Peckris

The 1943 three pence stands a chance, but only if it's a silver 3d and in high grade, and even then we're not talking megabucks! Damn! Couldn't they have found a non-recessed ear variety to engrave?? That'll be the exceedingly rare recessed ear variety without the broken border tooth then? I have no idea? It's a recessed ear anyway. I believe current wisdom is that all recessed ear pennies from 1915 & 1916 have the chipped tooth by the I of BRITT. I searched this forum and noted you had posted your own 1915 example which also exhibits the chipped tooth. There maybe those that don't, but certainly VR Court doesn't mention any. The tooth by the I is very indistinct, so it could be a half tooth I guess? The characterics of the obverse appear to be those of a recessed ear, but with major surgery to the reverse, it's not clear cut I suppose. what is 'the tooth' and what is a 'recessed ear'? I know near enough nothing about coins haha. Teeth are those little bits that make up a circle just inside the rim. That particular penny variety has a broken tooth by one of the letters in BRITT. The "recessed ear" variety (1915 and 1916 only) is fairly obscure, and to be honest, is often missed even by experts, it's not really obvious. Even then, it's not rare, merely scarce, and isn't worth even twice as much as the regular issue. So no big bucks to be made from it.

There is/was a similar scheme involving Natural Health products (vitamins and other supplements). As you say Will, these are not pyramid schemes per se i.e. they are perfectly legal. I looked into joining this other scheme (this was in the 90s) but after reading the literature thoroughly, I concluded that it involved more time and effort and recruitment than I was prepared to put in. As ever, those who are prepared to make a career out of it, and have a natural talent for it, can probably make a fair amount of money out of it. But that's not many (most?) of us. As has been said, this is a forum for grumpy old collectors to chew the fat, show off their latest acquisitions, discuss varieties old and new, talk about the future of the hobby, moan about eBay, etc. I accept you're not the average spammer we have to endure (they never reply to their spams), but equally you might find more profitable responses in a forum devoted to investment methods. If I've got this badly wrong, I'm happy to be corrected, but it looks like too much of an effort to me. "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Really. There isn't.

The 1943 three pence stands a chance, but only if it's a silver 3d and in high grade, and even then we're not talking megabucks! Damn! Couldn't they have found a non-recessed ear variety to engrave?? That'll be the exceedingly rare recessed ear variety without the broken border tooth then? I have no idea? It's a recessed ear anyway. I believe current wisdom is that all recessed ear pennies from 1915 & 1916 have the chipped tooth by the I of BRITT. I searched this forum and noted you had posted your own 1915 example which also exhibits the chipped tooth. There maybe those that don't, but certainly VR Court doesn't mention any. The tooth by the I is very indistinct, so it could be a half tooth I guess? The characterics of the obverse appear to be those of a recessed ear, but with major surgery to the reverse, it's not clear cut I suppose.

I do believe he likes a good dig. Still looking for turnips

My points exactly. (BTW you forgot to attach pictures of your 2p )

The 1943 three pence stands a chance, but only if it's a silver 3d and in high grade, and even then we're not talking megabucks! Damn! Couldn't they have found a non-recessed ear variety to engrave?? That'll be the exceedingly rare recessed ear variety without the broken border tooth then? I have no idea? It's a recessed ear anyway.

20 years for arson hmm? He'd have been released just in time ... to be conscripted for WW1 What about the other guy that got 8 months for stealing flour White powder, hmm? Always trouble, that.

Damn! Couldn't they have found a non-recessed ear variety to engrave??

I haven't time to read all the other posts here. But my advice I hope will regarde widely as sound. First, decide on something you LIKE, that you would glow with pleasure and pride to see at the centre of your collection. Second, having identified the type of coin you love best, go for an example in the highest condition you can afford - those hold their value best. Don't worry about gold vs silver vs copper - metal content isn't important to this decision. You're a collector not an investor. Third, if you can afford one of the rarer examples of your chosen type, so much the better, but condition is more important. Fourth, find a good reputable dealer to buy from, and avoid eBay. It only remains to say good luck, and once you've answered the first point, come back for more advice on your chosen type or series if you would like to.

The beauty here, at least to my mind is what it tells you about the history of the times. Basically, civilisation was in decline from the 4th century A.D., didn't really begin to catch up again until the Renaissance, and coins reflect that. Between the two dates civilisation was hamstrung by the dead hand of Christian orthodoxy in both material and sociological terms and the coins of the times appear to be in the doldrums both in their design and the care taken in their production. To my mind the point at which coins begin to turn the corner are the profile issues of Henry VII, which exactly correspond to the beginnings of the revival in classical learning. Hope you don't me saying Derek - that's now "old history". The Romans were pretty well assimilated into the Celtic British by the time that the legions left. There's archaeological evidence from Ireland and NW England and Cornwall that Britain traded actively with Europe for several hundred years, and that Charlemagne regarded Celtic art and literature among the flower of civilisation. And medieval thought and literature and philosophy and science and education has been long overlooked by the achievements of the Renaissance, but in many respects was of a high order. The Dark Ages are only so-called because we don't know so much about them as we do about the Romans and the Normans onwards. I think it's in technology that Europe fell way behind, and that too is reflected in the coins. I happen to love the achievements of the Classical era and laterthe Renaissance, but that doesn't mean that everything in between was a hopeless and barbaric mess with no redeeming features.

Not weird so much - remember, they didn't have reducing machines, so the matrix they worked from was the size of the actual coin : it's actually a tribute to them that there wasn't more in the way of errors.

20 years for arson hmm? He'd have been released just in time ... to be conscripted for WW1

I always thought that the Kingdom of Unknow had never issued the pink and black denominations? C'mon, what's the problem? It's an english Edward XIV threeqarter-pence, copper sovereign, without stops, legend starting at 24 minutes past seven! Some people just want to be hand-held through the entire process!

It's usually for one of two reasons - either the first attempt was poorly done, or the die has begun to wear badly at that point. It's very common before the early 1880s when the technology changed. Despite the very very many posts here by hopeful members, it is unlikely to have affected the value. Occasionally you get things like a 1787 shilling or an 1882H penny described as having a 'retrograde 1 over 1", but usually a repunched date or legend doesn't cause much excitement. Unless the underlying character is different.

I'm afraid my name is not "Bbobbb".

What you call a vertical line is actually the right hand edge of the 1. It's overlying another 1, over which it's been repunched (not exactly unknown in that reign!)

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that. I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion. I could have resolved this myself by consulting North, whose Vol.1 of hammered coins begins at 650, early Anglo-Saxon. However, on a purely personal subjective level, I can see a good case for redefining the term "hammered" to correspond more to a look than a strict historical period. For one thing, the first plates in North show coins that have a strong resemblance to Celtic coins (and let's face it, any coins from this period issued in the areas of Cornwall, Wales, the Northwest ARE Celtic). For another, there appears to be a dramatic change to the designs occurring during Aethelred's reign (Plate X) - a beauty to the earlier designs that deteriorate towards what I call "medieval ugliness" in his later years. However, the change seems less abrupt when you look at later reigns, which deteriorate even more as you reach the early Norman kings (see the last few plates of North vol.1), which are truly horrible and exemplify why I dislike hammered coins so much. It's almost as if there was a kind of "de-Renaissance" that takes place between Aethelred and the Norman Conquest. In the light of this, Viking and earlier Saxon coins seem really beautiful, which is how I also think of Roman, Greek, and some Celtic. I class those together in my mind, which I simply cannot for the medieval period before Henry VII. For me, "hammered" has always meant medieval, but I guess it now has to go back at least as far as the later coins of Aethelred. I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the early thyrsmas and tremisses of the 7th centuries aren't hammered coinage. Admittedly many are based upon Roman examples but they are, essentially, English hammered coinage. I do agree that the majority don't bear the complex beauty that the later coins of the Late Anglo-Saxon era bear but they are still hammered coins and examples which I, and many other collectors of hammered coinage, continue to collect. I've done a lot of research on the re-emergence of trade centres in the early Anglo-Saxon era and coinage has had a great importance in this as the ephemeral evidence has long since deteriorated leaving coinage, bones and pottery as main sources of evidence. Even in this context amongst archaeologists many hammered coins are deemed ugly, so I can sympathise! I think the Greeks, and to a lesser extent the Romans, understood the classic design thesis (as did Steve Jobs) that "less is more". So there is a great use of space on their coins, as also with Viking and some Anglo-Saxon, that allows the design to "breathe" and come alive. It's the crammed nature of later coins I find so hateful - a crude representation of a ruler in the centre surrounded by a large legend, and on the reverse, a long(ish) cross, often with pellets, surrounded by another large legend. There's no space and no grace. Greek and Roman art and architecture were astonishing and beautiful, and so was early Anglo-Saxon. It's reflected in their coins. Strangely, there is a simple beauty to Norman churches too (despite the use of very clunky pillars), but otherwise I find their art and coinage is fairly horrible.

You're forgetting Einstein's immortal equation - H=MS2 (Hassle equals Microsoft squared )

I always thought that the Kingdom of Unknow had never issued the pink and black denominations?

That wouldn't have cost you more than a groat where I come from. What did you do with the other tuppence? Oh, I'd install an actress in a house 2 miles distance, and keep her in oysters, oranges, and mead Peck You are Charles 11 reincarnate & I claim my £5 Sorry, you weren't dressed as Nell Gwynne. No £5 for you

Wow. All you need is some newer research, knock the book out for £100, and there's your fortune!

That wouldn't have cost you more than a groat where I come from. What did you do with the other tuppence? Oh, I'd install an actress in a house 2 miles distance, and keep her in oysters, oranges, and mead

There are two reverses for 1912, where the M and P of IMP are close together or not. The first reverse (same as 1911) is a bit scarcer than the second, but not massively so. A lot of dealers don't distinguish between varieties, unless there is a marked difference in rarity or value. I'd go along with that. I'd only amend it to say that where two varieties are of the same rarity (or not!) but have obvious differences, such as the two different 1920 obverses, I find them interesting enough to collect.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that. I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion. I could have resolved this myself by consulting North, whose Vol.1 of hammered coins begins at 650, early Anglo-Saxon. However, on a purely personal subjective level, I can see a good case for redefining the term "hammered" to correspond more to a look than a strict historical period. For one thing, the first plates in North show coins that have a strong resemblance to Celtic coins (and let's face it, any coins from this period issued in the areas of Cornwall, Wales, the Northwest ARE Celtic). For another, there appears to be a dramatic change to the designs occurring during Aethelred's reign (Plate X) - a beauty to the earlier designs that deteriorate towards what I call "medieval ugliness" in his later years. However, the change seems less abrupt when you look at later reigns, which deteriorate even more as you reach the early Norman kings (see the last few plates of North vol.1), which are truly horrible and exemplify why I dislike hammered coins so much. It's almost as if there was a kind of "de-Renaissance" that takes place between Aethelred and the Norman Conquest. In the light of this, Viking and earlier Saxon coins seem really beautiful, which is how I also think of Roman, Greek, and some Celtic. I class those together in my mind, which I simply cannot for the medieval period before Henry VII. For me, "hammered" has always meant medieval, but I guess it now has to go back at least as far as the later coins of Aethelred.

No, I wouldn't say so.