Peckris

Welcome Kris, Its impossible to be 100% certain from the photographs, but the second picture suggests what I would immediately assume to be true. One side of a 1962 halfcrown has been hollowed out on a lathe and a second coin, also reduced on a lathe, has been let into the first. The join is just visible in places along the rim. I have a couple examples of this and I suspect many collectors do. They have no value except as a curiosity. Good for 'heads or tails' though Yes, I agree. It would be impossible for this to be done at the Mint, so a lathe sounds the most likely way it was done. And yes, I'm almost sure I can see evidence of the join on the right hand picture. Good curio though, and worth keeping just for its own sake.

Quite frankly I don't remember. However this year I made mad passionate love all day and then went home to Mrs Peter Did the mirror survive? :lol:

If you had time, and a few high-grade examples to hand, it would be interesting to look at the range of busts which are classified as Reverse 6. Here's some of the differences I've picked up in the past, with the help of a others on this forum: Different orientation of neckline rose More curved/straight line to rear of neck Berry in front/behind leaf of wreath Additional detail to hair in from of bun Double edge and extension to ear Larger gap between B of BRITT and hair Sharper nose Slight double chin These could be retouches to the die, of course. The following examples are from 1863 (on the left) and 1861 Presumably you mean Obverse 6 not Reverse 6? On those two examples, you missed one of the most obvious differences IMO - the obverse on the left has a bulging eye which the one on the right doesn't have. Also there's a difference in size and thickness of legend. Nevertheless, an impressive list of differences for what is supposed to be the same Obverse.

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only. You have nicely summed up George VI brass threepence collecting in one paragraph. As for Elizabeth II, just to complete the list, I've added the 1953 type 2 obverse and the standard 1958 which seem to be scarcer in true BU than their mintage numbers would suggest. Perhaps the availability of the 'plastic set' gave a false impression that BU specimens of the '53 were fairly common and hence were not worth hoarding. But of course it was only the type 1 that came with the sets. As for the 1958, these seem to be weirdly scarce in true BU despite a mintage of over 20 million! My only guess is that they were issued in numbers sufficiently high as not to be perceived as worth collecting, only to then fall victim to the big meltdown after decimalisation. Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939, 1948 and 1953 type 2 obv. Not so easy to find - 1945 and 1958 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 The 1958 3d is one of those weird inexplicable cases - it was actually identified as a scarcity in BU before decimalisation, as was the 1946 halfpenny, and other strange items like the 1957S shilling (the 1957E is really common in UNC) and the 1958E shilling. Not forgetting the 1958 sixpence and who knows how many others too. I guess we may never know why some dates are scarcer than others - it may be a combination of factors, e.g. time of year issued, whether any were held back, demand for certain denominations being greater at some times, a shortage in one denomination causing lower denominations to circulate more, the hoarding of certain dates more than others for different reasons... One thing's for sure, the great meltdown should have evened out those weird discrepancies more than actually happened - there's a kind of inertia to price guides that is resistant to reality at times. Interesting that the 1958 3d and the 1958 sixpence were identified as scarce in BU even whilst they were still currency. I really wouldn't have guessed that. If anyone who worked at the Royal Mint between 1957 and 1959 ever comes across this discussion it would be very interesting if they would share their insights into the mystery. I wonder if large quantities of certain coins were shipped out to colonies that then become independent in the late '50s to mid '60s and whether, in some way, this had an effect on subsequent scarcity. I personally have always found it slightly remarkable that collectors resisted the temptation to spend their BU coins. I mean, pre-credit cards if you were out of cash then your nice shiny 1958 threepence that you'd stashed away would suddenly seem like an expendable luxury! Actually, 1958 (along with 1954) is something of a key year for scarcities in BU - the halfcrown, florin, English shilling, sixpence, and brass 3d, are all supposedly scarce. 1959 is overrated by comparison, except that the Scottish shilling is very difficult in true UNC. Why there should be so many in one year is anyone's guess.

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only. You have nicely summed up George VI brass threepence collecting in one paragraph. As for Elizabeth II, just to complete the list, I've added the 1953 type 2 obverse and the standard 1958 which seem to be scarcer in true BU than their mintage numbers would suggest. Perhaps the availability of the 'plastic set' gave a false impression that BU specimens of the '53 were fairly common and hence were not worth hoarding. But of course it was only the type 1 that came with the sets. As for the 1958, these seem to be weirdly scarce in true BU despite a mintage of over 20 million! My only guess is that they were issued in numbers sufficiently high as not to be perceived as worth collecting, only to then fall victim to the big meltdown after decimalisation. Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939, 1948 and 1953 type 2 obv. Not so easy to find - 1945 and 1958 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 The 1958 3d is one of those weird inexplicable cases - it was actually identified as a scarcity in BU before decimalisation, as was the 1946 halfpenny, and other strange items like the 1957S shilling (the 1957E is really common in UNC) and the 1958E shilling. Not forgetting the 1958 sixpence and who knows how many others too. I guess we may never know why some dates are scarcer than others - it may be a combination of factors, e.g. time of year issued, whether any were held back, demand for certain denominations being greater at some times, a shortage in one denomination causing lower denominations to circulate more, the hoarding of certain dates more than others for different reasons... One thing's for sure, the great meltdown should have evened out those weird discrepancies more than actually happened - there's a kind of inertia to price guides that is resistant to reality at times.

No, not at all. Observe the SHAPE of the 0 on your pair of coins, in relation to the shape of the 0 on the lower pair. Unlike the 1 and the 9, there is a difference - as I said, the 0 is smaller and squatter (more round and less oval), and slightly further from the teeth proportionately. (This may be exaggerated by the fact that the coins in the top pair have some wear, where the bottom pair don't. But even so, there seems to be a difference. What would really help is if your system of blue and red lines was used on the bottom pair also). This is the best I could do with the picture Seuk presented. I reduced the width of top pair and increased its height. I added the red and blue lines as requested. I also added the white lines to compare the distances of the 0. One thing that I did observe though, the denticles for the bottom pair seems longer and therefore the 0 seems to be closer on the bottom pair compaired to top pair. This may be attributed to the blury pictures used for the bottom pair and the merging process (which I could not have done better ). Yes, I think you may be right. Not just the difference in sharpness (your pictures may be scans rather than photos?), and in wear, but even more so in the way the light is falling on the teeth and numerals. Someone else here posted about a possible difference between two 1939 brass 3d's, and that turned out to be just the way the light falls. What is certain however, is that the 4 on your variety is definitely offset.

Sometimes persistence with sifting through crap does pay off - I remember a W&W lot that was a large plazzy bag of modern stuff, some bags of predecimal cr*p, and an envelope with foreign and other assorted low value items.. plus an 1865 penny EF with lustre. I was happy to win that, though less happy disposing of the rest of the lot

And the last given Rayner is no more. Are we talking book here, or perambulating sack of squidgy organs?

I sometimes wonder if you read 2 forums at the same time Peter or if there's to much Bob Hope rolled up in the Cubans you smoke, definately of Jamacian origins though via Amsterdam lol

No, not at all. Observe the SHAPE of the 0 on your pair of coins, in relation to the shape of the 0 on the lower pair. Unlike the 1 and the 9, there is a difference - as I said, the 0 is smaller and squatter (more round and less oval), and slightly further from the teeth proportionately. (This may be exaggerated by the fact that the coins in the top pair have some wear, where the bottom pair don't. But even so, there seems to be a difference. What would really help is if your system of blue and red lines was used on the bottom pair also).

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only.

On the face of it, that's pretty conclusive. However, it leaves a further puzzle. On the 'high left 4' pair, the 4 is clearly offset and so it shows up (as you've demonstrated). However, on that merged pair, the 0 shows no difference between the two coins; yet if you compare it with the other merged pair, there's a big difference : the first pair shows a 0 that is smaller, squatter, and further from the teeth than on the second pair. But as one of the coins in the first pair is supposedly 'normal', you'd expect the 0 to show a different overlay just like the 4 does.

Wow, hadn't realised there was near 20 years between the 4th and 5th editions.

Which edition do you have, |Dave? It's not in my 1974 edition.

Do you mean ESC? Yes, they are but Dave talked about Rayner unless that was a typo.

Haven't had much time for coins lately - but two days ago I took the time to have a closer look at one of my newcomers to find that it matched the dies of the 1956 hoard of 63 BoE 1s6d tokens found at Foden Road, Birmingham. Half a mile from the famous forger William Booths farm! (BNJ 1958, pp. 423-24 pl. XXV). These have smaller lettering than other counterfeits of the 1s6d and closely resembles the size of the lettering on an genuine coin though the design is slightly different especially of A, G, K, R and S. It also have a tiny dot to the left above B of BANK on reverse. Completely by coincident it turns out that today is the 200th anniversary of Booth's execution (15th Aug 1812) Interesting that the silver-washed copper forgeries predate the Great Recoinage, even if only a few years. But then, there must have been a chronic shortage of silver by the time of those tokens. There must also have been different laws regarding the metals allowed in trade tokens - copper wasn't exactly discouraged, but you don't see silver denominations as trade tokens in the late 18th Century. Having said that, one of my copper tokens has a face value of 6d, but those must have been pretty unusual. You don't see a token coinage until the countermarked 8 reales and BoE dollars, followed by those unusual tokens. Yet the biggest demand must have been not for large silver, but sixpences and threepences, and there was nothing to plug that gap. (Yes, there was the 1787 coinage but those survive in such high grade you can hardly imagine them circulating widely).

I vaguely recall a previous discussion on your 1966, so just did a search and found a line drawing with the wave marked in red. I suggested going through my 1966's at that time, but never did! Michael Coins listed a Gouby X for several months but I note he has now sold it. I had a look at the coin but just couldn't live with the grade. I'll probably live to regret that decision if I can't find another! VR Court found 37 out of 4,542 checked by him, so far from common. Mine probably isn't even quite Fine. They're not common at all, and I don't know what the "best known" is. Just out of interest, what was Gouby asking for his Gouby?

Yes, I'm a sucker for lustre and it certainly has more than mine! I have a near BU example that cost me £4:50. In 1978 Mind you, considering it wasn't a widely known variety back then, it was probably still quite a good price

This isn't listed in my Rayner at all - in fact the only variety listed for that series is the 1893 small legend which is rated R. In fact, awesome though the Cope and Rayner work is, they don't do much in modern varieties at all.

Unfortunately your two pictures are such different sizes, colours, lighting & exposure, and because they are 2 pictures instead of 2-in-1 side by side, cannot be viewed at the same time. I can't form any impression of their respective gaps. If you would equalise the two pictures in Photoshop or similar, then post that, it would be a great help. Thanks.

The finest known isn't much better than Fine! But I wish you joy on your search especially now you've reminded me there's a selfish motive to your finding an upgrade.. (I bow to you). I will try to get a photo of the '66 tidal wave, but it's such a slender sliver (could easily be mistaken for a fragment of hair on the coin) it may be a challenge getting the light just right. Maybe a scan would work better though I think I already tried that without success? I'd love to help you out with a spare Gouby X but my own copy is the only one I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, the way the light falls on the 4's downstroke, that doesn't add much to the discussion either way. (I'm assuming that was the reason you posted it, Dave?)

I'm still not convinced there's a difference that can't be explained by the damaged 4s. Below is a comparison of single and double exergue examples. It's true that the single exergue is 'faintly doubled'. That seems to confirm what I suspected. On the 'single exergue line', the downstroke of the 4 points virtually to a space, where on the doubled line it points slightly to the left of a tooth. There is also a difference to the waves, as there is also on numidan's examples. The relative position of the exergual lines and the exact pointings of the teeth could account for the 'up and left' nature of what we see here, plus the fact that there is quite a bit of wear which makes measuring such microscopic differences rather more difficult. I'd say it was a 75% chance that it's down to the existing exergue varieties, but there's room for doubt.

I'd go along with that. Anything you have to look that close at, and is not rare, doesn't float my boat in any way whatever. But then, I stopped being a completist some years back (though I would like a 1903 open 3). The 1913 varieties are worth having (the two mules, anyway) but it needs some experience and expertise to spot them. The 1905, 1921, and 1937 variants are equally common and equally minor so are probably ignored. The 1940 is a recognised variety though you have to look quite close, and so is the 1946 die flaw. The 1908 and 1909 rare varieties are probably too rare for eBay, while the 1915/16 recessed ear varieties are obvious when you know about them, but probably not to the casual observer. It's 1966 for the 'tidal wave', and yes I've got one, but I probably wouldn't have bothered except I was at a fair and one just happened to be there! 1965 or 1967 Britannia helmet 'stalk', anyone? Me too I think it's nearer a dozen And don't forget the 4 sub-varieties of 1957 'calm sea' halfpenny!!

Yes, but unlike Dave's, yours has resized to a very comfortable 39% - his don't resize at all