Peckris

The reverse could feature a castle plan, as viewed from above

Yes, it's a handsome tone.

Yes, that's quite a common toning of George VI bronze, especially in the early years of the reign. It does look on first glance as if it was 'Mint toned', but it's too green for that. Mint toning is invariably a kind of purple/brown colour and quite distinctive (and when it wears off, it reveals the different alloy underneath, which always makes the mid-1940s bronze look a pinkish colour).

This is where the Americans are way ahead of us Brits. They have a smoother gradation between BU, BU "prooflike" (i.e. early strikes), and actual proofs. As witness the high prices for prooflike Morgan dollars from the late 19th Century. We should do this in the UK too - e.g. £X for Unc, £3X for BU, £10X for really prooflike early strike, and maybe no more than £25X for a genuine proof (just off the top of my head - you get the general idea). The exceptions to this would be silver coins of 1816-17, and 1887, where prooflike examples are actually quite common.

Link to uniface 1965 pennies in Colin Adams' Sale That just links to a generic Spink page - no details such as you mention

Obviously not very photogenic. A shame that Meeshu's 'investment' seems to be a disaster. I think that is almost inevitable with coins like this. It's almost a case of "if they are too rare, the market won't gain buoyancy, and limited supply suppresses demand (instead of the other way around)". In the hierarchy of popularity, I would rate : 1. extremely rare dates e.g. the 1933 penny or proof-only issues 2. rare recognisable varieties e.g. 1926 ME pennies 3. rare less easy-to-see varieties e.g. "L C Wyon on rock, below shield, or missing" on bun pennies 4. extremely rare proofs of regular issue coins One hopeful note is that Wreath Crowns (sluggish for years) finally came good, and the same could be true of rare proofs too. Mind you, I once had a 1935 'raised edge' proof for some years, and then auctioned it, realising just a tiny bit more than what I paid for it. Sometimes, coins like these have to be enjoyed for their rarity, not their investment potential, which may be poor.

Yes, that's the penny all right. Good Fine grade, slightly uneven colour, but quite nice. £20, plus or minus.

Is it just me, or do others have difficulty telling these as proofs? Colin Cooke's VIP proofs usually look like proofs, but these 2 farthings don't seem to have the expected characteristics, or maybe it's just the scans?

It's actually a Charles I shilling (the XII after the bust is "12" as in "12 pence make one shilling", in old money). If it's a Scottish shilling, there is a member here called Scottish Money who would be able to advise you on the value. Though the portrait is somewhat worn, the rest of it is in very respectable condition - a nice coin. My avatar is the reverse of a Cartwheel Twopence (the penny would look the same). The only reason it is the colour shown is due to Photoshop, in an attempt to make the detail show more clearly! Shades of brown, or even black, are more usual. If yours has the same level of detail, it would be in high grade, but a scan would be needed to confirm that.

You ought to try scanning the coins - that hammered Charles I shilling would scan really well. It's in very reasonable condition, but needs to be sharper for more positive ID on the issue and mintmark, etc. The first coin is foreign. I don't recognise anything about it, perhaps the legend is vaguely Hebrew-esque? But that's little more than a wild guess.

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!)

That's quite weird. I've tried to visualise all kinds of situations, such as a brockage or someone attempting to use a normal reverse as a kind of punch to impress into a sawn-in-half penny, but either way, the reverse would be 'mirrored', i.e. back to front. And in the case of a brockage, you should have a normal reverse on the other side. So this is a bit of a mystery.

What on earth is one of those?

I would say VF except for the portrait which is only F, so GF seems fair (the portrait is the most important element). It seems to be Second Issue, so value would be £100 - £150, as a rough estimate.

For what you've described, storage doesn't need any expensive solutions. Transparent coin envelopes (you can probably buy some from this site?) would meet your requirements. In the long term, if some of the coins are bronze, then they perhaps should be stored in paper envelopes. If you need more advice about the value and / or identification of your coins, then people here would be happy to advise, and you should certainly make up a list anyway. If you live somewhere in a dry salt-free environment, then they could even be left in the boxes, but your daughter could scratch them quite badly if she took to shaking the boxes! Individual envelopes would prevent that.

I've noticed this on my 1970 set ~ penny and halfpenny. The 1973 set is by far the worst : I'm lucky enough to have a perfect set but it took some hunting down. All the ones I sold I had to break, sell the good coins individually, and virtually give away the bad ones. I remember one set that had the ugliest 5p you ever saw, and this was a proof! Unless they changed the glue for one year only, I'd also suspect the dyes used in the foam insert - 1973 is the only year they used that bright red so that would be my guess.

That's my 1818 LVIII - unfortunately my scanner only goes to 1200 dpi.

I managed to get to Online coins last night and tried again today, but all I get is : http://guide.opendns.com/?url=www.onlinecoins.co.uk You tried to visit www.onlinecoins.co.uk, which is not loading. What gives?

Yes, indeed. If you discount all the reports other than the numbered #102 etc (otherwise it gets confusing!), it's plain to see that the 1970 sets were produced from 1971/2 through to 1976, the 1971 sets from 1973 to 1976, and the 1972-1976 series from 1975/6. That's pretty conclusive I think? It does show that if the 1970 sets were issued for sale as soon as the minting began, they could have been available from (maybe) 1971 but more likely 1972 given the pressure on in 1971. What did surprise me was the number of 1970 sets minted. Getting on for 5 million. More than I thought. You've fallen for the same confusion I had at first! It wasn't until I re-read for the 3rd or 4th time that the "penny dropped", so to speak. Some of those reports talk about coins minted, the others talk about sets. As there are 8 coins in the 1970 set, that should square the calculation hopefully?

Or alternatively, "She Keeps A Möet and Chandon ..."

I read in MOJO just today that Brian May used sixpences as his plectrum, and a bag full would be given to him before each tour! I'm not quite sure what he does for them now - if anyone has a good supply of old tanners, they should jump at the chance to append "Official Supplier to Brian May" after their name

Yes, indeed. If you discount all the reports other than the numbered #102 etc (otherwise it gets confusing!), it's plain to see that the 1970 sets were produced from 1971/2 through to 1976, the 1971 sets from 1973 to 1976, and the 1972-1976 series from 1975/6. That's pretty conclusive I think? It does show that if the 1970 sets were issued for sale as soon as the minting began, they could have been available from (maybe) 1971 but more likely 1972 given the pressure on in 1971.

OMG - Joan E Fisher .... could this be Joan E Allen of Coin-Monthly-adverts-late-60s fame, and married to a Mr Fisher by 1977 ??

If I knew they were only coins ever to carry the date 1972, I'd want one! In fact, in 1978 the first proof sets I ever bought were the 1970 set and the 1972 set. The Royal Mint report #103 for 1.4.1972 - 31.3.1973 says for 1/2p Reported 274,800,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. 1p Reported 130,000,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. 10p Reported 116,050,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. 50p Reported 5.036,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. Also, 79,415 1973 EEC 50p proof and 586,554 1970 Lsd sets produced. Interesting - though it doesn't say exactly when during that 12-month they were minted. Could be that they started on 1973s towards the end of 1972? Good to have those figures though. And it looks like the bulk of the 1970 sets were minted in 1972/3 - now we're getting somewhere!

Much of that is Restoration propaganda! In just the same way as Tudor propaganda blackened the reputation of Richard III of York, in perpetuity. I think the Irish have most cause to hate Cromwell, but most of the atrocities ascribed to him in Britain were actually perpetrated by Henry VIII.