Peckris

Hi, I've never seen the flaw to the date area before. To my knowledge it's not a known variety and would probably only prove of interest to collectors if other similar coins are found. It's certainly worth holding onto though. The ONE' flaw is, however, a well known variety and considered collectible. Typically these sell for £40-£60. In high grade! (I'm certainly in the market for a minimum EF, but would prefer GEF - UNC). However, in the grade illustrated it would be no higher than around £10. BTW Gouby rates them one order of rarity higher than the 1926ME. I actually meant £40-60 at the grade shown, based on recent eBay sale prices. I've not seen a GEF-UNC example but would expect such to achieve £200-£300! Bronze prices are crazy. I was watching a 1918kN in GEF-UNC that sold on eBay last night for £1340. They're not that rare! That's crazy! I've got about three which I got from change in the late 60s. Perhaps I can yet swap them for a high grade, with a cash adjustment (he said, murmuring his pipedreams out loud..) Has anyone ever done a study as to how rare the 18KN is in relation to the 19KN? My own guesstimate is that it's at least 3 times commoner, maybe 4 or 5. In fact, I'd say the 18H and KN weren't so very far apart from each other. Unlike the 19H and KN which must be at least an order of ten apart, if not more.

I hope NEVER more desirable, but I wouldn't rule out "accepted", especially among buyers who began in the internet era. Don't ask me why. Perhaps it's the loss of education about coins that used to be provided by dealers , books and periodicals. I remember offloading the remainder of a lot I'd picked up at W&W in the 90s - the majority of the coins (high grade Geo V) had been noticeably polished. I was astonsihed how much it went for when I put it into Greenslades about 10 years ago or so. Not far off what you'd expect from uncleaned coins.

If I had that cash to spare, I would. That's one of the best obverses I've seen for it. Nevermind that the 18KN is very much commoner than the 19KN, it's still a beaut. I'd give it houseroom!!

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one. I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator. OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse. (Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?) No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow. I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side. I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S. There is only one way that a nose can point to anything - and that's along a line parallel to either axis. The two axes here are 1) straight down the slope of the nose (from bridge to tip) and 2) the lower edge of the nose (parallel to the line formed by the top of the nostril opening). As can clearly be seen in the attached pictures, both axes of both noses point to the same letters. If there are several interpretations of what the words "nose points to" means then clearly it's a poor descriptor. It may well be, but it's MY poor descriptor! I don't agree with your verdict on what noses point to - to me it was as "obvious" as it was "poor" to you, that the nose is forming an arrow head and that's what I intended by it when I used it. Spink must have understood me, even though they got the description part the wrong way round. If you try to see it as I saw it - the nose as an arrow - I'm sure you will see the truth of my description.

It's nose to VS that is the rarer one. I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator. OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse. (Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?) No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow. I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side. I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S. There is only one way that a nose can point to anything - and that's along a line parallel to either axis. The two axes here are 1) straight down the slope of the nose (from bridge to tip) and 2) the lower edge of the nose (parallel to the line formed by the top of the nostril opening). As can clearly be seen in the attached pictures, both axes of both noses point to the same letters. If there are several interpretations of what the words "nose points to" means then clearly it's a poor descriptor. It may well be, but it's MY poor descriptor! I don't agree with your verdict on what noses point to - to me it was as "obvious" as it was "poor" to you, that the nose is forming an arrow head and that's what I intended by it when I used it. Spink must have understood me, even though they got the description part the wrong way round. If you try to see it as I saw it - the nose as an arrow - I'm sure you will see the truth of my description.

Hi, I've never seen the flaw to the date area before. To my knowledge it's not a known variety and would probably only prove of interest to collectors if other similar coins are found. It's certainly worth holding onto though. The ONE' flaw is, however, a well known variety and considered collectible. Typically these sell for £40-£60. In high grade! (I'm certainly in the market for a minimum EF, but would prefer GEF - UNC). However, in the grade illustrated it would be no higher than around £10. BTW Gouby rates them one order of rarity higher than the 1926ME.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d. Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S". It's nose to VS that is the rarer one. I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator. OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse. (Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?) No offence intended. However, I still maintain that both noses point to S albeit not quite the same part of the S. See the picture below which has Davies obverses 3 & 4 merged together such that the portraits align as closely as the slightly different sizes allow. I agree that they are pretty easy to tell apart, especially when you see the two side by side. I think you've made my point for me! On that overlay, the legend GEORGIVS is probably the biggest displacement between the two obverses. If you take the nose as an arrow head, with the bridge forming one side and the underside of the nostril forming the other, then quite clearly - on your photo - the arrow is pointing between the V and the (upper of the two) S. But pointing almost directly at the lower S.

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d. Ah good. It's not just me then. I also notice he is trying to sell a much more common 4+D 1921 shilling as the scarce 3+D "nose to S". It's nose to VS that is the rarer one. I was simply using a mixture of Davies and Spink terminology. Given that in both varieties the nose points to S, it's a pretty useless discriminator. OI! Spink's terminology is actually MY terminology as I was the one who got the two types of pre-ME obverses into Spink in the first place, specifically so that the rare 1921 shilling got recognised. How was I to know that (1) of the four or five identifiers I gave them Spink would pick only that one to use in the Catalogue, and (2) they would actually use them the wrong way round. The nose does NOT point to S in both cases (see attached), but really the way to tell them apart is quite straightforward. The Type 1 obverse is the deep-cut high-relief obverse used for most large silver between 1911 and 1920 - and for rare 1921 shilings and 1923 florins; the Type 2 is the shallow obverse from 1920 to 1926. Another good way to tell them apart is the distance from the legend to the teeth - it's twice as much on the Type 2 obverse. (Why has this forum suddenly stopped allowing Adobe Photoshop JPEGs from being uploaded?)

Don't think you're missing anything - it looks like a bog-standard, perfectly ordinary, average, cleaned example of the Withdrawn Type 6d.

Oh well, you can console yourself with the fact that "only" 125 members of the public will get ripped off. Or, if Coincraft buy them all and add their own versions to boost sales, it could be 5,000...

I like this in the description : "the coin is better than what the pictures are showing, the quality of picture is not good" ...what, you mean there ISN'T a socking great hole in it, it's just the photo??

Or, it could have been gilded at some point - a lot of coins of that era were, especially farthings a few years after that shilling.

Yes - the antoninianus (as opposed to the denarius) was often - especially among the later Emperors - silver-washed copper or bronze. But those are like Geo III fakes in that rather than toning, they show a greater or lesser degree of silver wash present. But that's exactly what I was saying! It's the composition of the packing materials that cause the 'orrible toning, not atmospheric pollution. You should not believe every fairy tale. Usually I do not dip my coins. An even & natural toning is the best thing you can have on a coin. Especially in case you own a rare date/mint mark the toning can help to judge whether the particular date or mint mark is manipulated or not. For that purpose you must have enough experience to distinguish between natural and artificial toning. Agreed!

Isn't that due to chemicals in the packaging. Yes, most probably, especially with those 73 sets. Not with those modern proof sets - they're well sealed Well no one has yet in my opinion come up with a convincing counter argument to my previous state that the amount of toning and rate of toning is in direct relationship to the quantity of environmental damage. The heavier the toning the harsher the environment the coin has been keeps in. Just putting a coin away in an envelope although may be considered as protecting it could actually do more damage than leaving it in open air. I still maintain that although all coins will tone with age a lightly toned coin is better than a deeply tone coin, so we shouldn't be seeking out toning and equating it with quality. I think there's a difference between seeking out and accepting toning. If you try to avoid all toning then you get the situation I believe they have in Germany where coins are dipped and varnished to preserve their state. Whereas the Americans seem to have gone the other way completely. Some coins will tone and, certainly with hammered coins that are likely to have been cleaned at some time, I prefer a bit of toning than the bright shininess like this: And once a coin has toned then I think it does more harm to try to reverse it than let it be. But perhaps it's a personal thing? Shiny bright-as-the-day-they-were-struck Roman coins somehow don't seem so bad to me as the shilling above for some reason. Isn't that because that's more usual for Roman coins than hammered? I've seen lots of untoned denarii, but never an untoned hammered except the one in your picture. It may be several causes - (i) the thickness of the coin, (ii) the quality of the silver, (iii) the frequency of hoarded Roman coins especially in this country.

It certainly is "Ultra Rare" - the only coin in existence that is Fine, Very Fine, and Extremely Fine, at one and the same time!!

You've lost me shamo! What do you mean by noted? In the 19th edition collectors coins for Ireland, example(noted at auction 1999)and just(noted 1999),does this mean you take them to auction.I'm not looking to sell not any time soon, because i know there's no value,I'm a collector and i know there's a lot of decimal coins out there,I have to wonder if it would be to soon, maybe keep them for the kids, but by doing that it is unfair to other collector's,and if i do it now it give ebayer's a chance to make a quick pound or try to. LOL. This just means the author of the book has looked at various auction 'realised prices' and "noted" (i.e. "noticed", "saw") that some were worth quoting in his book!

Yes, but this applies to virtually all coins. The bun Britannia looks er... less than attractive in close up. Better to concentrate on some of the more robust physical features, my favourite being the particularly buxom Britannia in the 1825-60 copper series. As the art historian Robert Hughes said (of Goya's La Maja) 'one could imagine climbing into the picture and having a really great afternoon'. Mind you, she could do some serious damage with that trident of hers... She'd beat me at arm wrestling every time

Interesting, I didn't know that the die finished had changed, its a real shame about the effect this had had on the finish of the coins, really makes modern coinage minted in this way look unappealing! Yes, I've always thought the silk finish on 1969 50p pieces were far superior to - say a brightly mirrored 1980 specimen.

How would you explain the fact that proof coins are usually more toned than non-proof? Surely proof coins would be better looked after than non-proofs, but tone more readily due to an interaction between the metal, the atmosphere and the material contained within the presentation case. Agreed. Proof coins that are in absolute mint state and have never left their sealed plastic tombs, can tone horribly as we all know from 1973 sets.

Convex one side, and concave the other?

The weird thing is, from the legend into the centre, it all looks perfect and undistorted - even though the whole design is off-centre.

(I had to see this via Tom's relinking...) I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend here. From the description I expected to see yet another artificial 'rainbow' ugliness, but this wasn't. I agree that it may be artificial and the golden toning is a little too rich, but on the whole I love silver coins with a single colour toning - e.g. blue, or gold, or even grey-pewter. That's not nearly as ugly as I thought it was going to be. I'm with you Peck, I like toned silver. Although, in this case the obverse is not very attractive, but I could easily live with the reverse. Agreed

Agree,they moved in 67 I believe. There are collectors of errors (mainly in the US)where double dies even command high premiums.We have an error member on the forum(not a regular visitor but has some stunning early copper errors)Maybe someone can remember his name. No, they didn't move at all. The new Mint in Llantrisant only produced decimal coins. The London Mint produced all of the remaining predecimal coins dated 1967 (up to 1969? 1970?) at which point they began to turn their attention to proof sets I believe, and coins for other territories, until their disabanding in ?1975? In any case, these are 1964, two years even before the Chancellor's announcement to Parliament in 1966 that all predecimal coins would henceforth carry the date 1967 to 'prevent hoarding and speculation' (ha! may the sainted Jim rearrange the following to form a well-known phrase or saying "good bolted it's horse shutting after no door stable the the has"). The interesting part about all this is how on earth this happened. The halfcrown obverse not 'missing a crescent' is well explained by the rim which is completely missing and which is quite wide on Lizzie halfcrowns. However, the sixpence obverse is far more mysterious. The teeth (such as survive) are totally wrong, and so is the gap between the legend and where the teeth should be. For comparative purposes have a look at this 1964 sixpence obverse. The teeth should be almost beads very close to the legend, and the rim too is quite wide. Now check the original picture and note how very different that obverse appears to be. There's more going on here than meets the eye, but what?

(I had to see this via Tom's relinking...) I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend here. From the description I expected to see yet another artificial 'rainbow' ugliness, but this wasn't. I agree that it may be artificial and the golden toning is a little too rich, but on the whole I love silver coins with a single colour toning - e.g. blue, or gold, or even grey-pewter. That's not nearly as ugly as I thought it was going to be.

Peter, it was impossible for the coin to move anywhere. What he's trying to do is say that its got huge cabinet friction and then tell me he wants a price reduction, but then tell me we can take it off the Shilling. When i replied to him telling him he was bullshitting because of the way it was packed (no cardboard was involved in the making of that parcel) and would have been an improbability for it to have anymore wear than it showed in the pictures he then suddenly became very very quiet, especially when i told him what he was obviously trying to achieve by bullshiting. He was immidiately blocked. Right behind you Dave, eBay as a seller can be a right royal pain in the arse and for the buyer Paulus Slander !!!