Peckris

I wonder how far back the use of 'X' as a kiss goes? Quite seriously, that may be all it signifies - a love token.

Interestingly, I'd forgotten that my 1672 crown is marked in a similar way. I've had to enhance the brightness and contrast artificially so it shows up, but you should be able to see them above the portrait. So it's clearly not just a hammered phenomenon. However, the date may give a clue as to when this might have been a practice?

Really? I'd not realised that was even known about pre-1971. Put it this way, I never saw it listed in a price guide until either the 80s or 90s. It wasn't in Seaby, or the "blue pages", or Coins & Market Values. I wish I'd not had a clear out of old books a few years back! While I'm not sure that 'Check your Change' (when it was 4" x 3" approx. in size and had a chessboard pattern on the front) listed it in the late 60's - early 70s, I do know that it was included in the competing pocket guide, whose name I have completely forgotten! Someone must have an old copy of this? Interestingly, from memory, it was the only variety of penny listed for the 20th century other than the H's and KN's. Strange I know. The guide was issued annually as a single volume, had a colour cover and was slightly smaller in size. It definitely wasn't in C.Y.C. - that listed almost no varieties at all, except the H KN and ME (from memory). I'm not sure what the other guide is you refer to; I do have a 1968 colour booklet with prices, but it contains some terrible inaccuracies, the most notable of which is a failure to differentiate the copper and bronze issues of 1860!!! and it doesn't include the 1922. But I'm not sure the 1922 variety was widely known in the late 60s? As I say, it didn't feature in the main guides and catalogues of the time and wasn't mentioned in adverts, nor in Coin Monthly articles.

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory. My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together! I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period. Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification. Yes, I speculated (above) that it may have been something to do with the Recoinage. I think it is the most convincing explanation.

Haha - the awful 1973 sets! The £100 price would be for an UNtoned set, of course. That really is a notorious year for the proof set - it may be due to something in the red dye used for the foam insert. The weird thing is that some sets have survived with no toning at all, and I'm hanging on to mine! Or with some still seemingly untarnished, could it be an issue with the cases used in 1973 ~ maybe non airtight ? That's a thought. Though quite why some exposure to air would cause such ugly toning is a mystery - many proofs live out of sealed cases and never get toned. Well, here's a theory, which may well be wide of the mark, but here goes. Suppose it was a combination of the red dye, and not properly sealed cases. Where the cases are properly sealed, there is no reaction. Like your set. Possible ? Just as a matter of interest, how long did it take for the 1973 sets to get so badly toned ? I mean, they can't have been like that when they were first bought. I'm given to understand this was 1976, as opposed to 1973. I'm no chemist Mike, but I guess that's as good a theory as any. I never saw a '73 set until the 90s (only had the '70, '71, '72, and '77 sets before that), and that's when I picked up a horribly toned one from an auction lot. I then found out it wasn't rare by any means. But no, they wouldn't have been sold in that state - you're right, it was around 1976. The '73 sets may have been minted a bit before the '74/'75/'76 sets which were issued together. I'm thinking the '73 set may have been a bit earlier because of the commem 50p.

Really? I'd not realised that was even known about pre-1971. Put it this way, I never saw it listed in a price guide until either the 80s or 90s. It wasn't in Seaby, or the "blue pages", or Coins & Market Values.

Oh believe me, they do! You should have seen the 10p and 5p I took from a 1973 set I'd bought in an auction lot - I only got rid them by selling them at face value to buyers of other proofs. They were absolutely hideous. Yup this whole set has vile collectable toning......okay special offer one day only £50 scurries off to find Monopoly set...

Oh believe me, they do! You should have seen the 10p and 5p I took from a 1973 set I'd bought in an auction lot - I only got rid them by selling them at face value to buyers of other proofs. They were absolutely hideous.

Oh I don't know. I could have been like Jensen Button, but no good at motor racing, just living in Monaco on a fancy yacht and pretending I had any money left

I'd started a new school for 6th form, in a different part of the country. I was just walking one evening from school to the bus, when I passed an antiques shop. They had a small bowl of coins in the window and I saw the date on one was 1672. To me that was unimaginably ancient! so I went in and it turned out it cost only 6d so I got it. A worn copper, but I could see on one side it said CAROLVS A CAROLO. I assumed this was a European monarch. Then it hit me - Charles son of Charles - Charles II. From there I started collecting pennies out of my change, one of each date, and from there I never looked back. Mind you, I struggled for ages to find the elusive gaps for 1923, 1924, 1925, 1941, 1942, and 1943. I'm still looking! My avatar picture shows my own favourite coin. I was at a Warwick & Warwick auction in the 90s and as usual I was conferring with Peter Viola in his shop beforehand. There was a nice 1797 2d in the auction - GEF with lustre. Peter had one in the same grade but with barely any lustre. He said if I didn't get the one in the auction, he'd knock a third off the price of his, I didn't, and he did. I was happy

Secret dealers...........We KNOW your secrets Peter I've got a bath full of Baked beans and mushy peas to dive into later...Mrs Peter is on a leash. You're Roger Daltrey in disguise? WHO? Very clever And very cold! Apparently Daltrey got a severe chill from that photoshoot.

Haha - the awful 1973 sets! The £100 price would be for an UNtoned set, of course. That really is a notorious year for the proof set - it may be due to something in the red dye used for the foam insert. The weird thing is that some sets have survived with no toning at all, and I'm hanging on to mine! Or with some still seemingly untarnished, could it be an issue with the cases used in 1973 ~ maybe non airtight ? That's a thought. Though quite why some exposure to air would cause such ugly toning is a mystery - many proofs live out of sealed cases and never get toned.

Is that the same Fridericus Goodwinus that was a member of the Equestrian Order until he was expelled? Cathedra homo of Civilis Occidens Ripam? Or was it the Regius Ripam Caledoniae?

Snap Me too. I think there was a football match on at the time, or something? I was mildly interested in the 1908 penny, but not for £77. The only coin I'm really annoyed to miss was the 1923 florin. Pity I missed that one. I hope it went to a good home. Damn England and their bloody football team!!

Haha - the awful 1973 sets! The £100 price would be for an UNtoned set, of course. That really is a notorious year for the proof set - it may be due to something in the red dye used for the foam insert. The weird thing is that some sets have survived with no toning at all, and I'm hanging on to mine!

Correction: each individual coin WAS worth between £100 and £200 - suddenly they are worth rather less! (If they make it to market, that is).

My view is that the damage was present at striking and the resulting coin either missed by inspectors or pocketed by one with an eye for a curio. Notice the weakness of the strike to the left of the split, compared to what looks like a normal strike to the right. I don't think it's a forgery.

..and most milled too, let's face it!

Fair comments - those pictures show quite a variety of 5 styles. The ones that look least like a normal 5 are the overdates, which lends credence to this being one of them. iPhone! You'll never achieve it though, thanks to the Microsoft tyranny of not allowing a lower case first letter followed by a capital letter.

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all.

Wasn't there some kind of marking done during the Great Recoinage to allow hammered coins to be used for some purposes, e.g. taxation? I'm not sure exactly, but I seem to remember a thread on this.

You may or may not be aware that trays for slabbed coins are available even in the UK. I use SAFE trays, excellent quality. You can check: www.safealbums.co.uk/Zen/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=201_204_224&sort=20a&page=2. That's all very well, but if you already have excellent quality coin cabinets, getting something specially for slabs is not a big incentive.

Surely, Peter, you meant www.photobucket.com/WOW A dinner plate sized coin to eat my steak off sausages for me tonight unless Mrs Peter can get off the sofa and add some spice to my beans and peas No sausage for Mrs Peter?

Strangely enough, I'd had a high grade 1937 halfcrown for yonkeys, then examining it closely one day I was struck by the slight mirroring in the fields, but even more by the razor sharp rim. I've now provisionally reclassified it as a proof. However, I do accept that it must have come from a broken set, and as for being rare Having said all that, I think George VI proofs are the most difficult to tell apart from normal issues. They're not very good, let's face it. Why is that? My proof has a frosted effigy and is very different from the ordinary strike. Mine does too. Here's a piccy of my 1937 florin proof obverse. Yes, I should have qualified my remark by saying that some George VI proofs feature frosting, but many don't. That's what I meant about "not very good". You can see entire 37 or 50 or 51 proof sets that aren't frosted, ditto 1953. Others are "barely frosted". Treasure the frosted ones you find, - they should command a premium. There's a VIP 1951 crown on Mark Rasmussen's site that looks like a frosted normal example. But maybe the VIP quality is obvious in hand, but not in the picture.

It depends. If you grade purely by the amount of circulation wear (as many of us do) then that wouldn't alter by the presence of other damage or disfigurements. However, if you were selling such a coin, you would say "EF, minor stains obv/rev" (or "VF with EK" etc), then adjust the price accordingly. Similarly you could say "EF, sharp strike, superb toning" and adjust the price in the opposite direction. Some people might deduct a grade for damage, and grade a coin as VF when in fact it's EF with a bloody great scratch. But if they advertised it as VF that would confuse the buyer, who might prefer a genuine VF to a scratched EF. A full and honest description is far better.