Peckris

I'm guessing that penny would probably have been holed not long after the coin was minted, as a keepsake or personal jewellery? I can't see why anyone would deface such a pristine example in the era they became collectable.

Wow, I've never been able to watch an entire movie outside iPlayer or suchlike. I don't have time right now, but I'll certainly watch it later. Thanks ChKy, merci!

It's OK. Wifey cooked. Quorn in lemon sauce with Chinese noodles. Did she taste good?

It does look vaguely Celtic.

Well, that took its own sweet time to load! Interesting range of coins on offer. That halfcrown is everything you said Garrett - beautiful condition, not so beautiful toning. Not a lot else, you're right.

Loving that reverse. Er, obverse? Oh shoot - the side without the date on!

Funnily enough, that's one of my gaps! LOL, no coincidence when you look at the prices! It's made me reappraise my approach to type collecting : as the reverse of George I crowns is the same type across all silver denominations (and the same as earlier reigns too), then as long as I have a decent plain and a decent roses and plumes reverse, on a coin at least shilling-sized, I can tick that box. All that remains is to get a decent silver obverse of George I, which can be afforded via shillings (though a halfcrown would be nice ). Thank heavens early milled silver has virtually the same few reverses! It means one can 'cheat' with a type collection.

Hehe, yes I do like a bit of copper ... variety and history and more affordable ... truth is I can't afford any of my milled silver gaps in a decent grade at the moment! I had posted this coin in the 'Let's See Your Copper Coins, Tokens, Or Medals!' thread a few weeks ago, and didn't know much about it when I snaffled it for a paltry £12 delivered off the bay. So yes it's mine, it's a 1795 Suffolk/Bury halfpenny, Dalton&Hamer #26, with the edge lettering of "PAYABLE AT P. DECKS POST OFFICE BURY .XX" (last bit courtesy of brg). Peter went on to add that the 'head and tail' you refer to belong to the wolf guarding St Edmund's head. I find the Conder tokens quite fascinating ... still don't know how to refer to each of the sides though! I understand perfectly! Doubt if I'll ever be able to afford a George I crown.

I would say that the obverse is the side that identifies the area or company (e.g. Liverpool, or the Anglesey Copper Mines). But I'm only guessing really.

Any .. (be still, my beating heart) .. 1967 pennies? Or 1971 bronze??

Yes, 1) you need a licence from the Treasury but 2) could they prove anything if you did melt, as Nick points out? I assume the old halfpenny was demonetised AFTER 16th May 1969 so it was swept up by the legislation? Which means that the only denominations legal to melt are: farthingsfractional farthingsall pre-1860 copperall pre-1816 silverHowever, most of those that are Fair or better have a numismatic value way in excess of melt value.

I'm not sure about the predecimal position, but anything post-1971 can't be melted; that IS illegal. This is from the guidelines issued by the HM Treasury. "(1) No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194220/guidance_coinage_banknotes.pdf This statment suggests that it is fine prior to that date. People melt pre 1947 silver coins, and I can't see why bronze coins should be any different. Unfortunately, that quote was the very one that caused the earlier uproar! If you examine its logic, it is saying that even if a coin WAS legal tender in the UK, but has been declared no longer legal tender after 16/5/69, it's still illegal to melt. That little word "or", you see.

Classic! No it isn't. Why don't you just...oh, sorry, wrong room! You loon-faced, unsavoury, evil-smelling heap of dog turd, why don't you just crawl back under the rock you ... oh sorry, time's up.

Is Ernie still involved? I always remember him from my times at the Midland.

I'm not sure about the predecimal position, but anything post-1971 can't be melted; that IS illegal.

Classic! No it isn't.

Funny you quote this guy. He is one of the most skeazy and unrespected dealers in the USA market. Maybe your opinions of him and his thoughts will change when viewing his website, with laughable asking prices (look at this one which SOLD!!!: http://www.randicoins.com/store/pc/SOLD-1948-P-FRANKLIN-NGC-MS-68-STAR-FBL-6p1147.htm). That coin is a crazy example of AT and shame on both seller and buyer (the latter with more money than sense). Nevertheless, on that particular video the man DOES talk sense. What is the slightest bit controversial or unreasonable about (1) buying the coin not the slab or number, and (2) pointing out inconsistencies in grading due to damage inflicted before slabbing that hadn't yet shown up during the slabbing process? Is the video taken at face value controversial or unreasonable? No, not at all! But, there is also nothing profound or novel about it. Knowing who Rick Tomaska is, I see the video as nothing more than his normal drivel encouraging people to buy only the supposed "one of a kind" coins that he has in his inventory. Or phrased another way, his way of trying to justify the absolutely absurd asking prices of many of the coins in his inventory. I don't need a greasy haired "car-salesman-type" dealer to tell me what to look for in a coin. Especially a dealer whose entire business model is to fleece people for coins that are over-hyped and often unsightly. That was my point -- I found it rather ironic that the poster-child for someone who was "speaking truth" was someone of such ill-repute as this. YOU saw that, based on prior knowledge. I didn't see it at all - I saw a commonsense tutorial on buying coins that, despite not being 'profound or novel', seems to be a lesson that some of your countrymen still need to learn. However, you have warned me off that individual as a dealer, and for that I thank you.

Welcome to the forums Rich I hope your name is an indicator of your budget! Seriously - George II and III are two very different beasts when it comes to collecting. George III is by far one of the most interesting and varied reigns in the whole history of coins. You have early copper with no silver (except extremely rare shillings); then you have a special one-off issue of shillings and sixpences; trade tokens; the industrialised production of copper coins by Matthew Boulton that ties in with the Industrial Revolution (and there are four distinct and different types of copper coin produced between 1797 and 1807); counterstamped Spanish reales to offset the shortage of silver; a Bank of England dollar; regal silver tokens for non-standard amounts; and if that wasn't enough, you then had a total Recoinage and a switch to 'token' coinage from 1816, plus an issue of crowns that was a special thing in itself. George II is fairly run of the mill by comparison, with types that continue from the later issues of George I, and reverse designs that continue the main motifs from Charles II onwards. Yet.. even allowing for the vast array of different types, you could put together a collection of George III for much less outlay than his predecessor : the early coppers can be found in VF (+) without breaking the bank; the 1787 silver - despite recent rises - is very affordable in high grade; the Recoinage silver, especially shillings and sixpences, is very cheap (though a decent crown will set you back a few hundred £); the copper issues from 1797 - 1807 are surprisingly affordable even in high grade; and so on. George II silver - with the exception of 1758 shillings, and the 1745/46 LIMA issues - is very pricey, especially if you look at the values of halfcrowns and crowns in high grade. On the other hand, you would need far fewer coins to assemble a complete type collection of George II, so it's kind of swings and roundabouts. But even so, it's a fascinating century to major on.

Still going strong, Peter! 17 days since I smoked properly, and 13 since my last puff (which wasn't strictly tobacco, but I'm not risking smoking that either this early on....too risky). Money seems to be behaving very strangely - appears to arrive in my pocket and stay there. It's never done that before... The solution to that is a vaporiser - no smoke involved.

Interestingly, FileMaker Pro (a database manager) makes such a thing possible, though I have never ever explored how to do it.

Funny you quote this guy. He is one of the most skeazy and unrespected dealers in the USA market. Maybe your opinions of him and his thoughts will change when viewing his website, with laughable asking prices (look at this one which SOLD!!!: http://www.randicoins.com/store/pc/SOLD-1948-P-FRANKLIN-NGC-MS-68-STAR-FBL-6p1147.htm). That coin is a crazy example of AT and shame on both seller and buyer (the latter with more money than sense). Nevertheless, on that particular video the man DOES talk sense. What is the slightest bit controversial or unreasonable about (1) buying the coin not the slab or number, and (2) pointing out inconsistencies in grading due to damage inflicted before slabbing that hadn't yet shown up during the slabbing process?

When it gets there and the buyer finds out it's a farthing, there'll be tears. Often the small coins are assumed to be pennies by uninitiated sellers! Considering the nearest sized coin is a 1 pee, I suppose you can understand it.

I'd rate it GF/AF i.e. an overall grade of Fine.

I's be interested to know of Sheldon said anything about eye appeal and colour when Adding the grade or of it was purely down to wear on the coin as to what number was assigned I don't think so - but here's the link: http://www.ebay.com/gds/The-Sheldon-Grading-System-Explained-/10000000176470343/g.html