Peckris

Hi, it's not in the best of condition, but it LOOKS like a Fifth issue shilling (1582-1600), letter A mintmark. These would be worth around £100 in Fine condition - yours is Fine for the legend, Nearly Fine for the reverse design, but barely Fair for the portrait. (A good portrait is all-important for these coins). Value? Guesstimate only, I would say maybe around £30? Perhaps a bit more.

Definitely no earlier than Obverse 6 - notice that the head is the usual bun penny distance from the linear circle; on the first 5 Freeman obverses, it sits much lower from it (one of the defining characteristics of 1860 pennies for example). The 1860 dated F-17 is a die pairing of 6 & D, so the obverse 6 DOES appear on 1860 dated coins.... The 1861 varieties paired with obverse 6 are reverse D (F-29), reverse F ( F-32) , and reverse G (F-33) Yes I was not precise enough - certainly, up to Obverse 5 accounts for by far the vast majority of 1860s...

Definitely no earlier than Obverse 6 - notice that the head is the usual bun penny distance from the linear circle; on the first 5 Freeman obverses, it sits much lower from it (one of the defining characteristics of 1860 pennies for example).

Would someone kindly tell this disinterested decimaller exactly what a "dot to dot" is ? That coin looks perfectly normal to me.

I agree with you. Whilst some subtle differences are apparent, are they obvious enough, or well known enough to command a premium over other "commoner" types ? The other problem is that on new variant discoveries, we don't really know how many there actually are. We might know that some seem less common than others, but the true extent of the type identified, remains largely unknown. I would say that the less quantifiable and/or obvious, the less the interest, and therefore the less the premium. "Quantifiable" is an unknown at present. "Well known" is what I'm trying to do something about, via this forum. "Obvious"? To me, it is very obvious, but I would say that wouldn't I? Let me say this, I've now looked at quite a few 1887 sixpence reverses, and can see at a glance whether the 7 is twice the distance from the 8 as it should be. As for the overstrike, on an example in EF or better, that too seems obvious to me. So far, I've seen no other examples of this defined and clearly different variety. (Scott, thanks for your upload - I can see right off that yours is the normal JH reverse). Sometimes the close or wide spacing is a deliberate die difference. The spacing on an 1893 farthing - while less obvious than my 1887 sixpence - is a "known" variety and commands a premium. Likewise the wide or narrow spaced dates found on bun pennies of the 1870s. I didn't know about Vic OH pennies but I'm sure you're right.

If any of you have 1887 wreath reverse sixpences (JH or YH) could you check them for me? And if you have pictures you could upload, it will help considerably. Thanks

Hi Malissa - welcome to the forums. There's a maximum upload limit of 150k for each post which you have probably exceeded (the message below is misleading, it says "Max. single upload size: 150k"; actually, that's not only the limit per picture, it's also the limit per post. It should be changed). You could add a reply / replies to your own post and put more pictures in that way. There is something about that last 1, isn't there. It appears to be overstruck on a 1 with no serif, but difficult to say. Also the 8 seems to have an 'added extra' just below it. You might want to see this discussion : http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4473 I have a 6d in the same series (1887) which shows some strange features, including what looks like an 8 overstruck on an 8. These variations are only of value where other examples are found, and it becomes a 'known variety'. I'm trying to find other examples of mine! Not too many though ... Your 6d looks in top condition, so it will have value anyway (£50- £60 if strictly uncirculated).

Right, here is a closer look :all the 1887 sixpence reverses on eBay right now. Two conclusions : One. I was wrong about the lack of variation - I see two distinct types among that group : A. First 8 points to a border tooth; teeth are short (numbers 2, 6, 7, 8) B. First 8 points between teeth; teeth are long (numbers 3, 4, 5) There is also A2. : The 7 is squared off at the bottom, instead of rounded (number 7) However, I only captured the reverses - I didn't also note whether they were YH or JH (the great majority were JH). Two. NONE of those reverses shows the 'floating 7' nor the overstrike that my variety displays. In fact, as the position of the 7 - which is by far the most noticeable thing - isn't exciting anyone, I will re-categorise my find as '8 over 8', with the position of the 7 as the other identifier. Thoughts?

The 1877 6d reverse is different again (there's a BU one for sale on this site); the ribbons are a different shape slightly, though interestingly the "18" is identical. Also the word "SIX" looks different too, though that may simply be the angle of the picture. I think I would like to see every 6d reverse from say 1880 to 1887 and study the differences (where they exist). There ARE differences to these reverses but it seems no-one has made a study of them?

I'm now 99% certain that this IS a distinct and unusual variety. My reason for saying so is that I went out of my way to examine the reverses of as many 1887 Young Head sixpences as I can find pictures for. They are all, without exception, the "normal" type, as in the second picture I provided for comparison. So, what happened? The original reverse for 1887 JH was - as we all know - the shield reverse. That was minted in large quantities before being withdrawn over gold-plating-counterfeit paranoia. Then the wreath reverse was reinstated (not introduced - there were 1887 reverse dies already existing, from the YH). It is difficult to say where my variety comes into the picture. My hunch is that it was a rejected early die for the Young Head issue of 1887, but perhaps the regular die wore out before completing the 1887 JH issue; then this one was hauled out of retirement to complete the issue, though as yet I've not heard of any other specimens. One thing we can reject : that there are minor variations to the date numerals after the Mint was electrified in the early 1880s. We see on all coins - the pennies are the clearest evidence for this - that there is uniformity where before there was all kinds of variation. Freeman lists only a single penny reverse die used between 1884 and 1894. After that, the 1903 "open 3" penny variety is the only date anomaly. On silver coins after the early 1880s, there seem to be no variations recorded for date numerals. Just as a footnote, I will list all the variations on this reverse (it's not just the date) : 1. The position of the 7 2. The pointing of the 7 3. The overstrike first 8 4. The more open 7 5. Different shape border teeth 6. Recut ribbon (on my variety, the ribbon is virtually indistinguishable in style from the twigs; on the normal variety, the right-hand ribbon is almost invisible where it joins the knot above the 8)

You will have no trouble with the shilling, they are quite common in Unc. The florin is a bit more difficult, but it's easily the easiest Elizabeth II florin of the 1950s. I just checked mine, and I have two. But as they are both different obverse types, I think I will keep them for now!

That may be so, but I have to admire that guy's attitude. None of your "RAER PENNIE, BYE NOW THEIR WILL NEVVER BE ANOTHER LIKE IT" tosh, but a nicely whimsical and well-articulated bit of philosophy. I like someone who can humorously argue for something that no-one is ever going to fall for, as he himself admits in his last line. I almost hopes he gets it - he's a genuine character!

Your dealer may be reluctant to sell them in any lower grade than EF - possibly he puts them in a £1 or £2 tray when he goes to fairs. You were wise to go for a higher grade.

It's a 1721 "stop after date" halfpenny, in a really nice GF. Spink 2005 lists it as £40 F and £160 VF; I'd put that one at around £75 or thereabouts. Nice coin.

I've seen quite a few well circulated 1953 pennies on e bay. There were just over a million minted, so there is no reason to suppose they didn't circulate in a similar manner to say, the 1951 threepence, or the 1952 sixpence, which are of similar mintage. Yup. The only 1950s penny I ever found as a schoolboy was a NVF 1953. And when dealing, I would say that 1953s in F - VF were nearly as common as EF or higher. Those plastic sets probably cost little more than face value in 1953, and as they were just ordinary currency coins (not like the modern BU sets), the temptation to crack 'em and spend 'em when times got hard must have been quite high.

You can say that again!

What you have there Mike, is a "stitch up" - someone has gone to the trouble of slicing two Victorian "bun" pennies in half and then sticking the two obverses together. Probably a Victorian gent who didn't like losing the toss of a coin. In fact, looking at that groove along the edge, maybe they didn't even bother slicing in two but just stuck two worn pennies together? On a more technical note, it seems one side is the older head (1874 or later) while the other side looks earlier.

True - but I'm always amazed that a unique 1952 halfcrown spent 15 years in circulation before being spotted. It just goes to show ...

Grr, double entry

If it really is 1864, and you got it authenticated, then it would have to go to auction. What it would fetch is just speculation, as the 1864 copper farthing is an extremely rare proof. But in that condition? I really don't know.

The felt crumbles at a touch, so i guess that is what it is. I cant see black marks when looking at the actual coins. Could you point out the marks that concern you and i will take a closer look. Now that i know what i am looking for i will keep an eye on adverts and auctions. I will probably end up listing them on ebay... as much as i hate ebay! Thanks for taking the time to help... much appreciated. Especially on the reverses , some coins have what looks like faint black (or dark blue?) lines, very thin, like pencil marks

Hi mike - welcome to the forums It is very difficult to make out that date - all the rest of the legend seems fairly clear. That third digit COULD be a '6', or it could perhaps be a '5'. You would want to maybe have the coin looked at under a powerful magnifier, and maybe also send it up to the Curator at the Royal Mint to see if you can get further identification. If it did turn out to be 1864 and you got some authentication, it could be worth quite a bit.

I assume that what look like black marks may just be loose bits of felt? There's a slight spotting on the obverse of the florin and one of the shillings; the bronze has the usual uneven toning; in all, I would say that is a fairly typical 1950 set. Could be better, but could be a lot worse too. If you keep an eye on adverts and auction listings and eBay, you should get a fair idea of the current selling price.

I too believe that the Crown is still legal tender. But it's an interesting denomination - it and the halfcrown appear to have been introduced by the Tudors, when they varied between being gold or silver - under James I they seem to have been both. Nowadays it seems to refer more to a size than an actual denomination and hasn't been issued for currency for more than 100 years, which is quite possibly why decimalisation didn't make a specific ruling about them. Let's face it, no-one I know ever tried to spend even a Churchill crown even though its mintage ranks as a currency piece.

Yes thats the one. It's hard to tell the condition of those coins from the picture. (if it is a picture of the actual coins they are selling as they use library images) I am guessing that price would be for an immaculate set? I will upload a picture of my set in the next day. Thanks for the link and help. Don't worry too much about tarnishing. Most proof sets before 1970 tend to have some toning, and it rarely affects the value, or only a little. Scratches or other ugliness - yes, toning - no (unless it is very bad). You'd have to pay somewhere around £100 for a 1950 set now, give or take. (I'd say that £225 tag is a bit optimistic, unless I'm way out of touch with recent increases).