Peckris

Judged only on wear, I would say EF, yes.

You need to find out what the terms of the insurance policy are. Does it cover the full UK market value of the coin in transit from there to you? If you lose the coin, you don't want to lose what you paid also.

Scott - you have a bee in your bonnet about that 1913! But it's only estimated £2 - £4 so it can't be that rare. I would class it Scarce, no more, just like a 1953 1+B farthing.

One of the bidders seems to be under the impression that the 'lower estimate' is the same thing as a 'minimum bid' (All the items where there is only one bidder, are exactly the lower estimate!) Or perhaps it's a crafty ploy? After all, all unbid items are apparently to be sold at their lower estimates, so bidding that would effectively 'reserve' the coin if it's not contested.

From the colour I can see on my monitor, it looks as if it was gilded one time. Perhaps someone tested it out on a penny before turning to farthings? Otherwsie it's not easy to say - there could be any number of atmospheric or storage causes as to discolouration. But as you say, the detail is nice.

Oh, you have the 'swimming frog' variety! (Ok, I'm jesting ... but look to the left of the V in TERTIVS)

They're not scott - see my reply above. F175 and F176 are the scarce mules (not rare, but much scarcer than F174 and F177).

Yes, I'm totally stumped by Lot 5 - you can easily see it's a beaded reverse, but the obverse? And an estimate of over £200?? Interestingly, there are no bids on it yet. Scott - the 1913s are like the 1953 farthing, scarce if muled. So 1+B and 2+A are pretty scarce compared with 1+A and 2+B. Freeman rates the 1+B as N, and 2+A as C, but that's compared with C10 and C13! So surviving exmples of the mules will be pretty scarce.

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.