Peckris

Debbie, you may already know, but there was a 'recut' portrait introduced in 1920, which is flatter and shallower than the one used between 1911 and 1920. The hair detail is also much lighter and the rim lower, which is why the coins between 1920 and 1926 wear so quickly. The main reason for saying this is because you are a shilling collector : the ONLY rare shilling that uses the earlier of the two portraits occurs in 1921 (which has several minor varieties; this is a major variety). The Spink reference is incorrect for this (as well as being totally unrealistic on the prices - you'd think from their pricing that the rare coin occurs 1:3 or 1:4, but it's much much rarer than that.) The main thing they got wrong is the pointing of the tip of George's nose : it points to S on the COMMON issue and between V and S on the RARE issue. I've attached a picture that hopefully shows the difference clearly. The other difference which I haven't mentioned in the attachment, is the space between the legend and the rim. Probably because of longer teeth, and the convex flan, the space is very small on the earlier issue, but quite noticeable on the later one. Well, that's my Aspergers workout for the day! Now I can go and listen to some Steely Dan and let my hair down.

For the same reason there are no halfcrowns (currency) between 1851 and 1873 inclusive i.e. supply and demand, or for that matter Elizabeth II pennies in the 1950s or George V pennies in 1923-5. Coins are produced according to the demand from the banks and the quantities in circulation. If they don't order any coins of a particular denomination, then the mint won't produce them. You also have to consider that coins were regularly struck from dies bearing the previous year's date when there was a supply of unused dies, or alternatively old dies that still ahd some life left in them. The cost of producing new dies would have been much greater than the cost of punching the new date over the old. Overdates can be found for many years until the late 1800s on all denominations. Sometimes they are obvious, at other times less so depending on the depth to which the new charater was cut. Not quite, in that particular example. Halfcrowns ceased production to allow a decimal currency to be gradually introduced, of which the florin (introduced in 1849) was the first step, and replacement for the halfcrown. A cent was to be next, but the florin was to test public opinion first. In the end, although the florin became established, the clamour for the return of a larger denomination proved irresistible and so the halfcrown was reintroduced in 1874.

Yup. Re-register as a different user. Simples.

A dealer who expects to pay 1/6 book price for a highly saleable coin like Anne gold, is living in cloudcuckooland. When I dealt I tried to work on an average of half book, but that included the kind of dross that would hang around for ages and for which you wouldn't pay more than 1/3 book, often much less. Good items I might pay 2/3 book knowing I could sell them on. Your dealer was just a cheapskate chancer, would make my blood boil too.

No bids

Accepting that you may be new to grading (the coin is probably around GF), there is one other thing that would earn you a teensy slap across the wrist, and that is in describing the coin as 'rare' when it's nothing of the sort. The coin is perfectly collectable but your heading is likely to get collectors' backs up and result in a lack of trust. If you want help with grading, I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who will throw you a lifeline, juat post a picture before listing and we'll help out but as regards the description, if you are unaware of how rare the coin actually is, suggest you say nowt. Lecture over! i was describing that coin with the what seems to be a die error as making it rarer, not a charles ii threepence as rare, but anyway thanks for the heads up Oops, I hadn't been to look at your listing. Yes, Derek is quite right - the grading is WAY out. Have a look at the flat area between the back of the head and the face - on a coin VF or better, you would see that that is a laurel crown over Charles' wig; you would see every leaf and you would see every curl in the wig. Yours is barely Fine (obverse) but GF (reverse) so an average of Fine would be about right.

The question is how you collect your coins. All of us are on a limited budget, it is just a question of scale. A low ranking local government worker from Steeple Bumpstead may have £1,000 to spend on coins; he could go for one corker or 10-20 middle grade coins. If he goes for the forer then he has a coin, the latter a collection, which would tell him far more about coins and history in general. Mid-grade coins may get hit in a recession but most of those collecting them aren't investors, so it is of little moment to them if they're in it long-term. And if he manages to hang onto his job through the lean years then he will be able to expand his collection exponentially. Collectors of low-grade coins can, in my experience, also be the elderly who are on a very limited budget and want an absorbing hobby for their twilight years - it doesn't cost much and can give many hours of pleasure. We are all different and there is no right or wrong way to collect. Just go with what suits you. Well, I'm in the middle grade category - that is, I'd rather spend £100 each on ten coins than £1000 on one top grade one. However, you also have to remember that price increases with age broadly speaking. So, I would expect collectors like me to mostly go for high grade 20thC coins simply because they are plentiful and hence fairly cheap, whilst 19th less so, and 18th C even less so. This means that I tend to have a grade gradient - my 1967 halfpennys are UNC, my 1884 is EF, my 1735 is VF, my 1701 is fine, but my 1689 is poor at best. It's not a hard and fast rule, but top condition older tends to be most expensive and if I want a comprehensive collection, then I still have to spend a lot more for a lower grade the older it gets. From memory the 1967 cost all of £1 whilst the 1689 cost £450. To have got a 1689 in NVF would have cost around £2500 or so, and so I have had to compromise on grade. What all this means is that, in my opinion, older scarcer coins in middling grades (GF-VF) will hold up in price because there are still plenty of collectors out there wanting specific dates to fill gaps and will pay a good price, even with a premium to get them. For instance, I still want a 1686 halfpenny. If one comes up in UNC (ho,ho) then its out of my league, but in GF I'm in the running and going for it, almost at any reasonable price. There's a lot of good sense being talked, but I think we've missed one important point? And that is, how many of us collect with a clearly identified strategy like some of those mentioned? For myself, coins have come over a long period and from a wide variety of sources : - from dealers, particularly someone who advised what was good to buy, and who may have had a variety of coins - from auctions, where single coins were bought for collection, and bulk lots that nevertheless may have contained some items that caught the eye - from eBay where a particular item may have caught the eye and luck was in with my bid - from fairs where some coins were bought to sell but then "Oh I can live with that, it's a looker" took over; or irresistibly inexpensive trays In terms of approach to collecting I'd say I was more of a scott than a Tom - i.e. I have quite a variety of different areas, some of which are better served than others. As for the top end - if they are high earners or investors, then they will still be buying; but if they are the aforementioned collectors who save up to get only the best when they can afford it, those will drop out much more in a recession. In fact, you could say that the higher the priced coin, the more it will suffer when money is tight? Most of us can afford the bottom end : those who collect them regularly will still be collecting in bad times, as the outlay is modest; people who normally collect higher grades MAY drop down when they can't afford the better grades. One final point - the bulk of my buying was done in years past, before the great price hikes of recent years. Therefore, coming into play is the double notion of (1) "We've been here before - these prices won't last and will fall before too long" and (2) "When I paid relatively modest sums for good coins, why am I suddenly going to spend 5 or 10 times that for same level of coin?" Of course I WILL for the right coin, but it's getting harder to identify "the right coin", and there don't seem to be bargains anymore (for which I blame eBay).

Thanks - it's probably not a high enough grade for me, but thank you for posting it. No-one thinks you're spamming! We have enough real spammers already. And it's good to learn from your mistakes, I bet I have more than a few in my collection.

The H is not really there. It's because your mind is so used to seeing an H that you are automatically putting one there. If you look really close you can see that it is just a figment of your imagination. This guy (Ian Fall I believe) usually knows what he's doing, so I'm at a loss to understand why such a peculiar listing. I guess he must just have attached the wrong picture, but then surely he would just replace it. Dunno. The same guy is selling a high grade 1870 with quite a few bids on. The only weird thing about that description is the rarity rating - "SCARCE" (correct) "101 - 200 specimens" (oh come on!! get real, there's many more than that even of 1869s and 1871s!!!) He normally uses Goubys book for picture references, which Gouby states cannot be used, he also quotes Gooubys rarity and numbers, so i assume that figure has come from MGs book Then Michael must be talking about numbers in that particular grade, in which case the seller should have made that clear. There are many many more 1870 pennies around than those figures suggest - and as I say, there are many many more 1869s and 1871s than that.

It's a perfectly acceptable threepence. Apart from some strange planchet damage below the portrait.. Ive decided to sell it anyway ( http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/170723157733 ) as you can see from my listing i cant grade to save my life still, but ive decided im going to focus my collection to nice grade bunhead pennies, i have been buying coins in a scatter-brained way, i have 1 last coin about to arrive ( a septimus severus silver denarius) which ill sell, then ill start on a proper collection. Do you have pictures?

That's only 2 extra reigns, so shouldn't be too difficult. The Elizabeth won't be difficult to find and you can easily pick up a Charles I Aberystwyth cheaply in VF - in fact it might be harder to get one in fine! As for where mid-range collectors sit in the event of a market meltdown, the concensus seems to be that the middle will be hardest hit. The bottom will be fairly immune because half of **** all is still **** all, and the top will retain its value better because the people in this range are less affected by liquidity problems - that is, unless banking transactions cease to function. I think you mean "all of **** all is still **** all" don't you Rob? There are enough Fine collectors around to ensure the bottom end prices always hold up.

What's a phone in sex line?

The H is not really there. It's because your mind is so used to seeing an H that you are automatically putting one there. If you look really close you can see that it is just a figment of your imagination. This guy (Ian Fall I believe) usually knows what he's doing, so I'm at a loss to understand why such a peculiar listing. I guess he must just have attached the wrong picture, but then surely he would just replace it. Dunno. Strangely, the main item description says it's "no H" but the detailed description says it's "2 over 1", so I guess it is just a mislabelled item. The H is so clear it couldn't in all seriousness be claimed to be one. I think it's just a slip up. I'm surprised there were no bids - it's a handsome enough high grade 1882H which deserves more than 99p. If I'd seen it I'd have bid on it. The same guy is selling a high grade 1870 with quite a few bids on. The only weird thing about that description is the rarity rating - "SCARCE" (correct) "101 - 200 specimens" (oh come on!! get real, there's many more than that even of 1869s and 1871s!!!)

That's about it! Oh yes! Though I've seen worse - I have a 1919H that's GEF for general wear, but has less hair detail than that.

It's the same as far back as 2005. The S3609 description "below bust" has been replaced by "local dies". Does this mean the E* is NOT below the bust? What does 'local dies' actually mean? A picture would certainly be useful. (I note the picture for S3609 is rather poor, which is odd given that the prices indicate it's not especially rare).

Thing is, whoever is ultimately responsible for all this spam, really can't have a lot of intelligence. As a form of advertising it is 100% useless. The only effect it has on nearly all sites, is to irritate both the owners and users, who, by definition, will have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what s being offered ~ and even that pre-supposes they can understand the garbage that forms the advert. There must be a tiny % of idiots who respond to whatever it is. And maybe the profits wrung from that moronity make it all worth it? Moronity would indeed be the collective noun to describe anyone willing to send money to Russia/Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan, or wherever this cyber rubbish emanates, on the vague hope that the junk they were ordering might actually turn up. It just seemed less typing than "moron minority" (which has a certain alliterative quality to it, don't you think?)

Thing is, whoever is ultimately responsible for all this spam, really can't have a lot of intelligence. As a form of advertising it is 100% useless. The only effect it has on nearly all sites, is to irritate both the owners and users, who, by definition, will have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what s being offered ~ and even that pre-supposes they can understand the garbage that forms the advert. There must be a tiny % of idiots who respond to whatever it is. And maybe the profits wrung from that moronity make it all worth it?

It's a perfectly acceptable threepence. Apart from some strange planchet damage below the portrait..

Thank you. I'm always on the look out for an unc example so will keep you in mind for the day I do manage to find an upgrade! I notice you only put the reverse up - is the obverse the usual Billy No Hair?

Ah, but what you don't see is the little piece of Blu-Tack holding it to the finger

A rather red penny, definitely from the KN mint! An enviable grade - very definitely VF and exactly the sort I've been looking for. If it wasn't your own John, I'd ask how much you wanted for it!

I'm not sure if that's a waste of 1771 farthings or thrupenny bits.

There's red and there's red scott. Or brown, actually! Your penny has the typical colouration seen between 1920 and 1922, and possibly earlier but almost invariable for those dates. However, you will see that our friend's 1912 is noticeably redder, as many of the KNs are.

According to Freeman, the Kings Norton Metal Co supplied blanks to the Royal Mint from 1912 until 1918. The classic red colour (to my mind) gives the game away. I wonder if unrecorded supplies of blanks actually go back to 1908? as there are 'red pennies' from that date onwards. That's why I called yours a 1912KN - the blank could well have come from there. But I thought the change from A to B reverse in 1913 represents a micro variety, the very mention of which sends you soporific Peckris? :D Yes indeed it does However, there is an interesting piece of striking and design history behind that particular series, plus the spice of the mules being a lot scarcer than the two main types.