Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Peckris

Expert Grader
  • Content Count

    9,800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Everything posted by Peckris

  1. And this overlay I think proves it beyond all Carlsberg : You can just see the 1920 off-centre rim protruding on the right, but in all other respects it seems an exact match.
  2. Gary, Looking at your photos of the five florins, whatever the outcome of the 'pointings' debate, there is no doubt in my mind that the 1923 with obverse 2 has a smaller head than the one with obverse 3. Assuming that both coins on the bottom row of your photo are the same size as they appear to be, then the head on the right is definitely smaller than that on the left - this is the other differentiator that Davies uses. When I compared your mule on the website with a 1920 obverse 2 florin and a 1923 'normal' florin with obverse 3, I again found that the one on your website is the same size as a normal obverse 2 type. My conclusion, based on what I see is that there are two types as defined by Davies. However, there may be another type and it would be useful to try and establish this from all three differentiators for these types. Here is the 1920, middle of top three. It all comes down to pictures! Looking at the separate photos of the 1920 Obverse 2 and the 1923 variety, I think I'm going to have to revise my opinion. I really cannot see any difference between them, except the size of the rim (and that's confused by the off-centre strike of the 1920). The photo you've just put up of the 1923 is the clearest one yet, and makes comparisons easier. The "5 florins picture" doesn't really prove anything due to the wideangle curvature involved, and the varying focus <=> sharpness. I'd only offer one sure conclusion from this exercise: it's much harder to tell the two obverses apart - especially if there has been some wear - on florins than it is on halfcrowns and shillings. But I would now be inclined to say that the 1923 is (Carlsbergly..) the pre-1920 obverse.
  3. Pre-1920 silver is Sterling, i.e. 92.5% solid silver. This was replaced by a 50% alloy in 1920 and the banks recalled the solid silver coins, probably leading to quite a lot of hoarding (which is why George V silver 1911 - 1919 even now turns up in much higher grades than 1920 - 1926.) By the 1960s, when I began collecting, pre-1920 silver was very rare to find in your change. Pre-1947 silver is 50% silver and again was recalled from 1947 onwards, and once again, George VI silver 1937 - 1946 is VERY common in high grades, especially 1942 onwards. In the 1960s, it was by no means unknown to find 1920 - 1946 silver in your change (usually very worn) and though it tailed off gradually, 50% silver still turned up occasionally even as late as the 1980s. The resizing of 10p and 5p coins between 1990 and 1992 put a stop to all that. By 1920, the value of silver was higher than its face value in coins, which is why the 50% alloy was adopted. The price of silver fell again, but once these things begin there's no going back! The same in 1947 when the price of silver and the cost of War debt, made it urgent to save costs. But many people hoard coins for a whole variety of reasons, some of which feed back into circulation. Silver halfcrowns, shillings and sixpences were valid from 1816 until well after decimalisation. Florins were valid from 1848. The reason Gothics and Edward VII (for example) dropped out of circulation was 1) they were more collectable 2) they were more noticeable, but most of all 3) became so worn they were withdrawn by banks. Apart from that, each denomination was still legal and valid until its demonetisation point coming up to, or after, decimalisation
  4. I make it obv 3 davies 1752 Ditto - the I of GEORGIVS is to the left of a bead and the I of BRITT is not clearly to a bead. Gary, your photo above hasn't resolved things really (not for me) - this may be partly due to wideangle curvature? For one thing, both your 1923s appear to show BRITT to a bead. Certainly, the top left is definitely a classic 'deep cut portrait'. The top right is too dark for me to make out which it is. The top centre is ambiguous-looking, maybe because of wear? But both 1923s APPEAR to be the same obverse (give or take the odd pointing), i.e. the shallow portrait. The one I want to study more closely is the top centre 1920 - I'm not sure which obverse I think it is right at this moment.
  5. Peckris

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    So? I've got a Bank of England nine bob note, an Arthur Daley £5 note, Fawlty Towers £10 note, and a Princess of Wales £50 note. True!
  6. Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both. I was quoting Davies Then either Davies is mistaken or I have found a new variety. I've just checked my 1914 under a glass, and both the I of BRITT and GEORGIVS point to a bead. Unmistakeably. The photo on your site - pointing apart - is the shallow portrait (i.e. mostly like Obv 3). The I of GEORGIVS on your coin is to the right of a bead. On my 1926 it's to the left of a bead. And on my 1921 it appears to be directly to a bead. I think this whole topic needs to be revisited. The problem with photos is that the pointing can be very deceptive, and I think Davies is sometime a little off. It's a bit like the discussion about the 1911 penny where there is the shallow neck with I to tooth (Gouby X) and the normal round/flat neck with I to space. The round/flat neck can look quiet shallow on some examples. With the coin in hand the pointing definitly matches Davies description. You're absolutely right about pointings - last night I was checking under artificial light - this morning, in clear daylight with good visibility, the position is different : 1914 (Obv 2) : I of BRITT to a bead, I of GEORGIVS to a space (more or less) 1921 (Obv 3) : I of BRITT to the left of a bead, I of GEORGIVS to a bead (almost dead on) 1926 (Obv ?) : I of BRITT to the left of a bead, I of GEORGIVS to the left of a bead All three coins are minimum AUNC Ok, here's the problem(s) 1. Davies doesn't mention the I of BRITT, he only talks about the I of GEORGIVS. And he only talks about two obverses post-1911 (2 and 3). Yet from the pointings there seem to be at least three, but possibly four (see below). 2. I've not seen or studied a 1923 'mule' before, and despite googling, the only example I can look at is the picture on your website, which shows a clear example of a shallow portrait florin (pointings apart, everything else about it indicates this). Now, that means there are various conclusions we can draw. Conclusion A. Davies is right, there is a rare 1923 mule with the pre-1920 obverse (2). Yours isn't it. The pointings are correct for it, but the design is the shallow portrait. Which would make your coin a new variety, unrecorded by Davies. Conclusion B. Davies is partly right, partly wrong. Right, in that there is a 1923 rare variety with similar pointings to the pre-1920 obverse. Wrong, in that it's not a mule as it features the shallow portrait, and should be considered a new obverse. Yours would be that. I did flick back and forward from your florins page (1914) and your 1923 mule page, studying the pictures. It's no substitute for handling the actual coin, but everything about the picture tells me it's the shallow post-1920 design. I listed the relevant features in a post above.
  7. Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both. I was quoting Davies Then either Davies is mistaken or I have found a new variety. I've just checked my 1914 under a glass, and both the I of BRITT and GEORGIVS point to a bead. Unmistakeably. The photo on your site - pointing apart - is the shallow portrait (i.e. mostly like Obv 3). The I of GEORGIVS on your coin is to the right of a bead. On my 1926 it's to the left of a bead. And on my 1921 it appears to be directly to a bead. I think this whole topic needs to be revisited.
  8. Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both.
  9. Peckris

    Hey Guys!

    Sorry, I didn't mean to be discouraging. But, when you're developing websites you have to be aware of all the potential users. I'm a Mac user and I can't use Silverlight, but I can use Adobe Flash. If I downloaded Silverlight it would be an .exe file which is useless to me. Then there are also the Linux users... So, that's why I said what I did above. FWIW I use OS X 10.5 on a G5 iMac, and I can run Safari, Firefox, or Opera browsers. Probably Chrome as well but I haven't tried yet. Most websites I can access with no problems, but yours came up saying "You need Silverlight to view this website". Then I knew I was f*cked.
  10. I find that very difficult, as I don't have a straight edge that would rest easy against my LCD screen, but thanks for doing that. There are actually a massive number of tiny differences all of which add up to a distinctive 'feel'.
  11. But I thought it was an irregular verb like fero, ferre, tuli, latum? Damifino, Ihaven'taclue, Don'taskme, Whydon'tyouGoogle
  12. Which translated means, 'I saw, green, I conquered' Back to school Dave... Or alternatively, it means "I saw, I wrote Aïda, I conquered" ...
  13. Davies list both types, 1751 & 1752 You're right - I'm not yet used to Davies - his placing Obverse 3 BEFORE 2 in the listing is a bit counter-intuitive! Be that as it may - the obverse shown on CoinsGB seems to be the shallow design, therefore Obverse 3, therefore not the rare mule. I think you will find it is the rare mule. Just noticed that it's my coin. Then based on pointings alone, we seem to have uncovered a possible new obverse. Based on other factors, I'm 90% sure your coin shows the recut shallow portrait : • the truncation has that little 'blip' forward towards the G • the lettering is the larger size • the hair is not deeply modelled • the V of GEORGIVS points slightly ABOVE the nose tip rather than directly to it • the rim is narrow • the flan is very slightly convex (concave on the pre-1920) I kind of "wrote the book" on the differences between pre-1920 and post-1920 obverses, and I can generally tell them straight off. I'm not claiming 100% sureness, but all the points above hold good. I've done a comparison of my own : to the left (sorry, poor quality, blown up double size from my database) the pre-1920, to the right, a 1921. What's particularly curious is that the pointing of the Obv 2 (left) doesn't SEEM to have the I of BRITT pointing straight to a tooth, but that fact will have to wait until I next look at my coins under a glass. However, I'm almost completely sure that your obverse is NOT the deeply engraved pre-1920. There is still the matter of the pointings...
  14. Peckris

    CGS grading service

    The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen. Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it. There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states : • 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium • 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes • 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that. ....and of that informal system, only the first ever has attention drawn to it. Unless it's a totally impartial assessment, of course ..... Hahaha - yes true, though I HAVE seen weak strikes described (usually by a dealer who wants us to know that his Fine-looking coin is actually EF)
  15. Davies list both types, 1751 & 1752 You're right - I'm not yet used to Davies - his placing Obverse 3 BEFORE 2 in the listing is a bit counter-intuitive! Be that as it may - the obverse shown on CoinsGB seems to be the shallow design, therefore Obverse 3, therefore not the rare mule.
  16. Peckris

    1964 sixpence "DEI GRAT A"

    I know that, but you've still got to point it out because many people don't appreciate how things are made. The wheel has to be reinvented many times over - frequently in the same section of the forum, occasionally twice on the same day!
  17. [attachmen t=1867:1964_6d_close_up.jpg] Here's an interesting one. I suppose it counts as a misstrike more than a variety as such, which is an irony : if it was the only 1964 sixpence it would be worth tens of thousands of pounds; but something like this needs company - e.g. 99 similar examples - to be worth anything much. Anyway, here it is. A 1964 sixpence whose obverse legend reads "DEI GRAT A" probably due to a filled die. If anyone out there knows of one or two more like this I would be thrilled ...
  18. Peckris

    Hey Guys!

    Welcome Gerrit Second tip - don't require people to use a proprietary software. I don't have Silverlight, and I have no intention of getting it. I'd suggest Flash (evil though it is) and pdf. Also, build your site so the following browsers can use it : Firefox Safari Chrome Internet Explorer (if you must!) and the following platforms : Windows XP / Vista / 7 Mac OS X Linux
  19. Peckris

    CGS grading service

    The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen. Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it. There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states : • 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium • 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes • 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that.
  20. Is this variety unknown to Davies? He only mentions Obv 2 (high relief) and Obv 3 (shallow relief) for 1920, and only Obv 3 for 1923. The picture on CoinsGB clearly shows the shallow relief head.
  21. Peckris

    1964 sixpence "DEI GRAT A"

    Looks as though I will need to keep an eye out for an example for the collection That would be very comforting - it would be more desirable if there were a few others known (this marks it out from misstrikes like brockages or misshapes or wrong blanks), and could set it apart as an 'error variety', in the same way as the 1888 and 1889 double florin ("1 for I") I think goes that without saying Rob - from the late 19th Century on, you couldn't have a punch error as all coins were produced from huge pre-approved and inspected design matrices that were used to cut dies via reducing machines (the quaint idea of an "I" not being punched, just doesn't compute!)
  22. Being the proud owner of a fake of which I can't find a difference I would be very interesting to know what attributes Chris uses to authenticate it You'd have to ask Chris that Gary, i've no idea. What is your weight/dia etc? How did you know did you know yours was fake? Maybe upload a picture so it can be used as information for others. Here's the reverse. I bought this from auction as a fake and as this particular auction house has sold a few over the years I assume they know when they see the real McCoy or not. Having looked in detail at both sides, and at your side-by-sides, I can say that the fake - as a starter, before getting down to specifics - just doesn't "feel" right, mainly with respect to wear patterns and definition. • the legend on the garter should be the FIRST place to wear, yet there is none whatever • the rim doesn't look right, I can't say any more than that • the legend and shield beading look absolutely unworn and yet the crown and fleur de lys look severely flattened • the Scottish lion looks blurred, more than merely a worn die would • on the obverse, the wear pattern to the beard compared to the totally unworn legend, just isn't right (those coins don't wear that way) • essentially, the coin is a patchwork of absolutely unworn features, compared with other features which are flattening more than a little I suppose it's easy with hindsight - would I be able to tell if you hadn't told us it was a fake? I'm not sure. I can tell you this - on close inspection and comparison it doesn't look or feel right. But at a glance it would certainly pass muster.
  23. I had to draw the line at those types of things - filled dies, missing engravers initials from 61 halfcrowns etc. Not deliberate enough. Yes I know 1881 xx/ri florin wasn't deliberate either, but that one's in all the books, so it has to count! I'd still love to know why they thought they needed to make two different kinds of sixpence in 1964 and 1965. I suppose we'll never know.... Yeah, the world died of boredom with that 1961 "missing EF variety" halfcrown, which didn't stop me buying one in 1978 However, the 1964 sixpence is a bit more noticeable than those microscopic designer initials - after all, an obverse legend that reads GRAT A instead of GRATIA is pretty spectacular!
  24. Here is the promised list of coin varieties as was published in the Coins & Medals Annual 1970, by David Sealy. It's in the form of a multi-page PDF like the recent CM pennies survey. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PA52TZCX I think it will live there for 30 days? Enjoy!
×