Peckris

That pee water is overpriced whatever you pay for it. Well said that man! Back on topic - I seem to remember seeing a 1996 Silver Proof set in Phoenix priced at a hefty £245... and marked '£50 off'! I happened to be up there a few days later, so popped my spare set in my bag (I have 3, and cant shift the spares for love nor money!) and played 'dumb no-nothing commoner' ("It was my fathers hobby" or some rubbish) and was offered a princely £50 for it cash! Clearly I declined... On the other hand, you can get some quirky bits in there which can be quite fun... I picked up my 1996 set at auction for just over £50. It's catalogued for £100 and has been for years. £245??? Ye gods. Wasn't so long ago you could pick up a 1927 proof set for that.

I'd say keep this second one, which looks glorious to me.

Thanks for that Gary (all your research, plus the compliment, plus getting me to learn how to photograph coins). Yes, I bought this 1911 way back in the late 70s from Peter Ireland for £4.50 - I was drawn to it! It was probably a bit over the odds for it at the time, but the detail on it as you say, is superb (obverse - the reverse is average for the issue). When I found one with much more lustre - the other one I posted - I didn't have the heart to dispose of the earlier one. Glad I didn't.

Should do well! What's the silver value of that big slug currently?

Yes, that's a good question. My first thought was that they created master matrix dies for the whole of the 1860s then punched in the final digit as and when needed. But that makes little sense as so many were needed and struck for each of the first four years. But there must be a reason - for one thing, 1861s occur with the final digit all over the shop. Yet for 1862, many (most?) examples have the 2 at a slightly crazy angle to the 6 - i.e. misaligned but without the variation seen in 1861. Maybe the variation of 1861 drove them so mad at the Mint that they resolved to do it differently in subsequent years. And it's true, there's less crazy variation after 1861.

Yes, the 1973 is the bright red insert set. If the 2p only is toning, and it's not too bad, then you have one of the better sets Gary. The 80s sets were certainly better presented, though by then collectors were getting to be somewhat "ho hum" about the fact of a new set every year. The 1970 set is very easy to come by, but is also very popular as it's the only proof set for those types. If they'd only included the farthing it would have been absolutely perfect.

apart from the uncirculated 1946 and 1949 threepences of course...

Almost as interesting now would be to work out how it came to be in your aunt's possession (curiously I found a reproduction Elizabeth I 3d in my mother's effects). This type of facsimille is often used by film/TV or even amateur dramatic companies for period dramas, so did she have any connection with that type of thing? They're also sold by some museum shops I believe?

I have a problem with your question. It's this : I can understand why people would counterfeit currency £1 coins, it's been an epidemic almost since the day they were introduced. But why, given the difficulty and costs involved, would anyone bother to fake a proof £1 coin? Remember - these proofs are struck using highly polished dies on specially prepared blanks. Wouldn't it be more likely that the Mint's quality control (which as we all know seems to have been declining recently) had an off day, and the occasional rogue proof escaped? As to the details you asked specifically about alignment etc, I'll leave that to others who know more about that.

Okay just spent a bit of time putting 6 1911 pennies on the scanner, simultaneous scan with as near identical illumination and orientation as possible original scan at 3200 dpi >>> massive file, then a bit of cut & paste in Photoshop The Gouby X stands out like a sore thumb, can't see any difference in the rest though some have a hint of hollow neck. Suggest the term "hollow neck" be confined to the dustbin and that 1911 varieties are solely distinguishable by bead size and letter alignement David I really must get a better scanner, mine seems hopeless unless I'm just using it incorrectly! After yet another look at your images, Peckris, and those of David I must agree. Both Gouby X's stand out a mile but beyond that its hard to see anything else. I think I'll have to consign my 1911's back into their bag for another few years unless Gary comes up with something new. Ok, this is my five pennorth. Apart from the Gouby X (which is obvious), I'd venture that all the others BAR ONE are clearly to a space. The "one" is #5, or mid-bottom - that appears to be less obviously to a space, and the more I look at it the more it seems to be "left of a tooth". Whaddya think guys?

Nice one Peckris. Glad to see you got your camera working. Nice Pics. Results to follow but the weekend has not been the lazy weekend I thought it would be, forgot a couple of birthdays so it will take a while longer Run! Run for your life!! Ok, you're a cynic. But you're quite right - it is a B to tell, the only certain one is Gouby X which is 100% to a tooth.

Finally, a scan of my own Gouby X :

And the reverse (note, this is one of those where the date is not much more than half struck up; what looks like rubbing on Britannia's robe is in fact streakiness which you can see elsewhere too).

Now this one is interesting. I'm pretty sure the I of BRITT is to a space (I drew a helpful arrow!!). But, it 'feels' different to my other 1911s. 1. The legend looks a little bigger in relation to the flan and portrait 2. The bust looks slightly different, in that the face in profile looks a bit wider than the regular issue 3. The ear looks very different (different engraving lines inside, and flatter lobes; it kind of looks bigger) But bear in mind that the photo was taken in sunlight where yesterday's was in artificial light. See what you think?

I think the left image is pointing to a space (as near as dammit); the right image is a bit pixelated but I THINK it's to the left of a tooth? But you're right, it is a hard one to spot. I'm going to post my other penny now.

Just double checked all 39 again, under a better light and with my best glasses on, and they have exactly the same alignment as yours. REALLY? Which is odd, because my other high grade - with a hollowish neck - has the I clearly pointing to a space!

Hi Peckris, thats a shame because it was your post in the other thread that casts doubt if you are getting shadow, increase the distance between camera and coin. Most cameras these days have a large enough resolution that you do not have to get that close to get a decent size picture. I have attached some photos of how I take my pic's with a camera. Hope this helps a bit as it would be great if you could manage to get pic's to me. have a good weekend, Gary Here is my first effort : it's the obverse of an Unc 1911 (no hollow neck), with a close-up detail. As you can see, the I of BRITT is most clearly pointing to the left of a tooth, neither directly to, nor to a space.

You're welcome! But did I detect a smidgenette of irony there ... No, no ironey intended. I have been collecting now for over 30 years and up until now have concenrated on bronze and copper, pre 1970. I do have a few decimal coins in my collection but very very few, never really been interested but after following up on your mention of Christopher Ironside my interest has been awakened. I have a few Proof sets 72, 73, 75 and 1976 which I acquired in an auction lot which I was intending to sell. They are no longer on the "for sale" list! Oh, then I feel vindicated! Of your proof sets, the 1972 and 1973 (provided the latter hasn't got ugly toning) are the ones to especially hang on to. The 1972 is a complete set-only issue (excluding the 25p commem), and the 1973 seems to have acquired a kind of cachet; it is rarely found completely untoned, it also contains the only commem 50 pence for years and years to come, and it makes a sort of 'trilogy' along with 1971 and 1972 that later sets just don't.

Without seeing the reverse, it's a little difficult to say whether it's a misnamed 1937, or a 1947 colonial issue e.g. South Africa or New Zealand.

Hi Peckris, thats a shame because it was your post in the other thread that casts doubt if you are getting shadow, increase the distance between camera and coin. Most cameras these days have a large enough resolution that you do not have to get that close to get a decent size picture. I have attached some photos of how I take my pic's with a camera. Hope this helps a bit as it would be great if you could manage to get pic's to me. have a good weekend, Gary Ok, I will try to do again. (I've got a tripod somewhere, but it does mean I will have to avoid the macro setting as that requires getting very close). Let me see what I can do. I don't move very fast, so take a very deep breath before you hold it). Scanning is NOT a faux-pas! With scans you get a perfectly evenly lit, perfectly flat, and perfectly square-on picture. The one main drawback with scans is the flatness of tone - lustre doesn't properly come out at all. I would have scanned my 1911s but since I upgraded operating systems I've lost Photoshop, which was the link to my scanner.

We'll agree to differ on that one, I thought Chris Ironside's designs - especially the 50p were spot on. Also the reverse of £1 coins (most) and £2 unimetal. Where I think they stink are the reverse of most commem 50 pences, and just about every crown-sized piece in the whole era. Maybe I was a little hasty there Peckris! I looked up Chris Ironside on google and the first hit was this, the royal mint . After looking through the many designs I have to agree with you, they are not all bad. I may just start a decimal collection now Thanks for the pointer. You're welcome! But did I detect a smidgenette of irony there ... I must agree, the 50p Coin Design was very elegant. I also rather liked one of his earlier ideas for the Design for the 50p Coin. I believe that it was based on the 'Royal Arms.' A very talanted artist! I have a Proof old large 50p coin and the Britannia Design is really shown at its best on there, much more so than a coin meant for Circuation. Beautiful. Agreed. And I love the 'silk finish' you find on pre-1976 BU 50 pences, especially 1969 - 1970.

I live in England. A great country. But shhhhh, there may be Australians listening...

Nevertheless, actual pictures of YOUR coins would be of immense help to us (or scans of both sides). No disrespect, but grading is an art acquired over years of experience, and one man's 'good condition' often turns out to be ... well, not!

I still say, and I'm surprised no-one else has, that uncirculated 1946 / 49 threepenny bits are worth a lot of money (hundreds the pair). IF IF IF they really are uncirculated.

Hello Nick and welcome. Without re-reading Davies I am guessing that the dies are the same. The easiest tell for a maundy threepence is the toning. Currency issues tend to tone like all other silver coins whereas maundy issues tone with that lovely gun metal/steely blue tone. The coins have to be in high grade to differentiate. For B UNC coins the maundy usually appear prooflike with mirrored fields. I have sold a couple of early B UNCS and had to sell them as maundy issue becauase they looked like proof strikes. The currency, as I'm sure you will know, was worth about £100 more than I asked. Hope that is of some help. Thanks, that does help and will certainly help in future, as long as I remember to buy toned examples The specific examples I was looking at were the Maundy coins of Edward VII which are all the same Davies type '1 A'. If the Maundy '1 A' is the same as the currency '1 A' then it should be trivial to differentiate 1905-9 currency threepences as they all have a type 'B' reverse. I think I need to do some more research to try and firm up a theory. Nick It wouldn't matter too much with Edward VII (except academically) as the Maundy and currency 3d wouldn't be so far apart in value. Where it matters is with the early colonial issues of Victoria, where the differential (stupidly in my opinion, as all Maundy is a tiny mintage) is colossal.