Peckris

The image on the left is about two grades better (obverse) and more than a grade better (reverse). This would easily account for the changes you've noticed. For comparison, check the following on the obverse : hair detail, especially the sideburncheekbonesearneckhow far the legend stands 'proud' from the fieldThe left hand coin is so much clearer in every respect, and despite the green muck in the legend, has much less wear than the other example.

My own thoughts are that you have two fairly worn coins there. Despite the gronk on the top one, I would say that it is actually less worn overall than the bottom, and therefore the date numerals haven't flattened so much. Also, if the bottom one was struck with a wearing die, you'd see a similar effect of less crisp details. But others here may differ?

These are sound points, but the question remains : what shop would even have recognised them, let alone taken them? And if they did, what customer would have taken them as change?

Yes - if you're serious about bronze pennies, you could in fact rely just on Gouby which is basically Freeman updated. But if you thought that you might expand into halfpennies and/or farthings, you should get Freeman as well. Groom is excellent post-1901, and CCBG is useful as a guide to the comparative rarity of many varieties as it gives prices for them.

So can you explain the features that lead you to that Stuart? Because it's all new (and confusing) to me! Surely currency 3ds would far outnumber Maundy ones? One of my bugbears, this. Yes, they would, even the scarce dates. And considering they are absolutely identical apart from finish, why the h*ll are currency specimens worth so much more?????

Eh? I just browsed the September catalogue online and there isn't a single wreath crown in there, that I can see? Lots 2061 to 2081? Strange - I had to browse by lot number to see those. They aren't in the overall Catalogue. Anyway - I'm disregarding the 1927's. Something very odd must have happened for someone to buy a proof set then spend the centrepiece for face value only. Having said that, the 1927's are numerically by far the biggest mintage. Even so, how many shopkeepers would have known what they were? Items 2065 and 2069 do not have what I would class as 'regular circulation wear'. They look as though they have been rubbed many many times, and they have that kind of artificial overall wear that you don't see from general circulation. Mind you, it's no more than a feeling, but they just don't look right as circulated coins. There were more high grade crowns than low grade in the first 10 lots.

That's a good spot, and very unusual for post-Edward VII pennies. There is a variety of 1945 penny "9 double struck", though it never seems to come up for sale. It's also hard to see, much harder than your 1946.

Eh? I just browsed the September catalogue online and there isn't a single wreath crown in there, that I can see?

The only real clue lies in the 1935 specimen crown issue I suppose. The proof quota having been reached the Royal Mint boxed "specimen strike" crown s to satisfy the demand. Taking that to it's logical conclusion coupled with the fact that all of the wreath crowns had strange mintage figures it is reasonable to assume that they were struck to order? A very reasonable assumption, especially when you look at how the mintage tailed off for the final 2 years of their production.

I think the ultra low mintage provides the answer to that - they wouldn't have gone to all that trouble and expense (paying designers, plus the cost of production) to mint so few for circulation. I did read somewhere (can't remember where exactly, now) that they were produced as 'Christmas gifts'. That being the case, I imagine they could well have been sold for higher than face value? One assumes that proof sets were always sold at a premium, so there was ample precedent for a profit from coins. I also read that the 1787 silver was issued to 'customers of the Bank', which is why so many survive in high grade, just like wreath crowns.

Indeed. That's why "the few" were minted in the first place. And such a beautiful coin too, rarely seen except by collectors.

Precisely my point. Yes, I agree. I've hardly ever seen a worn (below GVF) specimen, and the 'pocket piece' theory of the few that did wear is as good an explanation as any. With the average weekly wage in 1930 being about £4 or 16 Crowns you could buy quite a lot for 5/-. I would suggest that up until the early twenteith century crowns were widely circulated. Even into the 30s they must have being in common use. The Royal Mint would vehemently disagree. They stopped producing them for currency after 1900 precisely because public demand for them had fallen away. Why that is, I don't really know, but having grown up in the 1960s with ten bob notes, halfcrowns, etc, I never felt that there was a lack of an intermediate denomination. I imagine that one possible cause of their unpopularity was their sheer size, which of course did for the Cartwheel twopence, though that was bigger still. There's no evidence that they circulated widely in the 1930s. The opposite in fact - Wikipedia says "The British crown was always a large coin, and from the 19th century it did not circulate well."

I love the way eBay says "Bidding has ended on this item." when it never even started!

Yes, I can see crowns being used as five bob in the 19th century, but in the 1940s? Really? I wonder if there's any research or numbers as to what constituted circulating coinage in a particular era. Now that would be interesting. The Veiled Head crowns were issued for circulation, so they must have been circulating freely at least till the 1920 debasement. They would have been top targets for reclamation by the Mint after that though, you'd have thought. The Crown is legal tender still so when else would they have circulated? I note that Michael says : "The person selling this coin thought that his grandfather might have had it as a "good luck" pocket piece and that could be the reason for its condition now !?" Absolutely. My own definition of 'circulated' doesn't include being carried by one single individual in their pocket which would account for any and all wear. But if someone wants to define 'circulation' to include that circumstance, then fair enough - you couldn't distinguish such wear caused by one person over many years, from the same wear caused by many different people over the same period.

Minted for quite a few years, I believe? Well into George III's reign anyway. Same with 1754 copper.

Some certainly were, as the degree of wear is well beyond normal handling or keeping in change. The 1934 I saw, from a local dealer, was a poor fine and well worn. No way was that just a bit of handling wear. Going by Derek's grading book, I'd say the obverse was almost exactly like the illustration at the top of page 88 and the reverse, if anything, was worse than that on page 225. Sorry, I have to disagree here. The number of transactions it would have had to be part of to be that worn would be huge. You're telling me that a whole load of shopkeepers or suchlike, would have handled one of the rarest 20th Century coins without a) questions being asked about what on earth it was and c) without falling into the hands of a collector somewhere along the way? Maybe it was given to a child who used it with its friends for years of 'playing shop', or swapping for something else. Who knows? I'm not saying it wasn't handled over a long period of time by grubby little hands, just that I doubt it saw 'normal' circulation.

With a total mintage of between 35-40,000, and with the vast majority kept for the very reason they were struck - i.e. for collectors - it's highly unlikely that any retailer or average Joe would even have known what they were, let alone taken them as payment for anything. I think we can assume that wear was caused by repeated handling, perhaps where a piece was bought by a collector and given to a favourite niece or nephew as a keepsake. Is there any record of Wreaths being spent as currency?

I don't think scott will allow a 1934 Wreath as a currency coin! Nor would I, tbh.

Dipping bronze and copper : S Failure to understand or adjust camera's White Balance : C7 Nuff said i'm guessing as these people take photos of coins on a hourly basis (my guess) their set up will be spot on Don't believe it. The pictures may be sharp, even, well exposed, etc, and the set up absolutely perfect, but none of that guarantees an understanding of how to set White Balance.

Dipping bronze and copper : S Failure to understand or adjust camera's White Balance : C7 Nuff said

I'd say a 1905 halfcrown and shilling were official currency, wouldn't you?

Their grade is the usual conservative one - most people wouldn't hesitate at classifying that as EF minimum. And as they say, it has good eye appeal, so I'd say it was about right myself. If you got it for the lower estimate you'd have a bargain IMO.

Are you talking about the pictures here (above), Rob? I'm not sure that any email is involved? It's just either an internal attachment on this site, or a direct link to somewhere like Photobucket. I'm not sure how Outlook can block pictures on a website - I rather think you've got a browser issue. No, pictures on this website and other are fine. It is outlook telling you that outlook blocked the pictures to protect your privacy but they can be downloaded by right-clicking. This is complete b****cks. If it wanted to protect my privacy, all it has to do is stop the emails. This happens too often anyway such as failing to recognise an email from the wife in another room of the house is probably legitimate. Having decided to allow the email through, outlook should include all the content. I haven't got time to download everything separately because I probably get 20-30 a day, so all these emails get binned. If outlook decides a BT or CNG logo is pornographic or whatever reason and not fit for the eyes of a broad minded 55 year old it blocks it, there's no hope. I should change from Outlook to Windows Live, or Outlook's 'big brother' Exchange , if I were you. Apple's Mail "hides" images in any email it's marked as Junk, but if you click Not Junk, the images are all there, and next time it won't mark that sender as Junk. Don't have the alternatives on my computer, but it isn't worth buying them unless I know it will solve the problem. What someone needs to come up with is an intelligent facility for the user to tell microsoft who is acceptable & who not. If the system was able to learn from your assigning junk/not junk status to a sender, there would be little need for outlook to block most of those things it currently does. Windows Live is the free default Microsoft email client now. For some reason they don't include it on new machines (or didn't, for Windows 7) but you can download it for free.

Try telling that to a prospective buyer of a BU 1874 "G's over sideways"