Peckris

I think I'm tending towards Chris' and John's views - mainly for one reason : the damage (or repunch, it's not entirely clear) to the '1' and the '4' looks identical. It looks possible that whatever was done to one digit was also done to the other. As for the '1', it could well be that the resulting damage/punch makes it LOOK like an Arabic 1 when in fact it isn't really. But it's not certain, that's for sure!

Bear in mind that modern proof sets average around 100,000 issued, and you can't give them away! What does "you can't give them away" mean? The modern proof coins are legal tender therefore valid money, isn´t? What I meant was - modern proof sets are very common, in the sense that there are many more sets available than people who want to collect them. It's a buyers' market. "You can't give them away" is an idiom, meaning "If you have any for sale, it is very unlikely you will get a good price, and nowhere near the issue price or catalogue price." Yes, proof sets are legal tender, but the coins in them cost many times their face value, so spending them would be VERY unwise!

Wow, that's a high risk strategy Dave! To sell one's collection and then expect to be able to buy it back at a cheaper price in the future. Even with the money available, it takes years to assemble a decent collection. Some coins virtually never appear in the market and to lever them out of the hands of other collectors is likely to require a significant premium. It isn't one I was planning to adopt myself, as I'm a collector not a gambler. However, it's what the guys in the city do all day long and I bet there are some people who are able to judge the turning point and go for the big sell. I guess if you are a collector and, as you say, you have some rarities that are almost never seen then you probably wouldn't part with these, but would let some of the more easily obtained examples go. Maybe, but one share certificate is exactly the same as another. Your own favourite coins are unique, and once sold you are extremely unlikely to ever have the opportunity to buy them back again.

That's true, and really the only clue. Of course I know it must be altered but even under a scope it's impossible to see how. If I was a machinist, I'd take a 1935 penny as the base, then cut the upper part of the '3' from another penny including some surrounding metal. Then I'd carefully cut out the top of the '5' and drop in the portion of the '3' from the second penny. It would require a microscope and much adjustment to get it right, then it would be a matter of rubbing and treating to conceal the join. Lovejoy would be proud of it!

It looks like a low grade penny which has been silver plated. Agreed, or possibly chromed.

Between 1965 and 1975 there were unique circumstances prevailing. Worldwide, there was definitely an upsurge in interest in coins, but in the UK this was exaggerated by decimalisation. That created an absurd demand for modern circulating coins which rose far quicker than pre-1887 coins. It all collapsed spectacularly after 1971 but due to genuine interest in older coins partly underwritten by stock market falls (the oil crisis), pre-20th Century coins began their rise in the mid-70s. This again reached absurd heights between 1979-80, after which things stagnated for 15 years or so. Coins were very underpriced in the mid-1990s, and have been undergoing corrections ever since. It's fair to say that eBay is the complicating factor this time around. So the answer is "yes and no". Yes, whenever coins are underpriced and interest is there, then market forces will come into play. No, in the sense that the driving external factors were completely different in the 1970s.

The coin is not mine, but apparently is gold. So either a lower quality gold or the core is not gold, just the outside layer. do not know. IF it is gold, i just do not get it... As stated, lower grade gold for use e.g. in the Middle East. The "wrong date" would prevent (or so it may have been assumed) accusations of counterfeiting.

Bear in mind that modern proof sets average around 100,000 issued, and you can't give them away!

A slightly doubled legend is so frequently encountered I'm not in the least bit excited. But that's a nice variety, the 1876H wide date. Good capture.

It's not bad, but up close and personal those 3's are different sizes.

I think we all missed this... If you are proposing to post, please feel free to do so, whatever the day. If, however, you are posting to propose then I'm afraid, 4 years it must be! I have the feeling that Mr Debbie might have something to say about that

All you need to do is to compress your pictures in any image editor - save it as a JPEG with a fairly low-quality setting, and you should be ok for size. Until then, what size coin are you talking about? Is it standard penny size? In which case it;s probably a bronze penny dipped or chromed. If it's a small silver coin, then describe it fully with legend, position of date, etc. Thanks.

because they have been given to me as gifts and i like em... i doubt the collection i have would constitute a collection. anybody else want to give me an ounce of silver for free 50p olympic collection now sold due to tight wadded jock time waster. And I'd rather have any number of silver Britannia "medallions" than flimsy poorly-designed RM profiteering 50p's.

It does look very dubious. I wouldn't buy based on that photo.

I thought it would get your attention Debbie! That reverse is very nice.

Lovely coin.

Infintely better pix <Dammit - where is the 'doffing-ones-cap' smilie when I need it?!Oh well, the old ways are the best...> Why thank'ee squire! (That's not it, but it will suffice here)

I think you're right, but for the wrong reason. The circulating coinage has represented a dwindling % of the money supply for near on a century, due to inflation. As inflation inexorably increases, the use for cash (coins, not notes) gets less and less. Eventually it will represent only small change and may be replaced by sweets as happened to small change in Italy as far back as the 1970s.

That's a beauty. Indeed it is! And for my money, OS... That is SO debatable

"Weak strike" is not quite the right term I think. Even early strikes from new dies can show weakness on the reverses where the obverse portrait is highest. It's a phenomenon unique to the early series of George V and is often accompanied by a 'ghost' of the portrait appearing on the reverse, especially halfpennies, pennies, and shillings, and to a less extent sixpences. It's not a weak strike so much as an imbalance in the two sides of the design, which saw the portrait of George cut much too deep. For 'lion's nose' on shillings, read 'Britannia's face and chest' on the bronze. I would say that the ME coins are better struck, but whether that is purely down to the new portrait I don't know. I don't think the metal composition is the reason as that was .500 silver from 1920 onwards and there are plenty of weak 1920-1925 examples. Perhaps the new metal composition, being less dense, allowed the striking pressure to be increased. It's difficult to say as the reverses for ME coins are a single-year type, given that the entire coinage was redesigned for 1927, drastically so for silver. But I've seen many 1926ME shillings, they lack ghosting and seem to be pretty well struck up.

Infintely better pix

That's a beauty.

No, Edward only ever intended the Scottish design to be used. Which rather gives the lie to the notion that the Scottish shilling was to honour the Scottish ancestry of Mrs George VI - Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - which I've heard more than once, and is clearly untrue.

£14:50 Not being in the UK Peck it's a little hard to pay 14.50 innit. You asked what I'd pay - I told you!

Nick, did we overlap posts? See my reply above yours!