Peckris

and not so often seen in our pockets , but sold as extremely rare on ebay

Did any one see this one? I did bid all I had, but all I had wasn't much at the time so I got my arse justifiably kicked. Is it what it says it is? It doesn't really matter - the winning bid of around £20 was a pretty spectacular bargain even if it was the bog standard 1865! Wish I'd seen it, but I don't go to Australia eBay

Bronze is always yellower than copper, I think that's explanation enough?

Let's find out, then! Hope I'm not too late - but that looks like an obvious cast replica.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator. Excellent pic, actually. It would be an odd die flaw, surely ? Odd, yes. But not much odder than a teensy remnant of a 2? So the jury is still out for you on the question ? Well, not really, ii bow to the experts on this. But I will say that it is one of the most obscure and hard-to-spot varieties of all time, and therefore it's questionable how many collectors would be interested. Even the also-quite-hard-to-see-at-times 1865/3 is a clear overdate, as all the diagonal downstroke of the 3 is there to see, not just a tiny little spur of it.

I'm no hammered expert, but it doesn't look cleaned. Hot water is essential for dirty silver, though I'm not sure where the tin foil comes into it? Another possible "crap remover" is surgical spirit, available from all good chemists, but you would have to apply it gently with a microfibre cloth (you know, the kind of thing opticians give you with every new pair of specs.) But certainly, wash it first.

Got a link?

Another excellent avatar happenin' there, man! What's going on around here, my rose looks awefully boring now! It is my previous avatar, after a fruitful hour in Photoshop..

dos is an old Microsoft operating system. Correction - someone else's OS which Microsoft bought cheap, tweaked ever so slightly (changed the name), sold as MS DOS and never looked back (or forward much, either)

How did you manage to do that? Well... I won that one that Gary highlighted for us right at the beginning of the thread, and the seller contacted me and said he'd found some more 1964s and would I prefer that he send me one of them, that weren't damaged. Not likely, says I, and explained to him why I wanted the beaten up one in the photo, and why no other would do. Well, I'd better go and check the others, says he, and comes back saying he's found 3 of the scarce ones, decent circulated. I'll have 'em, says I, and I'll give you a fiver each for 'em. A little dazzled by my spectacular offer, perhaps, he agrees, and they arrived today. VF, gVF, and nEF. He didn't find any 1965 scarce though. What else is good to look for, he asks? So I tell him about 1962 halfcrowns, and he says he has found 6 x D.2330, and 4 x D.2331. So I got a D.2330 off him too. Not quite VF, but it'll plug the gap till I find better. Now of course, he's trying to get silly money on eBay for the halfcrowns - he put a set of all 4 1962 Davies numbers on, all low grade, starting price £25. No takers obviously. I did tell him that the number of people who collect micros is so tiny, particularly in low grade, that he'd be lucky to sell them at all, but would he listen? If anyone wants the battered one in Gary's link that started it all off, I'm happy to send it to them for nothing, now I've got 4 of 'em. Scott? Not the bashed one, but I'm happy to buy one of the other 2 spares you have.

"Rarity" C, C5, C16 - right, they are off my Xmas pressy list then

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:- I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins. Ask ski - he can quote chapter and verse on it

Love it ? Esther Rantzen c. 1983? I remember when That's Life featured a photo of an antiques dealer's van - his name was Robin Bastard. I kid you not.

Good god!!! Has he just sold that cos its ended? The description looks like he's using the mk.2 Ayephone (specific to Dundonians). Completely incomprehensible. One gap you could fill is "Charles II was ruled from 1660-1685 by Catherine of Braganza" He's the diametric opposite of Dave - his spelling is ok but what he says is incomprehensible!

That one's a piece of cake - try and distinguish the 3 kinds of 1958 halfpennies! You mean 1858, Declan? If not, then what on earth are the 1958 varieties??

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator. Excellent pic, actually. It would be an odd die flaw, surely ? Odd, yes. But not much odder than a teensy remnant of a 2?

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'. Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

Welcome to the forums Sheencrofter I have no information on your token, but it is an interesting piece, not your run of the mill token. Have you a copy of Dalton and Hamer in your local library?

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.) Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors! You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets! LOL. If it wasn't for them, there would be precious few commems!

"All exactly the same" - yes, they are equally blurred

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.) Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors!

Where exactly is Ponterfract? And they spelled catalogue wrong too. Tsk. Americarns. Love the new avatar, by the way Tom. Very stylish

Where exactly is Ponterfract? Lol, i thought it was my spelling Not this time