Peckris

Well... I do not own books written by Davis or Groom yet, but no doubt that I will purchase them as I have the chance and the money to do so. The accumulation of citations and literature about coins is as important as collecting the coins themselves. It is not a shame to have the same information published by different authors. They might have different details on a subject analyzed. Sorry... therefore i do not really understand your criticism... Criticism? No, I just mean that Davis (who was published around the same time as Ron's survey) is very thorough, and for 20thC there's nothing so far to beat Dave's book, which is very recent and contains varieties previously unpublished. So kudos to Ron but I doubt he has much that's new.

Not cleaned I think. It's a classic G6 UNC piece of silver.

Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ? I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins .... According to Wikipedia: "Subtractive notation was rarely used in Ancient Rome but became popular in the 13th century." Yes, the Middle Ages was the period I had down. Though IIII was certainly IV when clocks became popular from the 17thC - so why clock makers preferred IIII is anyone's guess.

You might find that all his halfcrown varieties are adequately covered by Davis and Groom respectively. Those that aren't, you'd have to question their viability as varieties.

It grades at Fair/Fine so I'd say £13 was probably about right. Quick Guide to Roman numerals: 19th Century dates all start MDCCC (M 1000 + D 500 + CCC 300) X = 10, so MDCCCX = 1810, MDCCCXX = 1820, MDCCCXXX = 1830 L = 50, so MDCCCXL = 1840, MDCCCL = 1850, MDCCCLX = 1860, MDCCCLXX = 1870, MDCCCLXXX = 1880 I II III = 1 2 3, so MDCCCLXXXI = 1881 (etc) IV V VI VII VIII = 4 5 6 7 8, so MDCCCLXXXIV = 1884 (etc) IX = 9, so MDCCCLXXXIX = 1889 (though there were no Gothic coins by then, so you won't see that one! But it gives an idea of how unwieldy Roman numerals could get) It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' (where V is 5 but 1 less is IV and 1 more is VI; same with IX X XI, XL L LX, XC C CX, etc), so their numbers would have been very long!)

Welcome to the forums atscaper

Sorry to be a cynic, but it looks too good to be true. Especially the fact it's on eBay - with a coin like that, why not sell through Baldwins or Spink?

Hopefully. You might want to pick it up before Peter pilfers it from the delivery office to replace one of his lost'uns. I've got enough Spinks (and Seabys) that I don't need a ladder to clean the upstairs windows. Bill Gates 'cleaning Windows' was definitely one of the better Apple screensavers

16thC? You'd have thought his wife would have asked for Elizabeth coins! But maybe her grasp on history isn't too great..

AFAIK there aren't many banknote collectors on here. Your example is of a very modern type and therefore of little historical interest, but the 'badly cut' nature would be of interest to a collector of such things, I'm sure. You'd be better finding a dedicated banknote forum, perhaps?

Thanks Steve, Well thats the bulk collection of pennies I had well and truly sorted now! No other varieties to be had, just one question, why the hell do I keep looking? :P Regards Why is the sun hot? Water wet? The Pope a Catholic? Do you not watch "The Borgias" Peck? There's another series? I remember one from the early 80s that turned up - via Frank Muir - on TV Hell in the 90s.

And equally can't spell - note "luster" for "lustre" Blimey, even at the quoted 'aUNC' his asking price is a tad on the high side! In some parts of the world -- that is the correct spelling Not in Dundee, it isn't

Thanks Steve, Well thats the bulk collection of pennies I had well and truly sorted now! No other varieties to be had, just one question, why the hell do I keep looking? :P Regards Why is the sun hot? Water wet? The Pope a Catholic?

And equally can't spell - note "luster" for "lustre" Blimey, even at the quoted 'aUNC' his asking price is a tad on the high side!

Yes, those are both recessed ear varieties. The points to look out for (apart from the preternaturally recessed ear) are : 1. the broken tooth which is the clincher 2. the fact that Britannia is usually fully struck up on the reverse, particularly the face and chest areas They are scarce rather than rare, the 1915 more so. A lot more scarce in high grades, but easier to spot in lower grades.

I would really really hate to lose the notion of the 'penny' - it has a long and honourable history going back to Saxon, if not Roman, times. It, not the pound, is what the British coinage has always been built around. There's such a romantic association to it. But, isn't it time we got rid of our base metal coins altogether? Here are some interesting facts: - when 1961 dawned, the lowest value coin was still - briefly - the farthing - by 1971, a mere 10 years later, we'd lost both it and the halfpenny, and the lowest value coin was the 1/2p, worth nearly 5 times the old farthing - by 1984, not even 25 years on, the lowest value was the new penny, worth nearly 10 times what a farthing was. Yet here we are, almost 30 years after the 1/2p went, and the lowest value coin is STILL the penny. I very much doubt, given inflation, that our humble 1p could even match the 1961 farthing's purchasing power. I say, let's get rid of those useless 'coppers' and make the 5p the lowest value coin - it is, after all, approximately the size of the old 1/2p. And to avoid rip-off merchants, legislation would enforce the rounding UP of any item that's closer to the higher multiple of 5 (e.g. 13p 14p, 18p 19p), but the rounding DOWN of any item closer to the lower multiple (11p 12p, 16p 17p etc). As I say, I'd hate to lose the penny, but I'd not mourn the loss of those almost valueless coppers. The penny would survive in the Maundy, and in years to come, there could be other ways to revive the name too.

It's utterly astonishing how cheap Roman silver can be. For example you can pick up EF silver of the commoner types for less than £100, which for 2,000-year-old coins is pretty amazing. As a general rule of thumb, the earlier emperors, and the last few, are usually worth more than those of 2nd-3rd Centuries. If it's not a rare type (and PROVIDENTIA reverses usually aren't) then it would fetch anywhere between £30-£75 as a guesstimate. Better to hang onto as a historical piece. I couldn't agree more Peck, I know it's all supply and demand but what a piece of history at an affordable price! And the condition of them can easily rival coins that were 'minted' 1500 years more recently! And actually better than some of the - e.g. 20p's - recent issues of our own Mint

Oh don't worry - apart from the pictures I post, the ones posted by everyone else are just library pictures trawled off the internet

Erm. Harrumph. Um. Was there.. Did you.. Er.. Is it for sale? If so, I might be in the market for it!

Can't be done - decent stuff sells, but the crap gets continually recycled via "free listing" weekends Rob, Peter - you both miss my point, I'm not complaining about the relisting BUT recycled listings make any attempt at statistics impossible. Court's suevey is valid because his samples were on the way to the melting pot - ie no coin was counted twice Well, maybe there is an outside chance to do a survey by trying to replicate the experiment. You can certainly collect as many piles of low grade pennies as possible and ensure they get melted and hence not double counted. That would be good for everyone as the supply of crap far outweighs the number of collectors and their demand. What you cannot overcome is the 40 years of cherry-picking to remove the rarities from the accumulated piles. You are comparing two different populations - the first was for circulating coinage, the second non-circulating collected accumulations by people with a probable interest in coins. That will inevitably skew the results. Exactly Rob. Though there's an interesting future scenario - if copper prices continue to rise, and dross continues to be sold for scrap, can't you envisage a situation where the known rarities become progressively commoner in relation to their peers?

It's utterly astonishing how cheap Roman silver can be. For example you can pick up EF silver of the commoner types for less than £100, which for 2,000-year-old coins is pretty amazing. As a general rule of thumb, the earlier emperors, and the last few, are usually worth more than those of 2nd-3rd Centuries. If it's not a rare type (and PROVIDENTIA reverses usually aren't) then it would fetch anywhere between £30-£75 as a guesstimate. Better to hang onto as a historical piece.

I don't recognise either, though my knowledge of Roman is moderate only. The first one has an obverse typical of an earlyish emperor, but that reverse is like nothing I've ever seen. The second one could possibly be Greek, but equally it could be a local imitation of an established type.

When was Court's survey done? Obviously pre-decimal, but how long before? I suspect that the frequency of known rarities have changed dramatically since 1971, and it would seem that all those 4 varieties must have been known about pre-1971, or a survey of them could not have been taken. I don't know how, but it's time for a new survey - perhaps a regular sample of eBay once a month for a year.

I have an 1858 with identical effect, at least on the date :

I read somewhere (more than once) that these were created purely for photographic purposes, so there would never have been more than a handful.