Peckris

I think you are on the right line, coincidentally the only other year that saw this number of overdates/reuse of dies was 1848, and the same numbers were in use as well 3, 6 and 7 Both Peck and Freeman assume that the bronze changeover was planned for 1860, but original Mint records relating to it may not have been available to either. Certainly the French had changed over by 1852. But it is significant that there was a massive mintage of pennies (compared to previous years) in 1854 and 1855. Was that to satisfy demand during the period of changeover? It's interesting that - compared with, say, 1971 bronzes - the first year's mintage of the new coinage (1860) was modest compared to the following 3 years. Scope for study, I'd say.

You've included several alloys there Rob - shouldn't the "Silver 0.500" be amended to show the various compositions of silver alloy used from 1920 to 1946 (and 1986)?

Despite it being such a common date, the sheer number of 1858 varieties rather points towards the introduction of bronze being delayed for a couple of years? It's almost as if they said, "Oh well, we're not going to meet the deadline, but there's still a demand for pennies, let's see what's lying around that can be over-dated." And having firmly decided to postpone, they would then have been ready for 1859 in good time, a date for which there are not a large number of varieties. (The 1859 penny is, I think, possible evidence that the 1858 effort wasn't simply using up older dies to save on cutting new dies before 1860.) The 1860 copper is invariably an overdate and rare, suggesting that the production of bronze coins for 1860 was either not quite on time, or didn't meet full demand. I think the former is more likely when you look at the comparatively modest mintage of 1860 bronze pennies compared with the massive mintages for 1861,62,63.

What are the 1863 varieties? I must check mine out. Dot under lighthouse Do you have any pictures? There was one in the colin cooke collection 2006- It is still on the website even 6 years after colins death - A fantastic tribute to him and probably there for good - even more useful than colin's site (sorry colin) I just had a look at Colin's site - despite being BU the picture isn't large enough to make it out unfortunately. What did you mean by the "other" Colin Cooke site? I only know his main one.

A breath of fresh air compared to some members here who think they've beaten odds of millions to one and found extremely rare varieties

Glenn Ogden is the biggest dealer in the SW. I think he has a website if you google, but is also a presence at one of the travelling group of fairs (PHoenix? Not sure - his website probably gives details). Just Googled for you : http://www.glennogdencoins.com/ and yes, he has a list of fairs in the region on the home page.

That's a good strong obverse strike, if you need a second opinion. (The seller's grading is sometimes eccentric - he's offering a 1797 penny VF but described as a twopence in GFine. At £25, no wonder it's already sold!) Several other rather weird grades, but usually UNDERgraded which is no bad thing.

What are the 1863 varieties? I must check mine out. Dot under lighthouse Do you have any pictures?

But get in early on the helium coins - the values keep rising

What are the 1863 varieties? I must check mine out.

Unfortunately, there are too many imponderables. One of the biggest is how well known the variety is, which in turn creates demand which is the all-important factor of course. You would have to rank a variety in terms of : 1. how long-standing is it? 2. how recognisable is it? 3. how much research and published material is there, e.g. a Freeman, Peck, ESC, Davies? 4. are there any auction values for it? Your example of the 1923 mule florin depends on how Davies arrived at his price and what changes in the market there have been since then. It's probably much rarer than the 1925 florin, but wouldn't match its price.

I think it's a major coin type from a notoriously brief reign, and will always be attractive from that point of view. Personally, I would rather own one of the few trial pieces with the different reverse. Those are also out of reach! So I'd be happy with a replica

I'd distinguish "dedicated buyers competing" from "sometimes naive, sometimes idiotic, sometimes conned buyers" though.

I only found 70, most of them rubbish. Of the 4 coins that were EF, two were polished. Of the remainder, only one even approached VF. (Completed Listings).

Well, they always ignored Exchange & Mart - would you rate eBay any more highly or more respectable than that?

Unfortunately that's not really a good guide - there's no way to filter "idiot buyers who have more money than sense" out of the results, nor "sellers who are less than truthful and honest", nor "buyers and sellers who don't see it's a rare variety". So how do the "respected" guides filter all that out? When sample sizes are small, how do you tell whether a result is an outlier, like the examples you give, or a genuinely changing trend? As far as I know, respected guides don't take eBay realisations into account, and actual auction houses would only have a small sample of "idiot buyers" (in my opinion), and provided they know their stuff will correct the false impressions of "bad sellers". But you are quite right about small samples; the rarer something is, the greater the risk of unrealistic values.

Unfortunately that's not really a good guide - there's no way to filter "idiot buyers who have more money than sense" out of the results, nor "sellers who are less than truthful and honest", nor "buyers and sellers who don't see it's a rare variety".

Declan, I've seen one or two in no better than fine condition, maybe poorer, so I reckon a few must have done the rounds for a while. One was a 1934! I very much doubt they circulated normally. Not enough were minted for people to be aware of them, generally. Considering 5/- was around a quarter of a week's wages, you wouldn't take a chance on it. Maybe if there was a knowledgeable shopkeeper at the beginning of the 'chain' but they would most likely have kept it. Put it this way - it wouldn't have got very far. 'Pocket piece' sounds the most likely explanation.

Strangely, some silver coins that have been lightly polished are still collected to some extent (probably by eBay collectors who don't know much better). However, bronze and copper coins that have been polished so much they look lacquered like those farthings, are beyond hope and totally ruined and worthless as coins.

Oh, yes it is... Oh no it's not! See the corrected photo in my post above! Now I'm totally confused! It's the highlighted bit in bold that's throwing me! Honest, it really wasn't me! I'd have taken a poorer, more distant, photo and said something like 'there's something odd about this coin. It look like they must've made a mistake at the mint, it's got what seems like a 1 underneath the 2, so damaged, I'm afraid, please bid accordingly,' and hope Dave or Steve spotted it! Oops, my mistake - I interpreted Peter's remark as meaning he thought it was a foreign coin. He should have used a capital C then I'd have 'got' it!!

There are various different approaches. Dave said he takes his outside by natural light, whereas other members have said they use a camera pointing downwards on a tripod, with lights on the coin from two different directions. Someone else said they use a combination of natural light and one artificial light. A macro on its own is not much use, as when you get the lens close to the coin, it casts a shadow on it which defeats the object. On the other hand, my superzoom has something called macro zoom, which means you can get reasonably close from a foot or more away. (My problem is getting the light on the coin that shows its tone / lustre to best effect without angling the coin; without special equipment it's very difficult.) Ideally, you want to take the pictures at the highest resolution you can, as you may need to crop out quite a lot; you can always shrink an image without cost to quality, whereas making an image bigger degrades it. You may find that a new camera's kit lens will deliver better results than an old pre-digital macro, but experiment anyway - you might get good results from your old lens. Oh, one more thing - try to put the coin on a mid-grey background, which will give correct exposure. White will make the coin dark, black will over-expose the coin. (If shooting from a greater distance, then cropping, it's even more important).

Oh, yes it is... Oh no it's not! See the corrected photo in my post above!

Oh, yes it is - it's a prat who hasn't heard of "Flip horizontal" in Photoshop... or rather, he HAS heard of it but hasn't heard of the 'Undo' button!

No, it's not in the series. It's like my 1887 sixpence pattern and 1964 'missing I in GRATIA' sixpence - interesting finds, but not (yet) recognised varieties. Good spot though, Dave.

To answer your third question - Roman coins were minted in large quantities and survive in large quantities too, as many hoards were buried when the legions left, plus the Empire was vast. So I would not be tempted to spend a few pounds on a worn bit of green, whether from eBay or anywhere else. You can pick up reasonable late bronzes - e.g. Constantine - for a tenner, and quite good mid-to-late silver denarii for less than £50. Those scrappy bits of green Roman that you can barely make out the emperor let alone much else, are worthless. Don't go near them.