Peckris

Oh believe me Andrew - that particular 1912 has quite a good reverse rim. That type 1 reverse (1911 - 1913) is notorious for sometimes lacking a rim almost entirely. The obverse design is very high, so the rim gets well pressed up, but the reverse is relatively shallow and often the rim disappears apart from a light impression. The halfpennies are even worse - it's not unusual to see halfpennies between 1911 and 1925, with the obverse in AF and a rimless reverse in poor with virtually the entire legend worn away. On the pennies, the design change in 1913 saw an improvement, but mainly in the rim. The design was lightly recut and survives better than it does for those first 3 years. Your example is one of the better ones. By the way, it's probably a 1912KN judging by the colour.

Perhaps Mr £160 actually got sent a picture of this 'Unc hammered shilling'? I'd be inclined towards the 'stupid', but 'scam' incorporates both anyway (This is the 'jaw drop' smiley : )

Ah, that Sir, is an example of what the coiners at the Mint were capable of, if they took care over hammering a coin! Of course, it's been fortunate in starting it's life as a decent circular flan (most weren't towards the end of Charles' reign and it has to be assumed that quality control at the Mint just got forgotten) It also clearly never came near anyone tempted to clip it. And having never hammered a coin myself, I wonder if a bit of luck didn't come into the fact that the dies were nicely aligned to give a central strike on both sides. But those are the factors that make it a rarity. Less so for the number produced than for the fact that, as Rob says, most of the output was crap to start with and time has not then improved them at all! NOT IN THE CIRCULATION REPORT ! FARTHING 1718 VERY nice! A pattern 'Dump' farthing? I've never understood why the Dump farthings were neglected when there were clearly a good issue of halfpennies. You'd think in those days that both denominations were equally in demand for small change. It would be like issuing all the 2p pieces in 1971 but asking people to survive on a small issue of pennies for a couple of years.

If you re-read my post, you will see that it could be a damaged 8 OR a damaged 3 die - if it was a damaged 3 that might explain the re-use with an overstamp. Or a damaged 8 might have been overstamped if the die broke when still young. I read what you said Peck, but i don't think its an 8 either, mainly due to the date cutout picture where there's a noticable protrusion inbetween the centre of both loops on the outside on the left hand side, why would an 8 have a line jutting out? a 3s centre line could though I don't see that at all. I only see the faint shadow of the top left corner of the lower loop of an 8, corresponding to the fact that the overstamp is LOWER than the original. I'm talking about the clear cut on the very top of the underlying figure - which looks like it could be a broken die. Could be, not certain.

If you re-read my post, you will see that it could be a damaged 8 OR a damaged 3 die - if it was a damaged 3 that might explain the re-use with an overstamp. Or a damaged 8 might have been overstamped if the die broke when still young.

You're that old??? I remember looking out for one of those as a schoolboy in the 60s.. Puts mine well and truly into the shade.

I'm not a hammered man, but I echo your thoughts on how it is that dedicated collectors can see their sold collections become the basis of a standard reference. The other way is to "do a Peck" or "do a Freeman' and publish a reference work. That piece is very handsome by the way - I love the way that realistic portraits appear from later Henry VII onwards as the Renaissance bites, and the kings on coins no longer look like Worzel Gummidge.

What it looks more like, is a damaged 8 (upper top loop) that was repunched. If it WAS a 3, it would be damaged in just the same way. Very difficult to tell.

And the toned one with no grade advertised (getting on for VF I'd say) is in better state of preservation than the one described UNC - which has clearly been cleaned. That looks more like eBay tomfoolery than fakery.

A master listing of photographic blowups would be a good start. The trouble is, it would be out of date even before it was published. I suppose our own collections - if purchased before the Millennial dawn of Chinese forgeries - would be some reassurance to us, and a very minor provenance though without proof unless we got and kept receipts (which I usually didn't).

That's closer to UNC than most wazzocks on ebay get to. Very true! but methinks it found its true level at the price it finally went for.

If those identifiers are EXACTLY the same as known fakes, then it stands a very high chance of being one. I would have thought DNW staff would be more expert than that, though if carefully placed as a single item, it could well have slipped through. One chance of its being genuine is if it turned out to be the very coin the Chinese fakes were cast from, but I simply don't know what happens to their source material. Good research and spot.

I'm no expert on that period and reign at all. But what is that piece? Just from the illustration it looks like a hybrid between late hammered and very early milled. But of course it can't be - it must be one thing or the other.

Oh that's easy. There's one on the moon - it was taken there in the B52 bomber that's also up there. Probably another one at the end of the rainbow, Peck It's keeping that BU 1926ME you were looking for, company........ NOW I know where to look - at the hen dentist

I'll let the experts on hammered answer this one for you, but I can solve one of your mysteries : the II behind the bust is where the denomination was put (XX for Unites, X for half Unites, XII for shillings, VI for sixpence, IIII for groat, etc). Yours is a twopence which is more correctly known as a "half groat".

Oh that's easy. There's one on the moon - it was taken there in the B52 bomber that's also up there.

I'm already thinking about my own Top 50 !!

That is a staggeringly beautiful coin. I can well understand why you were smitten. Its age and historicity is only part of the appeal, it shines also in its own right. Yes, I have migrated from date runs of pennies and halfcrowns (which I loved) and sixpences and farthings (which were affordable) - and became a type collector quite a number of years ago. But even there, I now ask myself, "what constitutes a TYPE"? A few years back I would have said "it means I must have one of each denomination within each obverse issue, per reign". But now I say to myself "Why bother with a very common and persistent reverse type (e.g. silver 3d) when you have larger denominations for those obverses?" The same applies with sixpences, and many other types. Yet now I have moved on even further. I look at the second and third reverse types of George IV halfcrown - unique types - and think "Actually I hate those reverses." And I keep them only for the obverse. So the type collection has become more dictated by what I actually like. And beyond even that - there are the questions of "how far down the varieties line does one go?" and "how far down the rarities path does one go?". So now, if I was putting a collection of George VI pennies together in BU, I'd go with : - one of 1937, 38, or 39 - the 1940 single exergue line - a 1944 or 45 Mint toned - either a 1950 or 51 Similarly with Edward VII halfcrowns in as high a grade as I could afford : - either 1902 or 1910 UNC - either 1904 NVF or 1903 GF - 1905 Fair+ So it's a mix of types and rarities that both appeal to me and which I can afford. The latter being not even on the same planet as you Rob. Though you make a good point about not looking at what other people have in their collections. I have begun to love early milled in the last decade or so, but these are now frighteningly unaffordable in any grade worth having. I console myself with the truth (and it is a truth) that the reverse designs were scarily and unimaginatively repetitive from Charles II all the way through to George II - essentially the same design on all silver coins (though with subtle variations and interesting byways involving harps, crowns, plumes, roses, LIMA, Edinburgh, etc), and largely the same on coppers.

That's because the maundy 3d and proof 3d are different coins Ok, so if I understand this (please correct me if I'm wrong). There are three different 1911 3d coins: - Currency - Maundy (produced with polished dies) - Proof (produced with polished dies and polished flan) Therefore it doesn't make any sense to say currency proof or maundy proof unless there are exclusive design differences between the currency and maundy dies. A few years ago Spink didn't list a proof 1911 3d, though all other silver denominations were. However it did list a 1911 'proof Maundy set'. As separate Maundy proofs weren't issued, this must refer to the Maundy coins in the main proof set. If Spink are now listing the 1911 3ds separately, there must be a reason, and this is what I'd suggest : IF it can be shown that the 3d came from the main proof set, the £40 applies IF the 3d clearly has been taken from a normal Maundy set, the £22 applies However, if its source is unproven and the coin has begun to tone, it wouldn't be possible to differentiate. It would however be reasonable to say that a separate 1911 proof 3d doesn't exist : it's part of the Maundy set in the proof set.

For new collectors - especially the young without much money - the chance of getting good coins to start a collection, is less and less. Common coins are around in abundance though, so if youngsters stick to those, there's still hope. But upgrading to get good stock requires more and more outlay, which is great for existing collectors with decent coins, but I'd say the long-term outlook isn't that great for newbies. If the current interest subsides though, and prices see the sort of 'correction' that house prices saw, who knows? But, the stock of predecimal coins is finite and getting smaller by the year. A good collector base has always been very healthy for the hobby, with these new trends I kind of worry a little that the interest will drop of and investments take full hold. With a lack of interest a lack of knowledge may follow!? Investment without knowledge would be a disaster ... for the investor.

The proof sets only included 8 silver coins. 2/6, 2/-, 1/-, 6d, 4d, 3d, 2d and 1d. If we were to assuming the 3d is part of the maundy series there would be no proof currency 3d.... but are the maundy coins proof or maundy issue. I say proof which would make the 3d a proof currency 3d because the normal issue maundy 3d has a different observe the proof issue. This sounds like a grey area. The only official Maundy Money is that which was issued as part of the ceremony. Therefore the "Maundy" denominations as part of the 1911, 1937 proof sets, etc, can't really be regarded as Maundy, and therefore the 3d should count as a currency proof (how you would classify the 4d, 2d, and 1d, I have no idea).

Your Vespasian still shows the powerfull portrait of an Imperial Brass Sestercius - you aquired the coin very well Thanks

For new collectors - especially the young without much money - the chance of getting good coins to start a collection, is less and less. Common coins are around in abundance though, so if youngsters stick to those, there's still hope. But upgrading to get good stock requires more and more outlay, which is great for existing collectors with decent coins, but I'd say the long-term outlook isn't that great for newbies. If the current interest subsides though, and prices see the sort of 'correction' that house prices saw, who knows? But, the stock of predecimal coins is finite and getting smaller by the year.

Yes you're right. I was judging it only on the reverse which is passable. The obverse is pretty awful.

An interesting story. I've often admired such coins though never had a yen to collect or research them. However I do know that desirable Arabic coins - especially when competed for by oil-rich buyers - know no bounds in price. My own interests outside British milled, lie mostly in ancients, though my collection is quite small. It was helped considerably by an auction I picked up from W&W when dealing - a good mixed assortment of Roman and a few Greek and Macedonian types. After selling a few - including a rather nice Sassanid silver coin I wish I'd kept now - I thought "what the hell, I'm keeping the rest of these" and bunged them into my own collection. Sadly the collection was lacking any early large bronze, and so was my collection, so when this Vespasian came up on eBay I decided to go for it (large bronzes are notoriously expensive). Although only Fine, and costing me getting on for £30, I didn't regret my purchase, though it is still my only large Roman bronze. And not THAT large either - a dupondius is a lot smaller than a sestertius.