Peckris

No doubt in my mind that it would fetch in excess of any catalogued amount. 5,000 quid or more, perhaps? Quite possibly would, actually. At any rate, at least £3k. I'm not even sure one exists at that standard ? The Coin Year Book has it at significantly lower in value than a 1919KN in the top 2 grades. I feel that is nonsense - I've never even seen one and I believe Colin Cooke once said (about 10 years ago) that if someone found a roll of 100 BU 1926ME pennies, he would still pay £2000 a piece for all 100.

Yes - I've contacted them too, pointing out the difference in values (Spink 2009) between each type - £800 vs £30 - and adding "I shudder to think what might happen to your good name and reputation in the law courts if you sold the penny as currently described". Hopefully that might make them revisit it.

So true

Well thank you for the kind comments and the chemistry lessons! I do admit, it's a handsome piece. It was actually a greenish colour (not verdigris) when I first got it, and I can't remember what I did to remove the green, but that's the way it looks now. "Coppered proof" anyone? Yours for £400...

I don't need to make detailed checks. I can spot a Modified Effigy straight away, and that is SO not one. How the hell can they get away with such blatant misrepresentation?

Yeah well, I bid, but failed The winning bid was £40.00. Nice capture for the winner. Oh that's a shame - it was something of a bargain at that price, pity you weren't able to go higher

As promised ... If it was a nice chocolate brown I'd be thinking, "wow, a bronzed proof!", but this is just peculiar.

I generally love good toning, better than an untoned coin. Especially older silver, but bronze can tone nicely too. I'm not yet converted to streaky lustre though, and as for fingerprints ... While on this subject I will have to scan my 1855 penny for you - it's EF, but is a uniform dull dark grey colour all over, rather like tarnished pewter. It's distinctly odd looking, but not unattractive.

You are quite right, so it looks like a deliberately false image. I can't quite see why anybody would bother though. I mean, at best its a £5.99 sale, not a million!! I think the 'undated 20p' madness has infected the whole of eBay.

So... a 1935 penny with ghosting. Well I never! How much is that worth?

Nice one! You got a bit of a bargain there I'd say - good value for a normal Unc 1935 but you got ghosting thrown in for good measure. Thanks for posting it.

I will buy a pair of Gucci shoes after you have bribed me with a VF 1905 halfcrown. No? P*ss off then you benighted kerb-crawler.

Interesting replies guys. I must say, I had never seen it on 1919 pennies or earlier (but there it is...) and certainly not as late as 1953! (but there it is). I suppose the Mint could well have experimented with different bronze alloys from 1920, enthused by their efforts with the silver versions. Or maybe they simply changed the formula used to provide the lustre. There wasn't any darkening of pennies in the period afaik. The first was in 1934 I believe? Though they had certainly used it on farthings to great effect from 1897 to 1918. Scott, can you upload a scan of your 1935 ghosted reverse ? I've never seen George V ghosting post-modification - I'd be fascinated to see it.

Well it's not so far-fetched - when you consider that the total value of coins in circulation represent, year-on-year, an ever-shrinking portion of the money supply, then it really is a matter of decreasing priority. Today's £10 note probably equates to a 1930s halfcrown in real terms. As for commemoratives, I recently bought (via eBay) a 'fantasy' proof penny of 1798, which featured the Kuchler George III obverse, and a Britannia reverse closely based on the pattern pieces of the Boulton era, minted on a heavy dark bronze flan. I don't usually go for those fantasy pieces, but I fell in love with this as soon as I saw it. They can do some things right, it seems.

Oh don't worry. The person who is likely to pay several thousands for an undated 20p on eBay hasn't got a brain connected to their eyes, so it won't matter.

Look at this - a perfectly standard 'undated obverse' QEII 20p. BUY IT NOW for only £1.50 !! Note this (LMAO) : I HAVE A LOT OF THESE, MY COINS ARE GUARANTEED NO DATE ON QUEENS HEAD OR I WILL REFUND (Oh boy, I've news for him, I have loads of these too, wonder if I can undercut him by selling them for £1 each? ) Apparently (LOLOLOLOL) ... SIMILAR COINS TO THIS EVIDENDTLY HAVE RECENTLY REACHED A STAGGERING £7200 IN AUCTION ON EBAY Oh please, stop it, my sides are aching : IM NO COIN COLLECTER BUT You want the link? Ok, here is a public health warning - don't be drinking hot coffee at your computer terminal when viewing this ... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/UNDATED-20P-COIN-YES...-ON-QUEENS-HEAD

That joker is showing a scan of an obverse of a small proof 1993 10p and a large proof 10p reverse (date unknown). If you look at the border beads it should be clear enough. And the pictures are two different sizes anyway !! Sheesh. If you're going to be dishonest and rip everyone off, then at least do it properly ...

There aren't any gaming tokens featuring William III - they are mostly George III or Victoria, and made of brass. Misspellings are very common on these copper William III coins : there was a massive re-coinage taking place and coppers got a low priority - you don't see too many errors on the gold and large silver coins; they start appearing on shillings and sixpences, and there are lots on coppers.

If you check out his other coins they are top-whack and mostly over-graded. Eg: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1887-VICTORIA-SILVER...id=p3911.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1849-VICTORIA-SILVER...id=p3911.c0.m14 Are we talking at cross-purposes here? The nice 1912H is from mog461 not d-uk-e, and it's the latter who is being ... shall we say ... a bit optimistic.

That's a rather nice EF example - good luck with it. But I just had a look though morgan9red's listings, and I don't see either 1912H there. Weird. No, you're right. It was my error. The actual coin is here. The seller is d-uk-e. Don't know why I thought it was morgan9red. I did see his name, but it must have been another coin. I don't like that Unc example, not at that price. There's slight rubbing on both sides (A.Unc) and the lustre is patchy and uneven. For £299 I would be wanting a BU Gem. To be honest, in your position I would rather bid on other penny, which has a much more even and pleasing appearance (in my opinion.) It looks GEF to my eye.

Interesting reading. And a nice rarity you have there scott. I would ask Neil Paisley about its value - their site might even make an offer! (Unlisted rarities are incredibly difficult to value. It's all down to interest in the end. Compare the 1804 Bank of England dollar with the 1860 bun penny - both have varieties that go from 'common' to 'extremely rare', yet the rare 1804s aren't much different in value from the common ones. Not like the 1860 penny.)

That's a rather nice EF example - good luck with it. But I just had a look though morgan9red's listings, and I don't see either 1912H there. Weird.

Thank you David - I think it must be an error. It's not that 1886 is a 'deceptively difficult' date after all! I've got 3 or 4 of the damn things, all EF or better. I will have to tell Chris that in this instance, CCGB is wrong.

Yes, you are right. It is just a case of wear on the rim. If you think about it, looking at the rim from the side is deceptive - when you look at a coin face on, you see how little it figures. Also, the 1942 6d is barely in Fine condition, the 1941 is VF which is a big difference. And when the rim wears, it loses a bit of metal, but also flattens it into the teeth, which makes it look wider from the front - you see that? So there will be very little difference in weight. It only really shows up if you look at it from the side, as you did.

Yes, you are right. It is just a case of wear on the rim. If you think about it, looking at the rim from the side is deceptive - when you look at a coin face on, you see how little it figures. The 1942 6d is barely in Fine condition, the 1941 is VF which is a big difference. And when the rim wears, it loses a bit of metal, but also flattens it into the teeth, which makes it look wider from the front - you see that? So there will be very little difference in weight. It only really shows up if you look at it from the side, as you did.