Peckris

£151 is a bit on the high side I agree, but not ludicrously so. £31 for yours? If truly BU you got the bargain of the year! Yes, it was my research that got it listed by Spink in the first place. We've already agreed this is the commonest variety, but as I said above, no 1921 shilling is common in BU, in fact I'd rate it the scarcest (in UNc) of that series.

Hi rogbat, Welcome to the forums A scan or photo of both sides of the items would be apprecaited to help identify.

If it was genuinely uncirculated I'd say that was not far off a fair price. IMO 1921 is by far the rarest shilling in that series in Unc - yes, rarer than 1925. But I assume you're pointing us at the scratch on the neck, and what looks like wear to the hair detail? And as a 5+E the most numerous of the 1921 series. I'd have put it at sub £100 and would have been desperate to go more than £60. I agree it's the commonest of the varieties, but what I was getting at is that NO 1921 shilling is common in Unc. Even in Spink - not the most enthusiastic listers of modern silver varieties - it's over £100. I'm not sure what that ebay dollar price translates to exactly?

I'm not surprised. Though you would think the Mint would have eradicated that by now!

If it was genuinely uncirculated I'd say that was not far off a fair price. IMO 1921 is by far the rarest shilling in that series in Unc - yes, rarer than 1925. But I assume you're pointing us at the scratch on the neck, and what looks like wear to the hair detail?

You mean the reddish streaks commonly seen? That's just got to be a copper-mix fault hasn't it? Quite common on cupro-nickel 1947-1951, but I've seen it as late as mid-60s halfcrowns.

I wouldn't rush to buy the G4. Apparently if you hold it in your hand, you lose the signal! (Mind you, who buys an iPhone for making phone calls anyway?)

Something to do with fish? Oh sorry, I thought it said, 'Forum Cod'. ><((((~º3 ººº

I didn't even know this existed. There's no 465A in my Freeman (I just checked) so it must be a later addition. But one thing's for certain - if the rarer reverse is Freeman's Reverse B (long teeth) I would have spotted one straight off, so I've never seen one I can confidently say.

Wow, that beats my AFair example for 90p !!

Ouch. That's way more than a £350 coin IMO ! It's GEF with lustre, not easy to find in that grade at all. Oh well, better luck next time.

Speaking as Scheherezade (this is my 1001 post ), no I haven't, but Chris seems to be otherwise occupied these days - he hasn't posted for what seems like ages.

That halfpenny just looks stained scott, i.e. surface, not metal content. Dark patches on bronze are nearly always staining. And ... this is my 1000th post! Let's see if the label changes or not Oooh yes, I'm now a Forum God! And in less than a year too! Ok mortals, just build me a temple and offer up a different BU bun penny each week

The kind of lucky break you can only dream of Nice! Even if they were all 1915 you could still turn a nice profit on them

You sure you're not talking about the farthing? There's a very rare 2+A proof farthing, but the 2+B is common. 1953 halfpennies have two obverses (neither of them rare) and one reverse. As for the penny, I assume you're talking about the experimental Type 1 (edge border toothed)? You can forget that! There is one example known - possibly two at the most - you can save yourself a lot of time looking for that one.

Isn't that 1200 posts, not 1000? Oh well, in a few posts time I will find out for sure

The Edw VII penny doesn't look streaked at all, just some dark staining which could be from anything. The 1919 penny looks in good enough condition for it to be "streaky lustre". Interesting. Those dark patches probably look clearer "in hand"? I can't tell much from the picture. "Steaking" may or may not, be lustre. I would have said that "marbling" is the actual metal content, not lustre? IMO.

Yes, good point. It looks a little strange, the lustre, but environmental toning could account for that.

Ladies?? OY!!! Is that a typo for 'laddies', or do you need a brain transplant?? From the 25p tray of a dealer at the Midlands Coin Fair (unsorted :-) ): • 1888 sixpence GEF • 1951 brass 3d, Unc with strong lustre From a Warwick&Warwick auction lot of pennies from 1860 to 1967 • 1919H with the usual flat hair (worn die) but in all other respects GEF or better, rich chocolate patina - £20 From a New York dealer : • 1903 halfcrown F+/AVF, lustre - £26 From circulation : • 1926ME penny, GF - £0.005

Forgive me being pedantic 1949! but don't you mean a "die blemish"? If there was a genuine die error in the modern era it would be remarkable and valuable, as witness the 1983 2 NEW PENCE error. (Though strictly speaking, even that is not a die error, but a mule - I'm finding it hard to come up with an example of a die error in modern times). Yeah.......I suppose. I'm not really sure what you would call mine either, and I'm very open to persuasion on this one. It appears like a little bubble in the upper field of the reverse. Die "blemish", as you suggest, maybe ? Or other blemish? E.g. on the blank itself? Or a bit of grease or foreign matter that got in for just one strike only?

Good pictures scott. The 1866 penny is an enigma, but it COULD be a result of an abrasion scar across the reverse which exposed bare metal and hasn't properly toned back yet. It doesn't look like a classic example of 'streakiness'. Your other two pennies seem to be classic examples of 'streaky lustre'. This occurs a lot in the early 1920s, but you appear to have got two examples from earlier than that. However, there's no way of telling whether they came streaky from the Mint, or have acquired some form of environmental toning. The Vic in particular looks like a 'toned Unc with lustre', while the Edward ... do you think it is possible that is a high grade penny that has been artificially lustred? (It has the look of an Edw VII farthing that's been treated.)

Forgive me being pedantic 1949! but don't you mean a "die blemish"? If there was a genuine die error in the modern era it would be remarkable and valuable, as witness the 1983 2 NEW PENCE error. (Though strictly speaking, even that is not a die error, but a mule - I'm finding it hard to come up with an example of a die error in modern times).

Without detailed chemical analysis, I don't think we can prove conclusively why the hue varied, but I'm still sticking to my guns! I have seen much earlier coins (e.g. an 1893 penny) with the distinctive KN colour. My view on this is that King's Norton received all their metal from one source which may have had say, a trace of ferrous oxide in its makeup. Of course alterations in the alloy can make a difference (e.g. later QE2 bronze) but why would Kings Norton use a different alloy from that which the Royal Mint requested? My theory also explains why some coins have a streaky appearance i.e. ores from two different sources were used in the alloy, and were not completely mixed in the furnace. I can certainly corroborate from experience that the red-brown colour appears outside the date range I mentioned above - for example quite a few late date Edward VII pennies, i.e. 1908 - 1910, also feature it : which leads to two possibilities perhaps? (1) That KN actually provided blanks to the Mint not just in the period mentioned by Freeman (which in turn came from a RM Report apparently) but from the 1890s through to the end of WW1 when that colour seems to disappear. (2) That KN consistently got their copper from just one supplier (your theory) who also was used passim by the RM. I've only ever seen bad streakiness on coins from 1920 to 1926. The explanation I heard from one source was that this was caused by the use of gun casings in the 'mix', which we've discussed here before I think? The problem I have with the 'two ore' hypothesis (though I freely admit I'm not a chemist) is that surely two sources of copper ON THEIR OWN could not cause streakiness? After all, irrespective of its origin, chemically copper is copper is copper. Would it not be more likely that the other metals used in the alloy were not properly mixed together? Though I'd welcome an input from a chemist to clear this point up.

You need to be careful in your terms Peter : "use(d)" and "uncirculated" are contradictory. As soon as a coin is used, it ceases to be uncirculated.

Interesting research Red! May well account for many variations. It does not though, I believe, account for the Kings Norton red-brown tone, which I think really was due to a slight variation in the alloy. This can be verified by a similar tone appearing on some examples of all dates of pennies between 1912 and 1919. "What?" I hear you ask, "how does that confirm the Kings Norton thesis?" Well, according to Freeman, KN supplied blanks to the Mint between 1912 and 1919, as well as minting a small number themselves in 1918 and 1919.