Peckris

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark. Both could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong. Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40. At last my sanity is restored I had always pondered the fact that it was very often discussed depending on the depth of the cut, and this should not be a deciding factor. It could certainly be evidence but should not be definitive evidence. Thansk for the examples I will have a look!! I'm not sure I agree (though far from being expert in such things). I've seen the 1807/6 thread and that's clearly a 7, though there are residual traces of a 6 showing, that's quite certain. From a deeper cut 6, that's also the only reasonable explanation. But it doesn't correspond in any way to those E N diagrams above, as the remains of the 6 do not show beyond the boundaries of the 7. And Dave's penny doesn't show anything like that. It shows a clear E with a lump of something sitting on top of the central portion (it looks almost like a lump of solder). Even if it was the deep lying trace of something original and much deeper, you'd have to account for what it must have been, and the way it sits 'on' the E doesn't seem to bear that theory out anyway. The unerlying E looks kosher, just with a lump of something on it. In the illustrations above, the white letter is clearly the overcut one, but possibly the diagram was constructed in an exaggerated way to illustrate a point? I can't see any Mint official allowing such a lamentably unsuccessful overstrike out, nor any responsible technician keeping their job if that was best job their skill could do.

Yes I use AF (in macro zoom mode) which the camera seems to handle well enough - but then, I use daylight. Yes, I agree. Flash temperature is pretty constant, whereas AWB or automatic exposure aren't. I've seen AWB variations in two consecutive shots of the same subject in identical lighting conditions. I couldn't disagree more. Your second picture shows massively too much contrast (to my eyes) while the first one I thought "What's wrong with this? Seems good enough to me." It has good exposure, colour and the only thing missing is perhaps a little iridescence, but if shot 2 is the cost of getting iridescence, I'd happily live without it. (I must add - the thumbnails give the reverse impression, and the second shot looks good, but when I enlarge them, that's when I thought again).

Interesting. The super-large picture makes it look like a piece of .. something .. that's got onto the middle of the E and is making it look curved. I can just about see where the underlying E is though.

Hahahaha, brilliant HARDER MINT, you learn something new everyday. His ME page describes himself "With numismatic passion in our blood" seriously? Maybe you should locate the harder mint then mate I'm looking out for the fabulously rare 1918T, as produced by the Trebor Mint. They weren't as Hard but boy were they STRONG. Sod it. I've only got £600 and not the extra £4 for postage or I might have been tempted. After all, it is the rare "with date" variety. Isn't it the 1877 overstrike variety? You know, the one where both 7s are overstruck with wear?

I'll keep that in mind I'm going to follow a lot of your advice but maybe adapt it a little for space reasons. Digital zoom is no good as it looks grainy, I just crop, it's worth the small amount of lost resolution to get rid of that horrible graininess. I use a tripod with the camera pointing down to the coin on a flat surface below. I use daylight (by far the best light). I use maximum MP (for cropping after) I don't use macro close-up as the camera would cast a shadow on the coin, I use 'macro zoom' which means the coin can be a foot away at least. Then I crop, which you can afford to also, as 12MP gives you plenty of scope and you still get a good sized image.

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.

The problem is that the minority (and that's what they are) of fraudsters, shysters and layabouts are the rope which the Government, The Daily Mail, The News Of The Screws, The Sun, The Star, ITV, and all the rest use to hang the genuinely sick & disabled. I'll put one more fact your way then I'll shut up on the matter (I've become way too sensitive to what's going on) : the fraud rate for DLA is less than 1%, and the total benefit fraud for IB and DLA amounts to £1.5bn. Ok, not a sum to be sniffed at, but when you consider that Count Dracula Osborne is cutting the welfare budget by £18bn, and that tax evaders cheat us all of more than £120bn annually ... well, it makes you think (I hope). Apologies for ranting but life for disabled people in this country just gets worse and worse. I think you can remove the disabled people line from your sentence Peck, the country is rapidly heading down the shitter. Everything is being cut to the bone apart from the prices we pay for essentials like food, fuel and utilities which are all rising faster than a teenage boy at an all girl pool party.

Damn right. I was reflecting only today that the word 'inflammable' has virtually disappeared now leaving its bastard cousin 'flammable' as the only option.

The problem is that the minority (and that's what they are) of fraudsters, shysters and layabouts are the rope which the Government, The Daily Mail, The News Of The Screws, The Sun, The Star, ITV, and all the rest use to hang the genuinely sick & disabled. I'll put one more fact your way then I'll shut up on the matter (I've become way too sensitive to what's going on) : the fraud rate for DLA is less than 1%, and the total benefit fraud for IB and DLA amounts to £1.5bn. Ok, not a sum to be sniffed at, but when you consider that Count Dracula Osborne is cutting the welfare budget by £18bn, and that tax evaders cheat us all of more than £120bn annually ... well, it makes you think (I hope). Apologies for ranting but life for disabled people in this country just gets worse and worse.

My opinion is that it's something that has got onto the die - I really don't think it's an overstrike (for one thing the 'incorrect' bit is OVERlying not UNDERlying). But an interesting curio for all that.

what i find bizzare going from the ebay text is that apparently the only started minting pennies in 1893 I suspect it's a misprunt(sic). It should read 1983, though it could be later. 1983 ??? My god, we're full of misprunts !

Facts. 1. I'm disabled, so I know damn well what I'm about to talk about. 2. The welfare cuts are being driven by a Daily Mail-driven culture of attacking and vilifying the sick and disabled - and the Government does nothing to contradict this - i.e. "all people on Incapacity Benefit are either cheats, scroungers, and/or work-shy." 3. There is an organisation called Atos Healthcare who won a contract from the Government (starting under New Labour, by the way) with a brief to reduce the welfare budget by getting the numbers on IB down. Yes, the exercise was cost-driven, not needs-driven. Their so-called HealthCare Professionals have 6 weeks training, but apart from that are not required to have any medical qualification. These HCPs administer a series of 'tests' that involve getting people to stand up, walk, sit, and bend down to pick up a £1 coin off the floor. On the basis of these tests, many people who are blind, arthritic, with severe neurological illnesses, amputees, people with mental health problems, terminal patients, etc, have been declared 'fit for work'. No doubt you've read the scurrilous headlines in the press and tut tutted over your breakfast? 4. GPs and consultants, those who actually know the medical history of the patient, are ignored. They are regarded as 'biased', or 'too close' to the patient and God forbid that true knowledge be brought to bear on a cost-cutting exercise. 5. The exercise has so successfully exceeded initial Government targets (ignoring the fact that 40% of people declared 'fit for work' have the decision overturned by independent tribunal) that they now plan to implement it for the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) benefit too, as from 2013. So despite my being awarded DLA 'for life' ten years ago in recognition of the fact that I have a progressive, incurable, and irreversible condition, which means I now cannot walk, I piss into a bottle, I have spasms, and crippling fatigue, I must go through the humiliation of one of these assessments - two in fact, one for IB and one for DLA. I am "merely" very stressed about this, though there are a few claimants who have committed suicide. 6. David Cameron had a disabled son. Yet he goes along with this gross injustice, which makes him an unspeakable hypocrite. 7. Every disabled person thrown back on the jobs market is supposed to receive help and support back into work. Do you actually think they get it? Don't make me laugh. There aren't even jobs or jobs advisors for the young and fit who really should have priority for jobs. Ian Duncan-Smith has referred to the 'freedoms offered by work'. Perhaps he, and you, should reflect on the German phrase 'Arbeit Macht Frei'. In case you're wondering where you heard of that before, it was on the gates at Auschwitz.

It's good to know there are kids out there still sufficiently unwelded to iPods and computers to take an interest in coins (and even more so now that coins are busily supplanting stamps as a hobby). However, I really would doubt very very much that a kid of of that age would be particularly concerned by CGS 85 - 88 grades. One in Unc with some lustre on it, or even NBU, would see him well satisfied I would think. Well, in my opinion anyway.

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years? Pretty much so. But as always, SIZE MATTERS That's true! By the way, did you know that the payment on the debts run up by John Major's government were higher than the current debt repayments? So much for 'Britain's credit card is overspent'

You mean any government from 200 out of the last 250 years?

Do bear in mind that some overstruck dates are quite obvious (that 1888/7 for example), others are obvious only when you know, or in higher grades (1865/3 penny) while some are almost invisible and need very high magnifications at reasonable grade, in order to see. There's no clear-cut rule, if you'll forgive the pun.

A date variation doesn't usually count as a die variety on its own, as the last one or two digits were usually punched into the matrix each year quite separately (though some people collect even these). What makes yours interesting is that the '8' looks different too - much narrower on the second example. Given that the matrix would probably have had the '18' already engraved, that could well signify as a die variety.

You can upload a picture from your computer as long as it's not >150k. There's an Attachments dialogue below each post when you're creating one.

From the condition of those offered for sale, it's absolutely clear that a fair few entered general circulation, so I did wonder if it was possible that some had been sent to banks in various parts of the country. Apparently not. Oh right. I've always assumed that a decent proportion of those million plus plastic sets got opened and raided. Funnily enough, the only penny from the 1950s I found a schoolboy 'bank bag checker' in the late 60s, was a solitary 1953 in AVF.

Anything pre-1947 has 50% silver content and therefore contains its value in silver. A few of those George VI shillings (1947 - 1951) look in high grade and would be worth a pound or two, though not rare. However, at that size, it's unclear whether they have lustre, or have been polished. If the latter, then worth virtually nothing I'm afraid.

The George V and pre-1947 George VI are 50% silver and would contain their metal value. Probably less than £1 each even at today's OTT silver values. The others contain a few reasonably high grade coins, but all of common dates. So sadly, no not very much at all. Sorry.

There are pictures of his body and a video of his burial. However he was not an active commander and he wasn't doing much - killing him just got AQ very pissed off. Apparently the pictures of his dead body (head) are so gruesome that they can't show them in the media, plus it might inflame tensions. One radio interviewee said they should make them available to the media at a separate showing so the media can verify the matter, but wouldn't be allowed to publish. Yeah, allegedly they shot him in the eye first before shooting him through the heart. But I think he's still alive ~ probably in a top secret military facility somewhere. ... along with Lee Harvey Oswald, several Roswell aliens, the entire crews of every plane and ship that vanished in the "Bermuda Triangle", and Dubya's secret orders that sparked the attack on the Twin Towers

Wow, several hundred 1954s? I wonder if that was a standard amount for a trial run? It would be fairly remarkable indeed if only one escaped. What prompted the 1953 question - I thought it was "common knowledge" (LOL) that they were only issued in the plastic packs? (Excluding proofs and the ultra-rare 'first reverse' pattern).

Oh right. I've as much interest in slabs as I have in Graham Norton's girly mag collection. But £50 for a BU 1938 farthing? Jeez. They're difficult, I will admit that, but they aren't fifty quid difficult!!

From your description of its width Pitprop (< 1948 6d) it wouldn't be a genuine 1823 £2 piece. What's its diameter? There were some very capable toy or model copies produced, it could be one of those? Post a picture, let's have a look.