Peckris

I saw a 1954 last year which had to be a changed date or something else iffy about it, but I have to confess I couldn't see anything wrong with it and nor could the person (a dealer) who showed it to me. It could easily have been genuine. How do we know that is taken from the known coin other than to accept the vendor's word? Can we be certain the 'only genuine' 1954 is actually so? Actually, when it comes to tin foil impressions of coins, Lindt do a very nice SFr5 amongst other things. Yummy. Not sure about that. Whilst there are apparently accurate mintage records available for every other year and denomination, we only ever read that as far as 1954 is concerned, there is "only one known". Not even sure why that was produced or where it is now ~ can somebody enlighten ? Same applies to the 1952, of course. Yes, the test run of 1954 pennies was purely to test the die, as it would have been the first year that BRITT OMN was dropped. Also, I'm not sure anyone knows when the decision was taken not to mint any pennies? Probably not last-minute in all fairness, as no currency pennies were struck for the UK between 1950 and 1960. As for 1952, that would have been destined to be a "VIP" proof as were struck for most years. Quite possibly a few were struck but as the king died early in the year they must have been destroyed apart from the "one that got away". (I wonder if it was the same RM employee responsible for filching both 1952 and 1954 pennies?)

I've never sold anything on eBay, not ever. All these nightmare stories don't make me rush to start. But if I ever do, I will be insisting on tracked postage ONLY, and that I will not do business under any other circumstances.

When was the last decent design on a crown-sized coin? I'm struggling to think of any post-1977.

Sorry, that's not used by everyone in the hobby, perhaps just a few? It's because those didn't appear until 1968, though by then all predecimal coins were dated 1967. And of course the halfpenny was demonetised in 1969, so the appearance of a new variety in 1968 makes it a '1968 halfpenny' Sort of. Sorry if I confused you!

That makes more sense. I can sympathise with that even I don't outright approve. You will know when bids are bounced off the wall when.... You think that you have been outbid, but when paying for your lots are told that you have won five lots not the three that you thought that you won!! In these cases the Wall was the winning bidder but you get the lot at your underbid!! That has NEVER happened to me!

Sometimes it's best not to play Aunt Sally, and although I'm now a forum god, I think the capital on the pronoun is a little excessive.

Here's what I hoped would show the differences clearly, sadly it doesn't. The obverse on the left is Type 1, which was used for half the 1921 pennies, all the 1922s and most of the 1926s. On the right is the ME, used in 1926 and 1927. The position of BM on the truncation is the main thing, also look at the colons, which are wider apart on the ME. The hair has been radically recut and wears differently, but it takes experience to spot this. The other thing, rarely commented on, is the tip of the moustache : on the first, it ends with a fair amount of width, on the ME it narrows almost to a point. Hope this helps.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zetacity.com/insidethetardis/images/tardis-large.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zetacity.com/insidethetardis/tardis.aspx&h=446&w=344&sz=80&tbnid=ShwAWWdbY75PoM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtardis&zoom=1&q=tardis&usg=__fj5N0Xs2WlZoLlBADpZXUxcdlQY=&sa=X&ei=TSNwTezwOY3BtAbn5-H8Dg&ved=0CFYQ9QEwDA

Cross my palm with crap, and it will cost you only £6,500

He is on record as saying that he wants to style himself George VII in honour of his grandfather. That's odd. I could have sworn his grandfather was George VI

I've always regarded the 1925ME as a bit of an oddball - it may have been a test issue to see how well the ME stood up? The slight problem I have with the theory that the ME penny was struck first (and then broke) is this : the penny, silver 3d, sixpence, shilling, and halfcrown were all issued in both types. Wouldn't it be more likely that all of those repeated a similar pattern, i.e. the ME was the later issue? And perhaps the reason for that is : due to the very low mintages of silver in 1925 there were plenty of obverse dies still unused, so the Mint decided to use those up first before starting on the ME issues? Just a thought. (The same would apply to pennies too of course, with no issues for three years before 1926).

Hahaha. It never hurts to err a LITTLE on the conservative side! But more to the point, Derek and I seem to agree most of the time, and he wrote the book...

Yes, very nice! The seller has another couple in similar condition! Ah, but rather more than your bargain coin

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one. I don't know if the 1st effigy dies were used up before the ME was used or not, as it is equally possible they were used concurrently if the mint was using more than one machine. In fact there would be a very good reason for running them side by side as this would allow the die characteristics to be properly evaluated. No newly introduced design would have been previously subjected to a test to destruction if that involved striking 50-100000 or so coins. That is why I was hoping somebody might have the mint records for this period on the off chance that it might shed light on the dates when 1926 pennies were struck and when the ME dies were introduced. Whatever date this happened, the pennies weren't struck until the second half of the year with either obverse design as per my previous post regarding the articles in the SNC, although modified effigy dies must have been produced in 1925 as the halfpenny is known with this date, but again presumably not until the end of the year as its existence wasn't recorded by Garside until the August 1926 article. Even if the precise dates are not available, it should be possible to make an educated guess of the limits based on the striking rate of the equipment in use at the time and total output. At the moment we are all hypothesising without firm evidence, so could do with a bit of research. Any members of the BNS in the London area could take time out to visit the Library in the Warburg Institute for example as they have probably got a copy of the Mint records for 1925, 1926 & 1927. It would certainly help to pour water on certain assumptions - such as the one I've ALWAYS held, that the first issue of 1926 pennies appeared before the ME. But as you say, there's no proof of this.

LOL Well actually I used to know Stephen Lockett quite well - often saw him at fairs and auctions and bought a fair amount of stuff off him.

That's how I read it too. Hence my 'LOL' - I thought Peckris was being funny .. maybe not? And as Rob says, while I guess the 'first ever' might have been whisked off for some VIP any with a COA will just be in the order that some RM blokey (or lass) stuck them in the box. Lot of fuss over a small lump of bullion worth, what, .. less than an ounce of silver .. £18?? MELT THE LOT DOWN!!!!! Who, me??? :lol:

Prsumably the starting price is a reflection (sorry) of the labour time required to get it to that state. An hour and a bit at minimum wage rates is about right. Too right it's "Rather rare" - I've never seen one in such a crap state before!

True. There aren't too many exceptions in my list. However, I believe that a monarch can choose any name at all. Perhaps Charles will surprise us all and become King Kevin, or Brian or Wayne. KEVINIVS C.G. REX F.D. (CG = CAMILLA GRATIA).

Welcome to the forums Steve Without wanting to discourage you too much, that coin looks quite damaged. There's some cratering on the surface and the rim is kind of rough. The first 1 in the date could be collateral damage (it doesn't look like any kind of overdate I've ever seen), the colon after F also. The tone of the coin is artificially even and light, as if it has been cleaned. Keep it as an example of the type by all means, and enjoy it. I wouldn't get excited about a possible rare variety however. Anyway, see what others here say?

Now you've got me COMPLETELY baffled! Database fields only have the validation rules you give them, and the default is usually "Put something in here - but if you don't want to it's ok with me". Like an inflatable d... No no! NOT going there!!

............huh...... i cant get my head round all this bead stuff......give me an easy xxri anyday If you look at ALL Lizzie halfpenny obverses they will have the same narrow width rim and the I of DEI points to a very obvious bead. Once you see a "1968" halfpenny, the difference is quite clear - the rim is much wider, and the I of DEI to a space just confirms it.

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one.

I'm not too up on my Korean, Dave. Do you have a translation?

We're a long way off from your original question, but I'd give it a very nice GVF rather than EF.

Wow, you have a signed VIP certificate from the Royal Mint that this particular coin was the first one off the presses? Got to be worth more than £125.