Peckris

Sorry, my mistake. I often use the term 'rim' when I really mean 'edge'. I assumed you meant the part where the milling is!

If the first 3 digits were already on the matrix, then the last digit would be added for each year. As the curvature would mean the second 9 has less space (whether there's a big gap or not), then it stands to reason they would use a slightly smaller '9' punch to fit the space. The large gap between the 9s simply emphasises the difference in size. The two 9s look different sizes on ALL the 1899 pennies shown.

Same PICTURE, certainly. If it is actually the same coin, then one must suspect some skullduggery. For example, there might have been a shill bid winning the first auction? In which case, the coin would have been offered to the underbidder, but if that's the case, why would it be offered for sale again so quickly? A proper dealer wouldn't be taken in like that, yet who but a dealer would put it up for sale so soon after purchase? The other possibility is that if a shill bid won the first, and the underbidder didn't take it, then the first seller put it on again but using a different eBay account. This is all speculation of course.

not a million miles from us, Coinery. twixt Stroud and Ciren, or Soiren as they say round 'ere I used to live in Coiren. Did you know there is an Old Ciren Facebook page? Just a thought.

Well, the whole technology changed when it all moved to Llantrisant. But judging by the standards of modern coins, I'm guessing they really don't care very much. And I suppose, why should they? The circulating coinage represents only a tiny % of the money supply compared to what it was around WW1. Coins are not worth the trouble, would be my take on it.

Peck'll know, he even knows the differing amounts of seasonal earwax for G5 AND I'd be interested too, as I've just started to pull one or two areas of this reign together myself. TMI !!! I note we posted within minutes of each other. I've never been convinced by that theory. After all, how much steel was needed to make a few dies for the Royal Mint? Let's face it, not much more than would be used to make a couple of shells, I would have thought. And I'm guessing that Mint work was a reserved occupation anyway, given the importance of the economy to the war effort, plus the very high inflation that resulted at that time. I think it may have been more a factor of the much higher output driven by inflation. As far as shillings are concerned, look at the mintages : 1911 20m 1912 15m 1913 9m 1914 23m 1915 39m 1916 35m 1917 22m 1918 34m It's the same for other silver, particularly the years 1914, 1916, 1918, and most dramatic for halfcrowns, then florins. It's much more likely that the Mint was working so flat out to keep pace with demand, that dies were required to perform much greater duty than normal, hence changed less often.

Along with a dozen hubcaps, 4 mobile phones, a sovereign ring and the keys to an Escort XR3. All in a sack marked 'Swag'. Surely the 'swag' bag is inside the XR3? Can you set the detector to ping when it locates large furry dice?

You're all talking bollocks.

In my opinion, this would be a virtually impossible task. Are there any officially recorded proofs, apart from 1927? There certainly are very rare proofs of many currency strikes, but you can't regard wreath crowns as currency, as they were specially struck for collectors. The numbers struck were so small that you could regard the first few as 'prooflike' but there would no obvious fall-off in the short life of the dies. The normal way to tell conclusively is to examine the rims - these are razor sharp on proofs, and the milling goes evenly from edge to edge. All other features - crispness of detail, absence of flaws, mirrored fields - can also be found on first strikes from a currency die, especially so where a proof die has been used for currency so as not to waste it. Forgive me asking, but how do you know that the wreath crown proofs you already have, are really proofs? As has been noted, even TPG companies get it wrong.

There's no year which is generally a weak strike, but there are years when dies got overused so that towards the end of their life they produced weak strikes. This happened especially from 1915 - 1919. Also, the Type 2 obverse (1920 - 1926) is much shallower cut to reduce reverse ghosting, and therefore might mistakenly be thought by the inexperienced as weak strikes. Those latter years, the portrait wears much faster, and if you put an EF example alongside a VF Type 1 obverse, you wouldn't see much difference especially in hair detail. But that's due to redesign, not weak strike. From 1926 ME onwards, there isn't any notable weak strike, though as I've said, any well-used die will produce worse results than early strikes.

Hi les occ, There are in fact 8 different varieties of 1900 penny, all based on the shape of the '9' in the date and the position of it's foot, coupled with the spacing/orientation of the '0's. There are also reports of two other types, one where the '9' is over a border tooth and the second where the designer's initials are missing from under the bust. Sorry to bring this post back, I find it important that other people contribute to the author’s finds. I did find 8 different date varieties of 1900 penny. The rarest in my sample was the date having 10 1/2 tooth spacing with an open and skinny 9. I was suprised to see this many variations since I did not find any date spacing differences for 1901 using a similar sample size! What happened? You Freeman and Gouby should be shot I don't need more varieties Imagine that, if all the Victoria pennies could be sub-divided again by 10? Time to remortgage, Peter! The exponential expansion in the number of varieties categorised only by minescule differences in tooth pointings etc was a primary factor in my decision to refocus. I'm sure most denomination collectors feel compelled to find as many varieties as have been categorised by all writers. If someone says the gap in the border teeth can be x or y microns wide and there is a definitive reference published, someone will collect both. But as always it is each to their own. I quite agree Rob. I remember in the late 1960s, Coin Monthly featured one of those "reader surveys", of 1907 penny reverses. All minute variations in pointing, length of 7 tail, etc etc (yawn), about 6 or 7 "varieties" if I remember. Where are they now? Disappeared without trace. (Thank goodness).

That 0 on the linear circle looks like a runaway keg of beer rolling downhill!

I'm not sure it's a rule? However, I would think that auction houses have a fairness reputation to preserve, so it must always be worth sending lots back if for any reason they prove to be unsatisfactory. Do Sale Of Goods and Trades Descriptions Acts apply to auctions?

You can either upload the pictures to an external host such as photobucket or image shack, or run them through an image editor to reduce the size, save as jpegs, and reduce the quality. You get a scant 150k per post, so some people post obverse and reverse in separate posts.

Hi, As Rob says, various different positions for the '2', aside from the expected, seem to be relatively common. The rare version of this coin has the the whole 1862 date formed using noticeably smaller numerals, usually described as being from the 1/2d. Here is a coin with similar spacing to the one you have, for comparison: It's probably also worth pointing out that the pennies of 1861 and 1862 show variations of position of the final digit more than any other date. It's more noticeable on the 1862.

The 1996 movie "Jerusalem" is set in 1903? Or this, taken from a review of the same film : "an exploration of how human passion can ebb and flow and turn bitter in the face of "divine" pressure" Your passion as it ebbed and flowed after input from Forum "Gods"??

The minute holes in the rim will be due to its having been mounted at some point in its past. But if it's in Fair condition, it won't affect the value too much - it's the scarcest issue, and anyone buying a Fair example shouldn't be put off too much by those (in my opinion). The cleaned coin is another matter - if it's been polished, and wasn't a high grade to begin with, it will be worth not much more than scrap I'm afraid. However, even polished coins will tone back in time so if you plan to keep it then you can take measures to quicken that, and people here will let you know how to do that.

Weird in the extreme. The first few listed are: 5s £50 1681 GF-AVF nice light tone, scarce 5s £40 1682/1 AVF light tone, faintest trace of mount removed from edge 2s6d £300 1909 GVF+/EF nice light tone 2s £60 1907 EF/ABU sl weak strike obv, v. light tone 1d £50 1797 Cartwheel virt Unc lustre traces, some surface mks & rust spots rev The cartwheel must be extremely disfigured to make sense of that laughable estimate (which would be ok for a VF or GVF item), but those first two Charles II crowns are also ridiculously low especially when compared to the 1909 halfcrown that's not even fully EF! I don't know what's going on tbh - if there were any images in that pdf it would be easier to see what's what, but there aren't.

I find that odd (only my personal view) - I think the BoE dollars are far more interesting than the unconventional tokens of a few years later. Perhaps it's something to do with it being a complete design, with a very well balanced obverse and reverse. Those BoE tokens have always struck me as rather rudimentary designs, with a verbal description of the denomination surrounded by a wreath, and those rather weird looking portraits. Actually, I've just had a great idea for a collection focus - the very mixed up nature of the currency after 1775 and before 1816. For silver, that would take in the 1787 shillings and sixpences struck specially for BoE customers, the countermarked Spanish reales, the BoE dollars, and BoE tokens. For copper there are multifarious trade tokens, the Cartwheels of 1797, the 1799 issues, the 1806 and 1807 issues. Covering a period of only 40 years, it would include coins and tokens of a wondrous variety. Again, I think that's a series that invites being represented by a type (BU 1887 and 1889 are very affordable). It's only a blown-up florin, after all. Part of the reason may be to do with the obverse type being Jubilee Head only, never the most popular design. Even those scarce "1 for I" varieties don't really do it for me. I think they would appeal mainly to type collectors, but as a series they kind of lack interest. More interesting by far to me is the reason why they were introduced (Stage 2 of a decimal system? One fifth of a pound), and even more why they were discontinued ("Barmaid's Ruin", mistaken in busy pubs for a crown).

Haha. Grossly overrated year, common as muck! Everyone apparently kept them at the time as it was the last year, and BU multiples were offered in the late 60s. Not sure Britannia was ever a goddess, even in her Roman incarnation. Never under estimate the humble farthing....I do prefer pre 1936 what other coin could you get 960 for £1. I love them Come on! I wasn't dissing the farthing, just being realistic about that supposedly "scarce year" 1956.

I'd go with EF on that, but as a maximum. There seems to be a few small scratches on the reverse? Thanks Peck, yes there are, but not visible except under magnification ... so near EF about right then? I tend to grade on wear only but add other description as necessary. So for me it would be "EF with a few light scratches on reverse". But with those pictures, the buyer would be able to see clearly what he was getting anyway.

Are we talking pennies here? The 1876H is commonly the narrow date variety, whereas the wide date is quite rare. Hi, Yes (silly me), we are talking pennies. I thought it was the other way round from referencing "Collector's Coins", but thanks for the update - I am happily corrected. So the one I had originally was the rarer one. Bitten on the bum again! The wide date is G to F and the narrow date was at least F so a slight diminution of overall worth. The ebay purchase was still a bargain but less so than before. Thanks again, Garry CCGB is a fantastic value little book, with lots more packed in than many more expensive guides. However, a few of the prices have to be taken with a pinch of salt - I think Chris Perkins (who publishes it) meant to show 'wide date' as the 1876H variety, not 'narrow date'. Another incongruity is the 1886 farthing - in reality it's as common as the 1884 and 1885, but CCGB shows it 4 - 5 times the value from VF to BU. If in doubt, compare against Spink, but always keep in mind that all price guides are only that - a guide, not a bible.

In a word - yes. Must be your phone or whatever. On my monitor I can see quite clearly the eyebrow, eye complete with pupil, nose and nostril, and lips, all well defined. And that's from a small picture. So this shilling would be GEF then? Certainly no less than EF - there is not much facial difference between the two to be honest. You're not seeing the original picture clearly for some reason. At first glance they appeared deeper than I would've expected, and a little 'awkward'! They still 'feel' awkward for me, however, the consensus is most definitely that the coin's a goer! Are you going for it Paulus? Thanks everyone for your opinions, nicely varied! Still musing over it, I like it, it is graded by the dealer as GVF, with GVF money attached, so no bargain, but I might ... in fact knowing me I probably will! Will post bigger and hopefully better pics if and when I do! The dealer seems to be in consensus with the majority here, which is a good sign. If you like it, go for it. My only reservation is the gold colour but 10 to 1 that's the poor white balance not the coin itself.

I'd go with EF on that, but as a maximum. There seems to be a few small scratches on the reverse?

Haha. Grossly overrated year, common as muck! Everyone apparently kept them at the time as it was the last year, and BU multiples were offered in the late 60s. Not sure Britannia was ever a goddess, even in her Roman incarnation.