Peckris

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.

A common misconception has it that they were issued in 1970 and 1971 respectively. I even read an article (linked from this very site) that says the 1970 set was issued in 1968! I think the writer must have been thinking of the blue plastic decimal wallets... I recently corrected the Wikipedia entry on this, so it would be good if anyone had an authoritative source. Certainly the leaflet inside the 1970 set talks about specific denominations in terms of "... WAS demonetised on 31st August 1971" (my capitals), suggesting a 1972 issue at the earliest. ESC (1974) says of the 1970 set : "These sets are still being produced dated 1970. Not more than 750,000 will be struck." ....................................1971 set : "Up to April 1974, 260,000 sets had been made, all dated 1971." Interestingly, although the text was clearly written in 1974, no mention is made of the 1972 or 1973 proof sets, implying that they did not appear until even later. If anyone has additional sources to add, I'd love to hear.

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).

Wow, if we'd only looked at a COIN YEARBOOK, we could have saved a lot of time! Thanks bilnic. (It was a fun discussion for all that.)

Hi bilnic - may I offer a word of advice? The 'secondary market' in UK decimals values them much lower than their RM issue (and Spink) prices. If you are prepared to hold on past the actual year of issue, most items can be picked up at auction at a very much lower price. Since dealing, I would never now buy anything from the Mint.

The Crown - as such - has never been demonetised. It ceased to be issued as a regular unit of currency after 1901, all subsequent issues being commemoratives or limited (for collectors only). However, they have always technically and theoretically been legal tender - therefore a Churchill crown has a current face value of 25p. The first decimal crown was the Silver Wedding 25p crown of 1972. (In any case, the term "crown" does not really denote a denomination as such). However, it has never been officially declared (to my knowledge) whether the upgrade of crown-sized pieces to a face value of £5 in the 1990s means that the descriptive term "Crown" ceased to exist, or simply became a £5 crown instead. I'm unable to help with the double florin, or fractional farthings I'm afraid. I strongly suspect that the silver threepence - being a valid 3d piece - remained legal tender until the brass 3d was demonetised in 1971. Though it is also true that they did not circulate into the 1960s; bear in mind that two years after the last silver 3d, all silver was removed from coins due to the high value of silver.

I just bought a Roman coin from the same seller - he seems perfectly above board.

And here's a couple of pennies in definitely 'average' condition :

If you really are keen to get started, then a good book on grading coins is one great place to start, and as luck would have it, Rotographic Press produce one available through this very website (and I'm not even on commission, more's the pity!)

Hi Tulip - welcome to the forums Condition is everything in our hobby. Those pennies from the 1920s in 'average' condition wouldn't be worth anything much, more or less just scrap value. In 'close to perfect' condition they would be worth between £5 and £10 each, but in mint condition they would be worth from £20 to £40 each depending on precise date. Ditto with the halfpennies (a little less perhaps). The 1938 and 1946 pennies - 'near perfect', £2 - £3 each, mint condition, around £10 each. Here are a couple of pictures of a 1929 penny in almost mint condition (the lustre doesn't show up too clearly in the scan) : (the reverse will be in the next post)

Wow, yes that sounds truly heroic - and should definitely be an award. On the subject of "actions", I heard an interesting interview with an Arab commentator about the whole "release of the Lockerbie bomber" thing. It seems that governments, diplomats, secret service, etc (but not us, the common or garden mugs) know certain data. To summarise : 1. The USA shot down an Iranian passenger jet in 1988. 2. As a "tit for tat", terrorists sponsored by Iran blew up a plane over Lockerbie. 3. Libya knew about, and sponsored, the Lockerbie atrocity, but it wasn't a Libyan who did it. 4. Libya in the 1990s sought rehabilitation with the West, for economic reasons. 5. As part of a deal, Britain and the US demanded Libyan accountability for Lockerbie. 6. Libya handed over two suspects, though everyone involved knew these were not the guilty parties. 7. There was a trial and one of the men was found guilty. We know the rest. It all puts the hysteria and muck-raking of the last few weeks into a different perspective, doesn't it?

Neither of the 3s look right on that 1933. Nor do they look quite the same, as you would expect them to. My own feeling is that it is a 1928 : if you look carefully, the second 3 could easily (!) have been tooled out of an 8. I've just compared my own pictures of a 1928 and a 1930 penny, and noticed something I never spotted before : there was a slight change to the style of numerals between those two dates. The 1928 penny has a longer '1' and a narrower '9', exactly like on that "1933". And if you look at the first of the two 3s, it's nothing like the 3 in a 1930, but the upper portion has much in common with the 2 in the 1928. The seller says it is "a rare coin which experts have appraised and concluded that it is possibly quite valuable." It could be the one which made its appearance on the Antiques Roadshow a couple of years ago (I missed that show unfortunately). But in one respect they are right - I'm prepared to bet that as a fake, it could still quite easily fetch £100 or more, just to give a collector the glow of owning what LOOKS like a 1933.

Could indeed have been burned, but bear in mind that darkened-looking-but-worn pennies are actually by no means uncommon. Who knows where they've been in their lifetimes (that 47 is now a venerable 62 years old...).

"Sit shtill, your Majheshty - yesh, that'sh right, BOTH of you (hic!)"

Well, that's a start! So it could be a French denier .. Who are the best people to ask? Coinpeople.com?

It was part of an auction lot that was otherwise Ancient Greek and Roman, but the ticket said this could be a "Templars" coin from the Crusades period. It's silver, very thin, and ever so slightly smaller than a 5p. I'll have to post the reverse separate due to the upload limitations.

Two conclusions : 1. That incomplete 6 is a known flaw on 1860/59 pennies 2. The person responsible saw the CC coin and 'doctored' another date to look similar

Those were 1944, '45 , '46 (though some 1946s were lustred). The interesting thing is, when the hypo coins wear, they go a lighter shade of brown than other dates - I think it was because they had the tin content reduced because of shortages.