Peckris

Or, it could be that the H was machined away when the coin was much less worn, and evidence of the machining has also now been worn away. Just a thought.

Looking at the background, I think it's just that the subject is not quite perpendicular to the camera. I think the bottom is slightly nearer the camera than the top and given a low depth of field the top half is slight fuzzy. Yes, the background is certainly out of focus at the top corners. But on the coin itself, any 'fuzziness' is so marginal it is almost immaterial. There is no element of coin detail, tone, wear, mark or blemish that cannot be seen clearly. If I was judging that item on eBay from that photograph, I could do so without any reservation or doubt.

I'm not so sure scott - have another look at the three pepnnies above, they seem to be showing three distinct stages of wear: • The middle one shows a strong exergue with all elements from the uppepr line down to the rim still clearly visible • The bottom one shows strength everywhere EXCEPT the lower half of the date digits, and the H • The top one only shows strength in the upper exergual line and the topmost part of the date digits It seems that wear begins on the lower parts of the date and the H, then spreads to the rim+teeth thus exposing the remainder of the exergue to accelerated wear without the protection of the rim. The H on those buns is nearly always shallower than the date digits anyway, and will disappear completely before the date (which - in ghost form - is often the very last portion to disappear completely, along with the outline of Vicky's bust). You so often now see "no H" examples of many dates appearing (heralded or unheralded) on eBay. Too many perhaps to ascribe to clogged dies? Though I wouldn't dismiss the idea completely.

Looks good! Nice lighting and backdrop, looks very natural. Very slightly fuzzy and not cropped square; a small section on the left edge of the coin is cropped out. The pictures on your site seem sharper though. Interesting. I'm seeing the whole coin on my screen (the left edge flush with the left hand border). And it looks sharp too. Certainly sharp enough for coin detail purposes. Maybe you have a problem with your monitor?

I thought the cat laid it. A cat laying a turkey - now there's a thought

All bar the 1903 are around the EF level, but the 1903 is better. The images aren't high res enough to clearly see the wear, but the first point to go is the fingers on 20th century bronze. There is obvious wear on 4 of the 5, but not on the 1903. Prices - Colin is the best man for this as I'm not an ardent follower of farthings. Spink list Ed.VII farthings at about £12 each in EF, but that seems a bit optimistic and I certainly wouldn't entertain paying that much. I'd go along with Rob. The 'Mint toning' is virtually complete on all the farthings, and fully there on the 1903. I'd rate the 1903 a minimum £25 coin, the others less so, though the 1910 is (supposedly) scarce and perhaps rates £15. The others would struggle to rate £10 tbh. That's just a personal opinion.

I remember in the late 90s, when I got a Psion Series V, it had a spreadsheet app. I created a document for Spink prices and busily transcribed prices for all my collection plus many major types in all grades into it. Many hours spent in the local library! However, I did have a portable reference to carry around for a year or two... Youngsters nowadays .. if there isn't an app for it, they don't want to know. Luxury! We 'ad it tough in them days...

Supposedly one in Fair sold for over £200 in Bamford .. but that could have been a clogged die, assuming the obverse and reverse were true to the Heaton type.

Nope. He means the stays between the foremast and the pointy bit at the front. Surely they are rigging rather than stays? Anyway, yes, 3 extremely faint lines are there. Good point. I had no idea what 'stays' are either. I suppose the difference between those and rigging are that stays are single sheets that no-one would shin up, whereas rigging tended to be like a kind of netting that sailors could climb using footholds?

Souvenir/replicas of hammered silver coins Saxon or Danish rather than hammered?

The trouble with scans is that while they are great for detail, they kill the tones. It looks from here like a copper proof, but that's a guess based purely on the colour - I'd expect a bronzed proof to be less red, but that could just as easily be your scanner software. You're right. I really must get a camera setup as the scans don't do justice to the coin at all, though colours are unreliable in photos too. I did wonder if the difference in relative density of the two materials might be a key. Does anyone have weights for the copper & bronze proofs? This is a misunderstanding. The proofs are either copper or bronzed (that 'd' is very important!) - in other words it's a bronzed finish to a copper coin, not bronze at all. The only way to tell is to show the coin to an expert, though I'd think Rob might be able to tell from a decent photo.

I did more than a double take too! Then I realised that Wicca Annie must mainly sell clothes hence the remarks about smokers and cats. Mind you, looking at that penny, I'm thinking the cat may have got to it long ago

If you have another OH shilling it's easy to tell as the small lettering only occurs in 1893. The difference isn't dramatic but obvious enough when you see the two side by side.

That reverse is a case in point - Rob's objections to the helmet and right breast are spot on (a little flat), but looking at the rest of that reverse, I'd say it was from not being quite as well struck up in those places. In Derek's grading book, he points out EF coins where the die has begun to wear in certain places. I think that's the point : where 'wear' is extremely localised it's usually due to die wear. I'd be inclined (as a seller) to describe such coins as 'EF weak strike' or 'EF average strike' or 'EF helmet not fully struck up' or something similar, and reduce the price a little. George V larger coins 1913 - 1921 are a minefield for weak strikes.

The trouble with scans is that while they are great for detail, they kill the tones. It looks from here like a copper proof, but that's a guess based purely on the colour - I'd expect a bronzed proof to be less red, but that could just as easily be your scanner software.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection. Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such. Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place. Only among those who collect them, which you must admit is only a fraction of collectors of dates and types. For example, I'm only interested in late 18th Century copper patterns, most else leaves me cold - I wouldn't cross the road for a George V double florin or early 60s cent (unless someone gave me them!)

Can you repost it full on rather than at an angle? Thanks. By the way, the bottom of the three above, looks like a wider date than normal, so that might be worth a picture too. Interesting. Two possibilities from what I see there : 1. The H was normal but has worn right away (not an unusual occurrence) 2. The die got clogged up and only partly or faintly struck up the H One thing is certain - it's not an "1876 no H" London Mint variety. The space is there for it.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection. Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such.

Can you repost it full on rather than at an angle? Thanks. By the way, the bottom of the three above, looks like a wider date than normal, so that might be worth a picture too.

My friendly note to him: Dear jsp69jsp, I suppose you've noticed that the picture you've supplied is not a 1940 penny, but one of 1900?! Also, the 'penny' has been in circulation since the mid-900's AD, so 1940 isn't exactly old! - cerbera100 His reply... Dear cerbera100, so this isnt a question about the penny at all, just you telling me pointless information thanks - jsp69jsp So apparently informing someone that their title, image and description are utterly wrong is 'pointless information'... Do wonders never cease?! Question is, do I reply, and if so how?! Why am I not surprised. You could turn it into a 'question about the penny' though. How about, "Why is this nice penny owned by an idiot who believes it to be from 1940 when a poorly trained monkey could tell him that it's dated 1900? Moreover, why does the same brainless moron advertise it as the 'oldest on eBay' when the most basic grasp of numeracy would indicate otherwise?" Or something along those lines. Anyway, hopefully he will get his comeuppance when it sells at auction for 99p rather than the £75.54 BIN price! So he has no "sarky get out" I've messaged him asking simply "Is it 1940 as in the description or 1900 as in the photo?" Let's see how he gets out of a straight question. Wonder whether he replied Peckris? Anyway, he's updated the listing and it now reads "the picture says different but the penny is a 1940"! Still the oldest on eBay and "as seen on Antiques Roadshow" though. Twat! Yes he did - simply said it was a 1940 not what it showed in the picture (made some excuse about his camera). So maybe that's what drove him to change the description?

Not a fake - a replica, and unsurprisingly poor, at that. Well, the poor replica went for £63. Clever description by the seller, no comment on the bidders. That's appalling. You can pick those up new for £25 or less. (The reason they are poor is probably deliberate - designed that way to prevent fraudulent selling on as either the real thing or a convincing forgery).

No, that's the genuine Lavrillier scott. The bad replica is the one in the original post that started this discussion off.

Not a fake - a replica, and unsurprisingly poor, at that.

Her vacant gaze would indicate she's probably watching Eastenders somewhere off-coin! Nah, she doesn't look depressed enough

I'd go with EF too. Perhaps a little too much paid but it's very easy on the eye. This coin more than any other shows that Britannia knows how to multi-task! She's probably thinking "Shield, olive branch, trident, lion - no problem. Bring me a fish supper and watch what I can REALLY do"