Peckris

Basically, if it's a mis-strike it would have a small value just for interest (bear in mind the number of these that were struck). You could try your luck on eBay. It wouldn't bring much, I would guess. However, it's a coin that's been planed flat on one side, it has no value except as a curio.

By 'cornered', are we talking about the edge or the internal angles? I've just checked the 1949 I bought off Colin Cooke some years ago, and it has sharp edges. I looked close at the internal angles but have no idea which it is. I then checked the 1949 I found in change as a schoolboy and despite the wear, I'm pretty sure it started life as a rounded edge. I'm not sure what this proves - I'd not heard of the 1949 variety until this discussion (it's not in the post-1816 varieties review contained in the 1970 Coins and Medals annual, which has been my varieties 'bible' up to now).

Interesting link. Apparently there is a 'mere' £3.5bn in circulating coinage, which is peanuts in an economic sense. What would be really educational is a measure of the coinage as a % of total GDP (or income per capita, or some similar metric). I'm sure there must have been times - e.g. WW1 or earlier - when the % must have been much higher, especially before the introduction of banknotes.

Sadly so true. I had a look on eBay yesterday at some George V halfcrowns advertised without grades but as 'really nice'. The photos glittered and sparkled. The grades were clearly better than VF, with the odd EF there. Every single one of them had been beautifully cleaned, hence the 'glitter and sparkle'. They make a nice photo, but a poor purchase...

Does he have illustrations, Gary? If so, can you see from them if 1805 is indeed the first obverse? (But in any case, the obverse 1 does have a "full neck" while the shallow protrait has a "hollow neck"). Also, does he state rarities? If he does I should estimate that 1805 will be the rarest, unless any of those low relief varieties is also truly rare. And you're right - Spink have listed those descriptors the wrong way round ! (At least in the 2005 book which is the latest I have). 'Nose to S' is the common shallow portrait (I of Georgivs to space), 'nose to SV' is the rare first obverse (I of Georgivs to bead full neck). Ignore your Spinks, folks ...

This is a hopelessly difficult question to answer. Coin collecting (and therefore prices) has different stimuli at different times : Late 60s (medium inflation, but impending decimalisation) : coin collecting fever, modern coin prices go through the roof Mid 70s (high inflation) : post-decimalisation, modern prices collapse, but pre-1887 values increase sharply (a "true" market) Early 80s (medium inflation) : speculation e.g. in silver bullion, pushes coin prices to 'silly levels' Mid 80s - mid 90s (low inflation) : gradual stabilisation (aka decline) in coin values, leading to stagnation Mid 90s - early millennium (low) : shortages of good material; a return to coin collecting by many of the '60s schoolkids'; the takeover of the Standard Catalogue by Spink - prices go up double or threefold or even more Currently : coin values stabilising from the dramatic increases, but shortage of good material persists Whether the economic recession will result in a 'flight of money' (leading to lower coin values), or see coins as a 'hedge against recession and better than shares' (which should stimulate the market), remains to be seen. But, it will be increasingly true that there will be more collectors than coins as the supply of pre-decimal coins remains ever-fixed. Never has the maxim 'buy the best quality you can afford' been so true. To give you a humbling lesson : 12 years ago, new to dealing and therefore still wedded to 'book price', I bid for a BU 1873 bronze penny at auction, pulling out when the bidding went past the then book price of £75. I should have known better, I should have hung on. That coin would now easily fetch £400, probably considerably more.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down! A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems. clicky Another thing that make 1921 tough is the five Davies types for this year, I still need the nose to VS which come up ocassionally but I'm looking for EF or better. I'm not aware of these different types & would be interested to know. By "nose to VS", do you mean one of these, currently for sale on e bay ? No, that's the "nose to S" variety (i.e. George V Obverse 2 used between 1920 and 1926). The "nose to VS" variety is Obverse 1, the slightly smaller, deeper cut, better defined obverse that was used between 1911 and 1920. That's what I was referring to above when I was talking about 'good luck tracking it down' (but thanks for the research anyway 1949threepence - I think that site doesn't even know about this variety, or should have mentioned it). A small number of 1921 shillings is the only time that Obverse 1 makes an appearance on larger silver after 1920, and it's rare. I only have one, and only in VF. The chances of finding an Unc is very small indeed, and Spink price that variety far too low in my opinion (I was the one who got them to incorporate the two obverses - specifically for this variety - in the Standard Catalogue, and it was my scans of the two 1921 shillings I own, on which I'd highlighted the position of the nose to the legend, that prompted them to come up with the 'nose to S' and 'nose to VS' descriptors.) I'd be interested to know the differences that mark the 5 Davies varieties? Footnote : I think another reason that 1920 and 1921 are difficult dates, is because of the alloy change. People probably began to hoard pre-20 for its silver content, and got rid of the 50% coins as quickly as they could.

I don't - I've never seen a proof or a specimen for that series, apart from the 1935 'raised edge proof' crown. But the very sharp edges are a good sign. An early strike wouldn't give that in my opinion. It's not definitive of course.

Steady on there - my reply was only an intelligent "best guess" ! I have no real idea of the type, or the rarity, and you would need a positive identification for eBay (unless you just decide to auction it "on spec"). I'm hoping someone will see this thread who has much more expertise than I do.

Proud, maybe; ancient, no. Now if the penny came under threat, after near 2000 years, I WOULD get upset.

This looks like a typical penny from the Edward period, but the obverse is interesting : it appears to be an uncrowned head with the legend (as you say) GVILLS:EPISCOP... This would most likely translate to "Bishop William" (assuming that GVILLS is short for GVLIELMVS). There were Bishops and Archbishops who had their own mints in places such as Durham and York in this period, but I had always thought they issued the king's likeness (I'm no expert I'm afraid). Perhaps someone can build on this?

The crucial thing to look at to determine proofs is the edges of the rim : on proofs they will be sharp. It will be a little difficult here as they have had either some circulation or some frequent handling, but they should still be even, regular and fairly crisp. However, the same would be true of specimen strikings, and as these are a long way from FDC it may never be possible to tell the difference.

Thank you Colin, Scott, for your replies. Colin, I am aware that there are date width discrepancies even until the bronze penny reverses of Edward VII, but I've never seen them in the Jubilee Head silver series. I didn't point it out, but actually, it's not just the date - the 7 is simply the most dramatic and easy to see difference. When I saw this coin first, even though it is so small I could tell immediately "hey, there's something different, something unusual about this". To enumerate as many as I can : A toothed border; the regular is much more 'beaded'. A different style to the wreath ribbons - the folds not shown, and thinner generally. The left hand twig points to a space where on the regular, it points almost over a bead. The first 8 has a faint loop above it, as if another 8 was begun to be cut too high up. (Overstrike? Error?) The 7 is a more open style, mainly due to a thinner base stroke Scott, I can see at a glance that your sixpence is the regular variety. It's about the 'feel' of the reverse, which is what drew me to the variety in the first place. I'm not interested in the value, but I AM interested in having the variety recognised and recorded.

Colin Cooke actually told me (this is going back some years - late 90s? early 00s?) that he was working on the farthings volume of a 3-volume series intended to replace Peck (or rather, update Peck - who is probably irreplaceable for the foreseeable future). I never heard how far he had got with it, or whether this project has now been abandoned or postponed. As I never had any communication lines with Neil Paisley, I've kind of left this in limbo. Anyone else heard of this project, and if so, how far did it get?

I think you have to understand the word 'commoner' as quite a technical term : it doesn't mean 'of the common people', it simply means 'not of the Royal Family'. By that definition Cromwell can be nothing other than a commoner, even though he was offered the Crown (he did turn it down after all!). I think the full importance of this distinction is highlighted in Ancient Rome where, after 200 years of very varied and often autocratic kingship, the monarchy was overthrown and an aristocratic republic installed in its place. So hated were the kings in Roman consciousness that when the republic ended after 500 years and was replaced by Imperial rule, the Emperors were very very careful to describe themselves as "Princeps" - although we get our word "Prince" from that, in fact it simply meant "First Citizen" (probably the first successful use of NewSpeak? ) So Cromwell was probably following this historical example and being careful to avoid tainting his position with the all-too-recent associations of the Throne, which in parts of England was loathed.

In a similar vein, I have a theory as to why 1923 halfcrowns are so easy to find in higher grades : 1923, produced in large quantities to meet demand, but by the end of the year, demand falls off sharply because of the collapse of WW1 inflation. The unwanted halfcrowns are stocked away somewhere. Later in the year there is a modest demand for silver, and for the next three years (as we know) silver mintages are very low, especially halfcrowns and florins. The 1923 halfcrowns are forgotten about until maybe after the new coinage of 1927. All of a sudden they are found and belatedly issued. Joe Public - with the new coins in circulation - sees gleaming 1923 halfcrowns and thinks "oh that's the old design, those aren't produced anymore, I'll put this one in a drawer as a keepsake". Ok, it is mere speculation of course, but it makes you wonder ...

Those are an interesting two years for pennies. It's no coincidence that you often find the 'recessed ear' variety for 1915 and 1916 which MAY (or may not lol) have been an early attempt to do something about ghosting on reverses. Either way, this variation might well explain why they are harder to find in BU. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen one? Yet I've seen every other date BU (not counting H and KN) - even 1913.

Very good point! But I suppose you could say EVERYONE was a commoner in the Commonwealth (pun intended). "And don't forget that Una lady with her pet lion" Very true - not forgetting 1001 different Britannias... As for the allegories - yes of course, but nonetheless the "allegory" features a likeness of an actual costumed person, even if they are not named.

Is your 1967 penny full lustre? I will swap for THREE BU 1971 pennies...

I meant Elizabeth II of course. I tried a "Quick Edit" but there appears to be a bug in the software.

Talking about grey matter, the more you think about this, the more complex an issue it becomes : Cromwell is the ONLY commoner to feature on the obverse of a British coin. Churchill may be the only commoner to feature as a named reverse type. But then, what about those who modelled for certain designs? The young woman who posed for the Edward VII florin reverse ( the standing Britannia), the man who posed for Pistrucci's St George, the copper reverse Britannias of the 17th and 18th centuries - these are all commoners who appeared on coins (though un-named).

You could be proved right - in the long term. As a study it would be interesting to compare the 2008 £1 and the 1965S shilling (mintage 2,000,000+). 1965S shilling : current value £1, current availability - plentiful, future prospects - not good as so many BU were put aside in the coin collecting fever of the late 60s 2008 £1 : current availability - plentiful, future prospects uncertain - not many people will bother to collect the circulation issue BUT don't forget there will be commemorative versions and proofs in RM folders which will probably satisfy demand for years to come. One further warning - an interim mintage figure for 1976 50 pences was issued in 1978 which showed a mintage of well under 1,000,000. Many people started to collect them. Final mintage figure? 43,000,000! Bear in mind that your 2008 figure MAY not be final. But good luck with it, anyway.

A very interesting mark. Pity the wear means you can't see clearly what it originally was. Have you also noticed there is an extra hair curl? (To the left of the T in GRATIA). It is not present on the old bust photo in my copy of Spink, though that is of the GEORGIUS version not your GEORGIVS.

Yes - this is why I stressed both research and experimentation on low value items.

My own 5 cents' worth is this : hoarding coins (especially moderns) based on mintage figures is not recommended. There are so many examples where this has proved futile... 1965S shillings 1981 10 pence 1970 50 pence 1985 50 pence 1978 proof sets 1979 proof sets 1984 1/2 pence virtually any 'sets only' item (with the exception of 1970 and 1972) and those are just the obvious examples Apart from the 1970 50p, every item I've listed is rarer than both the items you mention, yet I cannot dispose of my stock of them unless I price WAY under book price. Bear in mind that coins acquire value based not only on 'rarity' (and nearly 4 million can not be considered in any way rare) but also on popularity and availability. The market for modern (decimal era) coins is separate from the pre-decimal one, and the proof of this is in the vast quantity of commemorative issues. These sell well and provide a good income for the Royal Mint. But if you examine the 'secondary market' (where these commemoratives are sold on), you see a very different story - the market is glutted with proof sets and £5 coins in folders, even piedforts (which are genuinely scarce if you look only at mintage figures). Dealers will pay very little for them as they can only sell them on if they price cheap. You're making the same mistake as I made when I was just a collector : you're looking at RELATIVE rarity. You're thinking that if a coin's mintage is only 1/10 of a typical year, then "it must be worth more". But if that figure is still in the millions, then it really isn't rare, and there will always be many more coins than collectors. The bottom line is supply and demand. If you want to speculate, and you can afford to, by all means put aside a stock of the coins you mention - you at least have one advantage in that the face value will never drop below £1. But don't put off that pension plan, because those £1 coins aren't it!