Peckris

Well that idea was for early milled silver varieties, but no reason why it shouldn't be extended to other series also

I can't remember if it's 1955 or 1957 I've got on a polished blank - probably 1957 as it's a much commoner date in UNC. Well that's jolly interesting - wonder why they would do that? Ties in with reading the 1922 penny thread; there has to be some documentation somewhere detailing what they did and when, if not necessarily why. When I was a suit wearing wage slave I had to submit costed justifications for buying a printer cartridge, so changing the nations coinage must have gone through some written scrutiny, you'd think? I've still never heard any convincing reasoning for the more well known 1961 halfcrown polished flan business... One theory had it that 1961 polished blank halfcrowns were using up stock prepared for 1953. There's problems with this : 1. the number of 1953 proofs are a nice round figure, they'd have known precisely how many blanks they needed. 2. Why wait 8 years to use them up? And anyway, there are several dates from the 1950s which show up using what seem to be polished cupro-nickel blanks - I have a ?1955 halfcrown on one, and a 1960 halfcrown. More likely it seems to me, is that the Mint were experimenting with the kind of mirrored finish that became common in the early 1970s. Yes, you'd hope for documentation for sure!

Yes - if the 1926-reverse-1927 is EXACTLY the reverse used for 1927, rather than the 1922 ALMOST reverse, that would make sense. You can't get away with mentioning four varieties for 1926 and not telling more! Apart from Spink, I can find no reference to the third variety. And what is the fourth? The low mintage figures for 1926 mean I don't have that many pennies to look through What am I looking for? perhaps Bernie meant 4 dies? Unless, there's a non-ME obverse with a 1927-style reverse but dated 1926? Another experimental die?

Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near. Here is a picture of the 1922 with the 1927 type obverse and reverse. I have seen and handled this coin. examined it closely with a microscope and cannot fault it. The reverse of which is Freeman reverse C is identical and almost certainly the same die that produced the 1922 proof pennies. That is fascinating - now I'm beginning to buy into its authenticity, but not to 1922 as its date of striking. Revised theory : the 1922/27 reverse was clearly experimental and therefore an ideal candidate to use to test out the ME penny effigy, e.g. in 1925. But, it's not absolutely identical to the one used in 1927 - the sea seems barely engraved and the rim is wider. So, assuming they decided they still hadn't got it 'quite right', they went ahead with striking 1926 pennies using the old dies (which might have been part of the plan anyway), then switched to the ME to finish off the issue, and getting the reverse die finalised for 1927. Pure speculation of course, in the absence of documntation, but there has to be a reason for that 1922, and a strike in 1922 makes absolutely no sense whatever.

I can't remember if it's 1955 or 1957 I've got on a polished blank - probably 1957 as it's a much commoner date in UNC.

Either that's a typo or you just made a brilliant pun! (I'd claim the pun if I were you )

Only needs a relative variety scarcity/rarity rating to be perfectamundo I must be in a minority then. I want to find other collectors with the same variety, though not too many! In my mind, 'unique' is useless for an undiscovered variety - no-one is interested - but a handful (or more), that's a different story. That would make my 1887 wreath reverse sixpence variety and my 1964 DEI GRAT A sixpence much more valuable. On the subject of this meisterwork don't forget ESC who have been there already and done a superb job. No point in re-inventing the wheel, but it would be useful to straighten a few spokes and put a few new ones in. But how to get all that (presumably copyrighted) stuff into a Wiki?

Bought into what? The only pictures I've seen here are of the (undisputed) 1922 with 1927 reverse. Of the supposed 1922ME, there has been no trace. I'd still like some answers to my questions about the whole reason behind it. UNLESS it was a test strike of the 1926 ME obverse using the only reverse die they had around, which would be the 1922 as the last date struck? Now THAT would begin to make SOME sense, and would date the penny to around 1925. So if it's genuine, that's my theory - a test strike made in 1925 before the 1926 reverse dies had been prepared, and somehow escaping captivity in the way that a 1952 halfcrown and 1954 penny did. Yes, that would be interesting - would prove if it was a fake. But I hope we can agree on one thing, even if it turned out to be genuine - it wasn't struck in 1922 or anywhere near.

I suppose you're all in favour of the disabled being frogmarched back to work, without making pathetic excuses like "Hey, I can't walk" ? They're all workshy cheats and scroungers anyway (I read that in The Daily Mail) Unfortunately Peck they pick up on the ones who are actually workshy cheats and scroungers and forget the genuine cases (quite conveniently or they couldn't sell papers). I know ex miners in my old home town who haven't worked in over 25 years (since the pit closed and they took redundancy) due to "disability" because the regulations were so slack in awarding benefits. I know what I would do with them, I'd build more prisons and then..... Actually, you can blame Maggie for that one. The Tory Government 1980s-style wanted more than anything to bring down the unemployment figures, so redundant miners, steelworkers, etc were all encouraged to "sign on the sick" as it wouldn't show up on the figures. And we all know how energetic subsequent governments have been at turning Corby into Canary Wharf...

Either he doesn't know what an ME looks like, or he's mistaken in his beliefs. Listing's been changed now ... "...I've now been told it may not be..."

The earliest I have seen is the reverse of a Philip II tetradrachm, but I'm not sure exactly what his dates are. I'm sure they must go back to Classical Greece at least?

I don't think so, at least that's not how I read it. It appears they list the following for 1922: Type 4051 - 1922 Penny (the common one, F192) Type 4051 - 1922 Penny with Rev. of 1927 (my F192A) Type 4054A - 1922 Penny Obv: ME, Rev: Shorter index finger (not listed in Freeman) I think I've found what I was looking for Here See the archive of Coin News May 2006 p.27. Someone here may have a copy of the original article? So the 1922 penny with ME obverse and 1927 reverse is considered unique. The only one being sold by London Coins in 2006. Hence it's not in Freeman but in the newer Spink guides. To clarify, mine is the 'more common' version with the standard 1922 obverse. I followed the link and read up. I have to say I am very very very very very suspicious indeed. The earliest known 'test run' of the modified effigy was the second issue 1925 halfpenny. If the Modified Effigy existed in 1922, why was it not used for halfpennies* from either 1922 or 1923 onwards? Why was the 1926 penny - 4 years after a putative 1922ME not completely ME for its issue? And why would a modified effigy be worked on in 1922, only a bare 2 years after the 'shallow portrait' was meant to address the ghosting problem, and then shelved for three to four years? (* not to mention farthings and all the silver denominations). So these are my follow-up thoughts. We all know that 1933 pennies are expertly faked from genuine 1932s or 1935s or 1930s. I've seen two on eBay that had me totally fooled even though I KNEW they weren't genuine. My idea is that this 1922ME was expertly faked from a 1927 (7 could become 2 without too much hassle). As for all the 'experts', just answer me this : how many decades did it take for Piltdown Man to be exposed completely for the fraud it was? People get so excited about unknown varieties, they end up seeing what they want to see - Emperor's New Clothes. I'm not saying it's definitely 100% a fake, but without full 100% R.M. authentication, I'm not really buying into it.

I suppose you're all in favour of the disabled being frogmarched back to work, without making pathetic excuses like "Hey, I can't walk" ? They're all workshy cheats and scroungers anyway (I read that in The Daily Mail)

Sorry, I actually tried to edit my post to make it clear I meant Britannia's finger, not George V's! The ability to edit some posts but not others seems a bit random! That's the confusion. Spink suggests that both versions of Britannia are possible with the ME obverse for 1926 & 1927. At least that's how I read it. For 1922 you also have an ME, according to them, but "of the highest rarity". Anyone know about these? I assumed the 1922 "ME" was Britannia, i.e. 1927 reverse ? That's what I was trying to say.

"Hammered Coin Very Very Old" ... on one side is "bushes with things flying about". Yup, those are really going to tempt me into a Starting Bid of £500

If they state "shorter index finger" in relation to "modified effigy", they are talking about Britannia's effigy (typical Spink confusion - ironically the 1926ME penny uses the old Britannia not the 1927 reverse!).

I'd agree with that grading - viritually no wear at all. Sound more promising. Here is a picture taken on a sunny window sill. The only silvery hue apparent is from the fields (more noticeable on the obverse) when angled directly towards the light. I will try and capture this in a photo. Yes that looks much more like the normal colour and has lost the silvery hue of your top pictures.

My recollection is that from 15 February, the old money was only legal tender in lots of 2 1/2p (6d), so if you had 5d, hard cheese! Wow, that's a good memory Derek! I'd forgotten that detail completely. What a shame that D-Day 2 is never remembered or marked. That was the true farewell day for pennies and 3d bits. (Yes I remember the Walkers Hard Cheese variety )

Like I said ...

I have no real idea of rarity except that a few people in this forum say they have one. I haven't. I want one! But I'm not cashing in my pension to buy one

I agree with you Derek. It's why we have an independent judiciary, often the envy of the world. It can and does lead to situations where the victims feel marginalised or ignored, which is also not a happy situation, but that's still better than 'mob rule' or inter-family Sicilian-style feuding. You quote the other extreme Dave - I agree that if a "pissed up rugby player" survived that particular crash they should throw the book at him, and I've also heard of cases where 20-years-olds with good reputations have got off with less than 5 years for crashes like that. The fact is, if we're not in the Court, we don't hear all the evidence, nor any mitigating factors, nor the judge's summing up and ruling .. we just get tabloid media spin with its populist playing to the gallery. Exactly. His falling asleep may have been stupidity in that particular case, but the train hitting his Land Rover at that particular moment, derailing and then colliding with a training locomotive seconds after, that is surely an accident. Otherwise you'd have to say that Gary Hart must take responsibility not only for falling asleep (which he should, of course), but also for the precise moment he did so.

In this case, flattery will get you absolutely nowhere Chris! I'd feel obliged to do the job thoroughly and send off for every dealer list going, and spend hours on eBay looking at realised prices, only to end up realising that randomly subtracting from or adding to Spink 2011 prices (up to 15%) would give the same result for a lot less effort! My main instinct is to suggest that pennies - in particular bronze, in particular buns, are going stupid right now in high grades, but I'm not sure that "going stupid" would look quite right written down in CCGB

I'd agree with that grading - viritually no wear at all. See above! I can see why you say that. In general the coin looks brown, but at certain angles it has an almost silvery hue - which seems a little odd. Put it this way, if somebody asked me what I thought it was made of, copper isn't top of the list. Unfortunately I don't have anything to compare it to. Anybody know what one of these would normally weigh? In your pictures it looks COMPLETELY silvery, and that was my first thought : "Aha, a cartwheel dipped to look like a silvered proof". The colour doesn't look right at all. Can you take a daylight photo and upload that? (you only need one face, just to check the colour).

British monarchs were also Electors of Hanover since George I, but Victoria couldn't be, as a female. Is the double-eagle of Hanoverian origin by any chance?

I remember a cup of coffee in the Students Union and a packet of crisps were each suddenly "tuppence", which seemed (psychologically) to be a bargain. But I'm damned if I can remember what they were in 'old money'! If 4d, then we had some temporary inflation going on, but if 5d, then they WERE a bargain. Or maybe one was 4d and one was 5d so it evened out... (I'm sure that's what the majority of cafés did, to prevent grumbles, though I'm pretty sure that preventing grumbles in a Students Union was Mission Impossible ) Actually, we could still use old money too for a few months as well, so Lord knows what happened if you tried to pay for things using a mixture of the two! I'd hate to have been a shop assistant of the time. But I suppose the overlap period was useful - as everything was 'dual priced', you could see if you were being ripped off.