Peckris

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"

its an 1862 Peck, but its been cleaned Oh right - thanks. I do have a good 1862 already (patinated but better than EF) so I will leave it. Good luck with it

You never said what date this penny is Az - I'm looking to upgrade some of my poorer dates, you could be offloading it quicker than you anticipated

Yup - the "dinghy sailing in a wetsuit" forum is that-a-way ======>

I've done a bit more experimenting and the best I can do so far is this. Much nicer! (To my eyes, anyway). Less contrast, good detail, and some iridescence.

I'd rate that a clear EF with traces of lustre. Nice coin, and a fairly 'easy' series to start with. Good work!

To my eyes it's EF, though slightly stained in places.

The camera never lies, of course...

Ah, DEGS - the infamous Dismal English Grading Services.