Peckris

Wasn't 1953 the Caw-anation year?

"Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice... My 1976 Seaby's (which would have been prepared and issued during 1975) lists only the 1970 and 1971 sets under "Proof sets". I suspect therefore that the Coeshaw advert of 1974 was for a made up set of BU coins, probably dated 1971 but including the 1972 crown, and optimistically described as a Silver Wedding Set.

I've just had a look in the December 1974 issue of Coin Monthly. Apart from one advertiser, there is only ONE advert selling a 1970 set, and none selling UK decimal coins, proofs or otherwise. It seems that the readers of Coin Monthly had little interest in decimals at that point. However, on page 135, there is an advert by M Coeshaw (Leicester), in which - as well as featuring BU Coin Sets of 1953, 1962-1967, and 1971 - he features, in a section called 'Choice Sets of the World', BRITAIN 1970 Last sterling PROOF set..... BRITAIN 1971 First decimal PROOF set..... and BRITAIN Silver Wedding set of 7 coins 50p to 1/2p (inc 1972 25p).... BU £2.00 Interestingly he doesn't describe these as proofs, but they must be as there are no 1972 coins that aren't, apart from the 25p. So the 1972 set had been issued by the end of 1974 (but perhaps only just, as they aren't mentioned in ESC 1974?), but the 1973-1976 sets appeared - as you say - in the mid-70s, but obviously after December 1974.

It's slightly difficult one. There are three complicating factors: 1. It's not a rare coin (16m were minted). 2. A group of Unc examples was found (?in the 1990s) and have appeared on the market ever since. 3. Their value is nevertheless enhanced by their popularity among collectors for whom a high grade H penny would be out of reach I would say for insurance purposes, a valuation of £150 - £190 wouldn't be unreasonable, allowing for the fingerprint.

I was mistaken. In the November 1972 edition of Coin Monthly, there is an isolated advert for 1970 sets, and another that included singletons, though there is no mention of them in the 'Market Movements' section, so it's possible that they had begun to be minted in 1972. There is no mention of a 1971 set, though there is no mention of decimal coins anywhere in the magazine. ESC (1974 edition) mentions both 1970 and 1971 sets, but not 1972. My impression is that the 1972 set was produced earlier than 1973-76 which - as you say - were issued all together in around 1976. Certainly the 1972 set is packaged differently from the next 3 or 4, which are all the same apart from the colour of the card folder and foam insert.

Sorry - I think you misunderstood me? When I said "chucked into the hopper", I meant the bin of output coins ready to be bagged up and sent to banks. After all, as far as the Mint were concerned, the experimental reverse would have been a kosher 1922 reverse, and possibly didn't think anyone would even notice the difference. They may even have had a few knocking around in employees pockets with strict instructions not to spend them, just to see how they would wear compared to the normal reverse.

Not relevant - the 1970 set wasn't issued in 1970 or anywhere near. It seems to have been struck between 1972 or 1973 and the mid-70s. It certainly postdates the 1972 set, and was probably issued due to collector demand at first, then it became more widely popular and more were struck.

None for circulation, I'd say. Even the genuine 1922-with-1927-reverse was probably just a few to experiment with and then chucked into the hopper with maybe a couple of pieces held back for the museum? Yes, quite right. I was talking only of currency coins, but indeed the crown (which was totally new - the first of GV) was also issued. Oh shoot, yes. You told me this ages ago and I forgot. Mea culpa. You're quite right. But this only reinforces that it was a late strike and nowhere near 1922. The main puzzle is why it's dated 1922 - the best theory I can come up with is that the experimental 1922 reverse was subsequently revised and finalised for use in 1927, but of course it wasn't needed 1923-25, and the 1926s use the standard earlier reverse (apart from the odd proof or prooflike strike done probably in 1926).

This is a much more complex subject than it first appears. As far as official issues are concerned, it's not the 3d but the halfpenny (1925) where the ME begins, and the last denomination to introduce it was the 1927 proof florin. However, the matter is complicated by pennies (as usual!). There is an extremely rare - possibly unique - 1922 penny with the modified effigy and the rare experimental reverse (so-called "1927 type", though it isn't). My own thesis, developed in an article for Coin News, is that this doesn't date from 1922 but is an experimental piece quite possibly struck in 1925 - when no pennies were scheduled - using the new obverse and a leftover experimental 1922 reverse die (which was effectively introduced for each bronze denomination when the ME came in, with the exception of the 1926ME penny, which I suggest was an unplanned emergency issue). The relative rarity of the halfcrown types has long switched back and forth; my opinion is also that the ME is scarcer, but not by a long way.

Sorry to be a bit late to this. I'd say that a type set's scope is defined by an individual collector and their interests. For example, when it comes to silver, I'm not particularly interested in silver varieties (which are anyway "micro" varieties), and would settle for one of each denomination. As far as bronze is concerned, any variety collecting would start - and possibly end - with the LT as those were very definitely a first 'type', replaced by the high tide. For halfpennies and farthings, that's pretty much it. For pennies you could go down a very long road, starting with an 'open 3', the 1905s, all those 1908-9 rarities, etc. There's nothing to stop you having a basic type set of each denomination, then constructing a full set of pennies if that takes your interest.

That is most likely a recut 1, quite common on bun pennies.

Wow, a variety caused at the Mint by the coin's current owner! You should be proud - there's few of us can lay claim to that.

I'm not counting chickens, especially with the ARS only 1 point behind and not having missed out on CL in ?16 years! Mind you, "all" we have to do is match their result and we're safe. We have had some regular injuries - earlier Coutinho, Sturridge (as usual), Henderson for months, and Mané has been out quite a while now.

Note Davies lists values which are virtually meaningless, dating back to 1982. However, comparing values can be a useful indication to how rare a particular variety is (or was, in the early 80s).

It applies if the developer is tied to a particular API set that gets upgraded by Apple in their annual release. Adobe Photoshop rarely suffers - CS6 can be used on Macs running as far back as 10.6, and Elements 6 runs in 10.5 on a PPC Mac right through to at least El Capitan. Microsoft software often survives quite a few MacOS releases, and even where it doesn't, Apple's own Pages, Numbers and Keynote will not only open Word, Excel and Powerpoint documents, but will save in the Microsoft format too. LibreOffice (free open source equivalent of Office) will open a lot of old formats, even going back to WordPerfect. Where applications require only a minor change after a MacOS upgrade, you will often find that developers won't charge you for the latest version. Having used OSX since Tiger (10.4) I've suffered very few software failures after an upgrade, and most of them have been upgraded free of charge.

Quite common to see the later reverses wear - for example the 1895 YH farthing rarely turns up with a decent reverse, I suspect the reverse die got overused as the OH was about to be issued.

They aren't a genuine variety as such - unless you count clogged dies as such. There are very many such errors in the 19th Century. However some guides will list them so if they're in Davies (for example) then they're worth cataloguing as a variety, otherwise file them as a curio.

Sorry about your dad too. Rafa will probably get a decent reception at Anfield (a lot of mutual respect there), and I expect he may even get a big hug from Klopp of the Kop. (God I do hope we beat Middlesborough and prevent a last minute sneak - as so often in the past - by the Gooners into the CL).

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

When you say "Very old 1912 penny", you're implying it's older than other 1912 pennies. (Which it might be ... by a few months )

To be honest, there is no such thing as a very old 1912 penny. They are in fact, all the same age...

The sale is completed when the auctioneer decides it is - the rap of the hammer is little more than a widely used convention. However, it could greatly impact an auctioneer's reputation if they change their minds more than occasionally, and without good reason. The delay of the internet complicates matters further.

Perhaps the difference is: "cameo" - an effect of proof striking that sometimes comes across and sometimes doesn't "frosting" - a deliberate preparation that always causes a crystalline effect on raised design as opposed to the mirror fields? Or perhaps "cameo" is simply the American term for "frosting"?

Are you talking about that gap between the lace and the hair? Part of the normal design - see here: https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/great-britain-double-florin-km-763-1887-1890-cuid-1174565-duid-1327641