Peckris

It was an early pattern design for the new coinage. It was obviously decided to go for a beaded approach both sides, perhaps after seeing these few pattern strikes? They probably struck a handful and melted (most of) them down. You could understand continuing with the old reverse, but as there was no demand for pennies between 1949 and 1961 (1950-51 was West Indies, 1952 and 1954 were VIP/experimental issues only, and the entire 1953 production run was for the sets), they probably thought they had plenty of time to play around. After all, George VI died early 1952 and the Coronation wasn't until mid-1953, so there WAS plenty of time.

Yes, I'd say F+ was right - but do be aware the reverse has 'issues'.

I think it's a simple question of which is listed first? In which case it's ALWAYS the obverse. But perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree?

I've got two of the damn things! I'm keeping them both though - one is a rich dark purple like that one, while the other is a mid gold-brown, rather lighter than the average mint toned penny (but not lustred).

Even if you allow for striking problems rather than wear, there's no way it ranks 80! Nice piece.

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-middlesex-young-s-penny-token-nd-c-1790-s-ms65-brown-ngc-/a/241445-15038.s#1191511915906 Look at that... 1798 eh? Wonder what they were collecting back then... "'Ere you are guv - I've got 5 UNC Cartwheel twopences. You can 'ave 'em for just a shilling" "Nah. Not interested in modern rubbish. Any news on that Petition Crown?" I could happily collect only the stuff that came out of the Soho mint. I was tempted to go after this token but just saw the estimate, I think best left to an aficionado of things Conder. I'll take those 5 cartwheels 2ds please Peckris. • Me too, really. • When I get 'em, I'll let you know - oh, and as we're talking 1798, that shilling I was talking about? Dorriens and Magens..

That's pretty much what I thought. Spink's grade? "very fine". I kid you not. Have a look and see for yourselves. It's not the only case of wild underestimate at that.

I think it's your Aye Phone Dave - I can't even see the lions' tails bottom right, on a 21.5" Mac screen! But you're right about the picture - it's the supplied size unfortunately, so I can't give you a larger one.

How do you come to that conclusion Dave - where do you see wear, especially on the reverse?

It sounds like you came out overall on the plus side. Those 3 overestimates are quite absurd IMO, especially compared to the ridiculous £5 they rated the 1787 6d.

Considerably less common, yes - but neither is rare. And the LT shows up quite often in high grade as it was the first issue of a new monarch and more were therefore put aside.

Talking of the Spink catalogue, how would you lot grade this?

My birth year... Yay!""""" Me too!! Fight you for it...

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-middlesex-young-s-penny-token-nd-c-1790-s-ms65-brown-ngc-/a/241445-15038.s#1191511915906 Look at that... 1798 eh? Wonder what they were collecting back then... "'Ere you are guv - I've got 5 UNC Cartwheel twopences. You can 'ave 'em for just a shilling" "Nah. Not interested in modern rubbish. Any news on that Petition Crown?"

Reading some posts on this forum while chewing on your dinner can prove to be a choking hazard You can always rely on Peter for a bit of off-topic entertainment! I think he should be a panellist on that brand new TV series 'Shock Factor'! The real scary thing is that through Peter's eyes, it's not off-topic at all...

If you can ask that, you can't afford it

The price of a 1918KN (or any such scarcity) is not really relevant, especially as you seem to have plucked a single price guide 'out of the air' so to speak. A coin like that will go for whatever someone is prepared to pay for it, and if that someone has deep pockets then what it says in price guides can be safely ignored. Yet on a different occasion, the same coin may go for half the amount as on the first. Your strategy - if bidding - is to bid up to the maximum you are prepared to pay for it, and to hell with the price guides.

Not from a die at all, I'd say - looking at the other raised bits all over the reverse, it's simple corrosion.

My understanding (not a scientific response!) is that the authorities were fairly relaxed about the base metal currency. There was a real chronic shortage of small change in George III's time, so if you counterfeited halfpennies with their face value of actual copper, what would you gain by it? The forgery was to meet demand, I'd guess, not to make a personal fortune as with the silver-washed forgeries from 1816. At a guess, that unfortunate woman was a forger of higher denominations than base metal. (The page doesn't say - probably just a piece of lazy research to make the facts look more sensational).

Thousands...

But.. but.. not all mint or near-mint coins are "red brown"!!! They could be an even brown colour, have a patination that could be just about any colour, some with lustre, some without.. just the term "red brown" is completely meaningless! What relevance is the colour of the coin to its condition?? Lustrousness, toning, patination, evenness of appearance - these are all much relevant than just the colour!!!!

If you mouse over his 5th picture, you can make out the name Hearn!!

Maybe, but even a poor picture beats the initials "red brown". I mean, for heaven's sake! Every single (just about) Vicky copper is a red-brown colour, even when worn to hell. It's meaningless.

I agree with all of you. The lion's face and Edward's ear are the two big warning signs for wear, and I just can't see any. That being the case, I have to say "better than EF". If we don't allow for a little wear to account for EF, then it's a meaningless grade, and the price differentials between it and UNC have no basis. I'd say the same even if it was a 1902. The date has no bearing on the grade.

Nothing beats a good picture.