Peckris

Much too small for a sestertius I think?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Extremely-Rare-1869-Victoria-Penny-1d-Nice-grade/372211038396?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D49925%26meid%3D1e7738da241f4e66a39cc9b7f4038906%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D263444882950%26itm%3D372211038396&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851 Nice = Good?

Clearly that letter writer doesn't seem to be aware that with currency, old dies are used up to save wastage (especially relevant with decimals, where the date is on the obverse). With the proof dies, much more care is taken. But I'm sure YOU knew that!

Interesting. That's a very Celtic-like design.

I'm thinking that it could quite possibly be an early(ish) Roman Empire bronze, by what looks very much like a bust, and the thickness. But it's in such poor condition it would be difficult to say much more than that.

You could do it from precise measurement and then weight, but I tend to go on 'look' (which is not always correct). However, unless you have a dreadful colour cast on your photos, that looks brass or gold (and I don't think they even had brass back then?)

I'd also want better grading. Dark or not, there is no way that's EF.

It does rather look like the one-sided Celtic quarter stater, but your pictures are way too small to be certain. The metal is wrong - should be billon silver not gold or brass.

I think that in a true catalogue (which Spink is, not just a price guide) proofs and patterns should feature. However, I do think that there are currently two distinct groups of collectors - the more numismatic kind, who tend to prefer the vast scope of predecimal coins, and those who collect decimals and concentrate more on the present realm of currency coins. So the decision to hive decimals off into a separate book makes logical sense. Our hope should be that those who start with decimals may move on to predecimals. A useful precedent is coin collecting pre-war: that was predominantly split into ancient, hammered, and early milled; anything post-1816 was seen as somehow 'modern' and inferior, and it took the complete disappearance of silver to change that. One thing I believe could usefully be done though : just as all farthings from 1918 to 1925 are grouped into a single entry, they could do the same with all milled coins: give a base set of prices for that type and list all the dates it includes; then list significant variants and varieties as separate entries below that. For example, with George VI brass 3ds - give a base price and include 1937, 1941/2/3/4, and 1952 within that, then separate listings for all other dates. That would save some significant space and also resolve the very trivial price differences we see in modern ranges, which actually bear no relation to rarity and are merely a continuing and now inaccurate throwback to the late 60s, when the comparative scarcity of even modern and common coins was considered worth noting. Since the Great Meltdown, that has never been properly revised.

I started getting 'non recognition' of a site called bluekai which was news to me, never heard of it. The cookie for it was cunningly disguised so it would appear in the list fleetingly then disappear. I did manage to delete it in the end. Wasn't a problem here though, just generally in my browser.

He was no oil painting either. Speaking of which, that royal "portrait" you've posted bears about as much relation to reality as William Wyon's effigy on the coinage. Pistrucci was rather closer to the mark but even he had probably omitted the warts and pox marks.

I think you're seeing 'gloss' from the flash?

Sword didn't say that. He said that PGCS had graded 23+ examples of non-VIP proofs (presumably displaying signs of frosting).

Fine to Good Fine for me.

Yes, that's the clincher to tell the difference between mirror finish and polished - if it doesn't gleam between the letters, it's almost certainly been polished. And is that polish still within the loop of the 9 ?

Is the 1868 the same design as a normal bronze ha'penny? If so, I'd go for the token every time. But it's your interest that counts in the end.

I don't think it is necessarily polished - but it is very badly photographed, and therefore I would avoid it if going from the picture is your criterion. 1889 is by far the easiest JH crown to find, even in top grade, so I'd advise holding your horses.

Hi Phil. Not really - a common date even in mint condition. Ideally they would been most valuable two years ago, when they could have been made into mementoes or even jewellery for people with their 50th birthday that year. The catalogue price is 50p to £1 but in reality you wouldn't be able to sell them for that, except as curios.

Aww bless. Presumably farthings are "bijou delights"? That last item says "Delivery estimate 1-2 days". Wonder how much he charges NOT to deliver it?

Wasn't an ass a low denomination Roman coin? 🐴

It's all dependent on whether there are several other examples. If only one, ironically it's simply a unique curio, as the 1946 die flaw penny would be if there was only one of it.

I would not advocate using silver dip for anything except bad tarnishing, and then only briefly (two 10-second bursts at the absolute maximum). As for your flecks, it all depends on what they are and what's caused them. Gentle washing in pure soap and then dabbing - not wiping - dry might, or might not, help. Got any pictures?

It does work - eventually - but simply proves why Photobucket is such a poor option for photos here. Not only did it take its own sweet time to display the picture, there were adverts for itself and others all over the place, and worst of all, I was able to use the navigation arrows to see all your other photos (after a few nice shots of food, I didn't look any further, honest ). Better to learn how to upload here, and the main thing is to find an easy way to reduce the size of pictures to 500k or less (and once you've done it once, it will be a doddle ever after).

The Beginners' Forum has a 'sticky' post explaining how to upload pictures to the site.