precedent set by the French for putting a date on a coin. Then later, during Edward VI's reign, the Mint would have remembered that, and maybe thought "Hey, we can use dates to our advantage to restore confidence in the currency?"

In its own way, as good as the John McEnroe tenners!

Very difficult to find any kind of good answer as these websites will confirm: http://www.joelscoins.com/dates.htm http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=90123 http://differintegration.com/2011/04/11/why-do-coins-have-dates-on-them/ and, just for a laugh http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_there_dates_on_coins I mean, come on!

Each to their own.

My apologies too. I fear I caused much greater offence.

What, even uglier than post-1937 penny reverses? Don't worry scott - that's the kind of micro-variety that leaves me completely cold. I won't be in competition with you

As has been said - some punters just try their luck on eBay with ridiculous over-inflated prices. To them, 'genuine rarity' means "it must be worth thousands!" How many 'trident dot' examples are there? They would be harder to see than a 1946 ONE' penny, as the dot would tend to disappear once the penny got to VF or less. The 1946 pennies go for between £10-£20 in average condition, but I'm still waiting to find one in high grade for my own collection. I'd estimate an EF example would cost me around £100, so I'd 'guesstimate' the 1922 at double or triple that price, no more. Having said all that, a collector was prepared to pay £30,000 (was that right?) for an 1863 'narrow 3' penny, so there are ------s out there.

It's entirely possible, I guess. Though in my opinion, it would only apply to a small number of pieces.

You mean 'reverse', not 'obverse', right? That question is one that we agonised over a year or two ago. We never did come to a conclusion, but you're right - how does a reverse that was used in 1927 (though some might argue that the 1927 reverse was a modified version of it) first appear in 1922? There were no pennies 1923-25 of course, and the mintage in 1926 was quite low, but even so, it's a bit of a mystery. One possibility is that the first experiments on a new reverse were in 1922, and weren't intended for circulation. There were no pennies needed for a few years, and almost immediately after that, a new issue of nearly all denominations in 1927-28.

The rim itself is also a dead giveaway - it's broad on the rare one, where the rim on the normal 1922 is the usual narrow one you see on all GV penny reverses from 1913 to 1926. Tracy's is the normal width. But always worth looking out and checking here!

There are some, it's true, though only a minority compared to those in high grade. But the point is, the mintage of those 2 crowns was out of all proportion to wreath crowns - 3/4 and 1/2 a million respectively. And there would have been a fair amount of publicity too - in 1935 for the Jubilee, and in 1937 for the new reign. They wouldn't have cost more than face probably, whereas you would have had to pay a premium for a wreath, and you weren't going to make a loss by spending it. I still stand by the claim that few people would ever have seen a wreath crown. And that those worn specimens in the CGS sale didn't look as if they'd suffered circulation wear, but more by constant rubbing or buffing up. We can't know for certain of course, but that was my gut feeling.

If you mean "1922 with 1927 reverse", those are MEGA rare. The chances of spotting one online and no-one else spotting it, is about as likely as Dave turning out for the England football team

Fashion. Ayephones being a 'must have' accessory, all the embedded faults are therefore 'must have faults'. Get yourself a cheap mobile for a tenner and enjoy a hassle free life. Few people need to do much more than phone or text as the screens are too small to be very practical for surfing the web.I'm back, having flattened the battery! You are of course right Rob I'm caught though! Paulus, sadly no option to disconnect the battery with the o-so-amazing iPhone, you've got to suffer until the bitter flat-battery end! Get yourself a basic pay-as-you-go bog standard phone, then spend your savings on an iPad Mini

NOT an open 3 - and it would be the finest known if it was!! So relax..

Nice to have, if you're a completist!

Do you still have the link?

Looking at the roughness of the remaining circle, I'd say it has to be post-production.

All coins are High priced to ANY buyer Peter. Those Rainbow Morgans are silly money for a coin that has a Little bit of colour and were minted in millions. A proof with less than a 1000 mintage compared to a business strike mintage is in my eyes quite cheap at $3000 Be very careful indeed. A lot of those Morgans are so 'prooflike' you'd easily be fooled. I have one you'd swear was a proof (frosted design, mirror fields), but it's not.

And it's the ONLY practical method of paying if you're disabled.

Wow, you're good! I was going to make an 'educated guess' and say it looked to be a medieval Continental coin, possibly connected with the Knights Templar / Crusades.