Peckris

Well, that would certainly fit with the Georges being also Electors of Hanover ... but what about the British obverse legend and British Garter on the reverse?

fictional bags of pennies can be melted down, because pennies are not covered by this act. Not true. I've already explained it to you in detail. I'm not going to waste my energies again. the date of 31-8-1971 is very revelant to everything associated with this act as, thats when it commenced!. Which therefore makes the date of 16th May 1969, SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Act, completely irrelevant, of course. By the way, did you know that Acts can be retrospective? Oh, you didn't? Oh, well then. Let me tell you - they can be. Especially those that refer to dates that predate the coming into force of the Act. Oh! As this one does!!!! Well! i agree with you peckris about new coins and the subsequent demonitization of other coins as you ve listed. indeed i wrote just that in my first post.....maybe you missed that. yes there are bills passed through the houses of parliment all the time and i read one just a few weeks ago about the royal mints request to make a new coin for the 2012 olympics whech fell outside of the 1971 acts dimensions and weights criteria for a coin of legal tender, the bill was passed. Now that we agree peckris, that you can melt down fictional bags of pennies, and break them up. You can do what the **** you like with fictional bags of pennies. Mine were just illustrating the facts and implementation of the Act to you in a simple and logical way. Real pennies cannot be melted down, of course, since they ceased to be legal tender AFTER 16th May 1969. It's there in the Act. How many times have I pointed this out to you? More times than I have the energy for. Moving back to the penny farthing bike........the question was asked was it illegal to drill a hole in the penny? clearly not. We agreed on that a long time ago. As 'drilling a hole' appears not to be covered by the Act, unlike the penny which is. (If you care to read and analyse it.) and that ma lord is the case for the defence I've had enough of arguing with you ski. I've tried to explain the meaning of the Act to you, in every way I can think up. You can't or won't understand. So be it. I don't want to seriously fall out with you, so I'm going to retire from this. I've said my last word on the matter, but I'm not yielding truth to you. If you want to interpret my ensuing silence as giving way, then be my guest. It's not so, but I have no more energy to give to this.

+ Edward florins - NOW you're talking! + If you'd said the Wyon/Merlen William IV halfcrowns (swoon).

Do your normal search, Peter, and look in the filters area on the left of the screen. Under "Seller", hit Specifiy Sellers A box will pop up. Check the box marked "only show items from", change the drop down to "Exclude", and paste in the names of those you want to ignore, separated by commas. Then hit Go to close the box, and click Save Search at the top of the page. I call mine "No Junk sellers", and my ignore list is enormous. I'm quite happy to share it if you want... Yes please! D'you think it would be OK in open forum, or should I PM? Seeing as it's real people an' all.... DM to be on the safe side, I guess. Though it wouldn't really stand up in court if someone sued - "He put me on his junk list!"

Do your normal search, Peter, and look in the filters area on the left of the screen. Under "Seller", hit Specifiy Sellers A box will pop up. Check the box marked "only show items from", change the drop down to "Exclude", and paste in the names of those you want to ignore, separated by commas. Then hit Go to close the box, and click Save Search at the top of the page. I call mine "No Junk sellers", and my ignore list is enormous. I'm quite happy to share it if you want... Yes please!

My nomination for the ugliest predecimal coin I wouldn't say ugly, just unartistic. Reminds me of the day my Dad had a go at flower arranging... Am I just being a grumpy old git or has coin design been on a slow downward spiral since some point in the early 19th century? Nope Though having said that ... There are some 'modern' coin reverses which I'd place higher than the over-fussy halfcrowns of George IV (last type), and a few other 19th Century 'villains' : thrifty 3d, ship halfpenny, Liz II shillings, wren farthings, 50p Britannia, 10p lion, £1 dragon, £1 leopards, £1 bridges, £1 shield (1988), silver Britannia, well that's quite a lot to start off with!

Sorry Peckris - but I'm not from the monarchy... This coin was on my grand-grandmother's dress (hence the hole in the coin). Ok - so we definitely cleared the typo... Any idea of it's value and nomination?!? Any idea what the small letters on the bottom of the reverse would stand for? PY? The name of the mint, maybe?!? Thanks very much for the replies!!! This is getting VERY interesting... No idea what PY would be, maybe someone else here does? Probably not a mint I'd say, as those haven't been included since the milled era. It looks too worn and damaged to have any value beyond the "interesting", unless it was something extremely rare (and would also have to be a coin, really). It's clearly got family interest, so that's more important I'd say. BTW I think I can make out BRITT on the obverse, not merely BRI.

"A man" - that's no way to speak of your monarch! The D.G. (DEI GRATIA) is split by "the man's" head. The rest of it is M. BRI. (MAGNA BRITANNIA = Great Britain) FR. (FRANCE) and the remainder would almost certainly be ET H.R. (ET HIBERNIA REX = and Ireland, King) On the Garter, it might be written QVI for QUI - an error has resulted in QIV instead of QVI / QUI

Thank you. Yes, a reasonable night's sleep. So, once more unto the fray... I wish to make the following points : ONE. I know perfectly well that the penny was demonetised on the 31st August 1971, along with the threepenny bit. That's never been an issue, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to raise it. TWO. HOWEVER, it was current (legal tender) after the 16th May 1969 (until 31/8/71) and therefore falls within Section 10 of the Act. That is unquestionable and indisputable. The wording may be legalistic and a tad convoluted, but it is - when you dissect it - quite specific and clear. THREE. The date of 31st August 1971 is irrelevant. The wording specifically refers to "current coins" at any time while the Act is in force; "OR WHICH" - very important legal clause signifying an exception to the previous statement, or an addition to it - "HAVING BEEN CURRENT THERE HAS AT ANY TIME AFTER 16TH MAY 1969, CEASED TO BE SO". FOUR. That general wording, and that 1969 date, are extremely important legally. Without them, the Act would not apply to : A) the decimal halfpenny (demonetised 1984) the large 5 pence (demonetised 1990) C) the large 10 pence (demonetised 1992) D) the large 50 pence (demonetised 1997) The Act also has to sweep up and include NEW current coins without having to specifically mention them : E) 25 pence (1972) F) 20 pence (1982) G) £1 coin (1983) H) £2 coins (passim, up to and including the bimetallic) So, with all that in mind, let me walk you through the story of a fictional bag of 1967 pennies, melted down for copper. • were they legal tender on 31/8/71? NO BUT • had they been current at any time? YES • had they ceased to be current after 16th May 1969? YES Therefore the Act applies to them. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

peckris I cannot believe you have wasted so many words on perpetuating an error! Sigh. Let me try and spend fewer words to explain it. there are none so blind as those who wont see......... the act of 1971 only applies to coins who were legal tender on the 31-8-1971.............thats it. Show me the wording in the Act that says so? And show me the parts of the Act that have now been superseded in relation to melting or defacing coins? The Act's wording SPECIFICALLY mentions the date 16th May 1969. It does NOT specifically mention the date 31st August 1971. The words "wall" "fed" brick" "up" "I'm" "banging" "against" "a" "my" "with" and "head" come to mind. Rearrange those into a sentence. For now, I will leave you to your stubbornness. Sleep well.

The answer to that question is no then. I've been collecting coins for over 20 years and well i've I don't have any of the first four coins. I do have some 1967 pennies but they were a gift, there's no way on earth I'd actually buy one! I suppose it shows our collecting bias. Every coin you list is copper or bronze and I've never collected copper or bronze coins. If I had made the list it would look more like this; Elizabeth II florin George VI florin Bun Head Penny Brass Threepence Wren Farthing 1967 halfpenny Elizabeth II shilling And the only reason I list these is because these are the coins most people in the UK who aren't collectors are likely to ask the question 'i've found an old coin, what's it worth?' That and most of us probably have a few of them lying around (unspent change in the case of the florins and shillings from about 20 odd years ago), even if we don't actually collect any of them per say. My nomination for the ugliest predecimal coin

Interesting. That second picture is lighter and clearer than the first you posted. I'm now revising my opinion about it. Looking at the epaulettes or whatever they're called, they do look remarkably similar to those on coins of George II. However, and this is the big problem, he's facing the wrong way. George II should be facing left not right. All I'm certain of is that it's not a UK coin. And clearly THR PY is an abbreviation of THREEPENNY

current = legal term for currency as well as being current. remember now, you can have legal tender that is not part of your currency system or, is not current to put it legally.............please read that again mr peckris. okay bearing in mind this statement is made with referance to those coins that are legal tender as of the 31-8-1971 and of course included in this act. (also specifically not included, the penny and threpeny bit). what coins could possibly have been legal tender and so covered by this act on the 31-8-1971, and under section 10 of this act being current at 16th may 1969?...............step forward once more the 5p 10p florin shilling etc now the big question...... what coins could possibly have been legal tender and so covered by this act on the 31-8-1971 (not the penny remember) but had after the 16th may 1969 ceased to be so (current)........step forward the sovereign, the half sovereign, the quarter sovereign, maundy money, just about every commemorative issue that has been produced since this date........i may stand corrected, but im of the opinion that proofs also fall into this category. they were, and are still all legal tender, but not current. 31-8-1969......the humble penny was not legal tender, was not covered by this act. ski. I cannot believe you have wasted so many words on perpetuating an error! Sigh. Let me try and spend fewer words to explain it. (1)No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. Ok, let's break that down into little pieces. 1. [i](1)No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin Shall we agree that part is clear enough? 2. which is for the time being That's legal terminology. It means not only "on the date the the Act was passed", but "on any date while this Act is in force." So, for example, you could insert today's date, and it still applies. 3. current in the United Kingdom We both agree that means "currency coins", yes? 4. This is the crucial part you're not getting. or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. That's seems clear enough to me. But just in case, I will translate or paraphrase : "any coin that has been currency (in UK) but has been made non-currency since 16th May 1969." That doesn't include the farthing. However, it includes your penny, your halfpenny, your halfcrown, your threepenny bit, your decimal halfpenny, your large 50p, 10p, 5p coins ... all of which ceased to be currency AFTER 16th May 1969, but all of which have been currency at some time. Sigh.

All right, I confess. Yes. I do. I do have a 1967 penny. I might even have more than one. So there.

Well, it's actually a portrait of George III (based on the Kuchler bust which appeared for the first time on the 1797 "Cartwheel" coppers which were the first machine-produced coins). The reverse, as you say, features the British coat of arms plus royal garter. However it doesn't correspond to any recognised coin type, but may be some kind of medallion, or forgery thereof. Because of the condition it's hard to tell much more.

not at all. the point of my posts is that the penny and threepenny bit were not subject to this act,simple as that, as you mentioned also the farthing and also the half crown and halfpenny. the act was not retrospective, but was and still is in place to protect the current legal tender....the penny under this act was not current and was not legal tender and fell outside of section 3 of what constituted as of 31 aug 1971 a legally tendered coin. even now, coins that would have fallen within the scope of the act as of 31 aug 1971, may not be subject to item 10 with referance to "has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so", because of subsequent acts or act ammendements. ski. You've misunderstood! The penny, threepenny bit, halfcrown and halfpenny WERE subject to the Act - read the exact wording again, and you'll see it's so. All those were demonetised AFTER 16th May 1969. Only the farthing wasn't.

Yes, the sandblasted proofs are ultra-rare 'specials', quite distinct from mirror or frosted proofs. They have more in common with the matte proofs of Ed VII but aren't the same.

Fake it is, then

Ski, I think you're complicating things. The original wording quoted above from the 1971 Act... (1)No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. ...covers all current coins, plus any denominations that were demonetised after 16th May 1969. Only the farthing is not caught by that.

Actually the far more common name is "frosted design" proofs. They were introduced here in the 1980 sets after many years of ordinary "mirror finish" proofs. Having said that, very mild frosting can be seen on some George VI proofs (or if not actually frosted, the raised design doesn't actually have the mirror finish of the fields).

On page 72 of CYC there is an Info panel on how to calculate the value of modern proof sets (basically, a multiplier of the total face value). I'd just like to add the following notes : 1. The first three sets 1971/2/3 attract a variable premium - 1971 through being the first decimal proofs, 1972 through being a 'proof only' year set, 1973 through being very difficult to obtain without ugly toning so untoned sets attract a premium 2. Coins that weren't issued in currency form (e.g. 1974 2p 5p 50p) are worth around double the proofs that were. They tend not to add to the value of the whole set but have more value as singletons, which is why so many early sets are broken up on the principle that 'the whole is worth less than the sum of the parts'.

I've seen chocolate coins with better outers than that! It actually doesn't look like a worn coin so much as a fake or an acid victim (does gold dissolve in acid?)

Yes, I agree Bill. That wording seems to include all predecimal coins that were currency after the demonetisation of the farthing in the early 60s - therefore the farthing is not a problem but the penny potentially is. But I think drilling a hole doesn't actually contravene the Act.

I'd say "no". The Act was specifically to prevent the mass export of coins to recover metal values. Drilling holes is not really an issue, especially with demonetised issues.

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type). For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am. Thanks for the rapid reply. There may be a typo, however, as the reverse looks more like 2789 than 2785. The obverse has the tall bust, extending beyond the inner circle significantly. The problem there, is that the mintmark is the wrong one (it's most likely a harp not a tun), also the oval shield reverse actually starts with 2785 according to Spink. As for the obverse, yours has the inner circle which they don't from 2787 onwards. Unless I'm reading Spink wrong?