DaveG38

A quick additional update. I've now also found a 2004 penny with no portcullis studs, even though the normal type is type 2 i.e. with incuse edges to the studs. Also, on the 2000 specimens, I've found three types. All are type 2, but there are three minor types: 1. The '1' points to left of a bead and there is a wide gap between the letters and the rim. 2. The '1' points to left of a bead and there is a narrower gap between the letters and the rim. 3. The '1' points to the right of a bead.

Should we now start to call him Droolin' Declan do you think?

You're the man, Dave! Whilst I'll never be collecting in this field, or will ever check my change (even though I do occasionally look at my 20p's), I totally respect the methodology and dedication!Great stats...and just when Declan thought he was free! Coinery, I've no intention of continuing this kind of study again - it was extremely tedious - so I'm not likely to be reporting on the twopence etc. However, I am overawed by those earlier numismatists in the dying days of £SD, who studied all the pre-decimal material before it disappeared. One individual examined around 250,000 specimens. The name V R Court springs to mind, but there were many others, plus Ron Stafford who examined much post decimal 'silver'. Dave G

OK, the survey is complete. 2118 pennies have been checked and here's the results: 1971 63 All type 1 1973 13 All type 1 1974 11 All type 1 1975 12 All type 1 1976 13 All type 1 1977 18 All type 1 1978 11 All type 1 1979 21 All type 1 1980 20 All type 1 1981 17 All type 1 1982 12 All type 1 1983 12 All type 1 1984 12 All type 1 1985 9 All type 1 1986 13 All type 1 1987 33 All type 1 1988 55 All type 1 1989 32 All type 1 1990 36 All type 1 1991 13 type 1 1 type 2 1992 31 type 2 1993 25 type 1 15 type 2 1994 40 type 1 42 type 2 1995 20 type 2 1996 51 type 2 1997 42 type 2 1998 74 type 2 1999 78 type 2 2000 93 type 2 2001 162 type 2 2002 62 type 2 2003 116 type 2 2004 90 type 2 2005 71 type 2 2006 56 type 2 2007 41 type 1 43 type 2 2008 30 type 1 1 type 2 2008 49 New Type 2009 84 New Type 2010 102 New Type 2011 91 New Type 2012 179 New Type 2013 2 New Type Based on this, it looks like type 1 and 2 varieties occur for the years 1991, 1993, 1994, 2007 and 2008. If the numbers are to be believed, the 1991 type 2 is fairly scarce and the 2008 type 2 is rather rarer. One thing that was quite clear from this survey is that the quality of the strike varies considerably for both types. On type 1 reverses, there are many examples where the portcullis rivets are almost worn away, even where the coin still has lustre present. Similarly some of the type 2 reverses show nearly missing rivets, particularly on the left hand side. All in all, either there are many weakly struck specimens or, perhaps more likely, worn punches have been used leading to details not being struck up properly. The one exception to this was 2004, where I have found a coin without any sign of any rivets, and this specimen still retains much of it's lustre. I can't, in all honesty conclude that it is a weakly struck type 1 although I am pretty sure that it isn't a type 2, as there is no sign of any incuse cutting into the coin, where the rivets should be.

Dave, please! Life's too short! I know, but its been a lovely sunny day, I've been out walking on the coast, had a very nice pub lunch and a relaxing sunbathe in the late afternoon, so I'm nicely relaxed for a bit of eyeglass work.

So far, I've looked through 400 pennies and found that the two types are present in 1991, 1993, 1994, and interestingly 2007. Only 1600 more to look through!!

Excellent.

Drat and double drat - yet another addition to the book. The possibility of varieties in the decimal series is something I mention in my books, as basically most large scale studies of decimal coins seem to have stopped around 1982 or so. Since then I haven't been able to find any studies, leaving the field clear for anyone to carry out this work and go down in numismatic history - or at least get a mention on here! I'm unclear exactly which years have the type 1 and type 2 portcullis, so can't be sure whether there are varieties in individual years. However, a quick check through my pot of copper waiting to go to the bank shows that all pre-1994 are type 1 and post 1997 are type 2. However, in 1994, I have found both types, so clearly either the changeover occurred in 1994 or the two reverse dies were used for several years and I haven't yet found any examples to back this up. At the risk of extreme boredom, I might go down to the bank and take out a significant amount of copper with the idea of trying to establish the 'rules' for this design change.

I should mention there are no bids on that auction, though. So it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of their price. Mmm. Assuming these are sterling silver, then there's just under 12 ounces of silver. Current silver price is £15 approx, so scrap value would be around £180. Makes £175 look about right. Beyond this they have little value to a collector, since they aren't the kind of thing that most collectors want. Edit: Paulus got there first and with a much more specific price at £168.

Am I the only one who finds this whole trend very depressing, even though it does push up the paper values of many coins in my collection?

This is a difficult one, becasue although the grade of the coin is quite good (around VF??) the extensive corrosion and verdigris takes the value down considerably. Add to this the fact that for some reason, halfpennies are less popular than pennies and it becomes quite difficult to value. Then factor in the ebay effect and who knows. I'd go slightly better than Paulus at around £150ish on a good day.

According to the Mellors and Kirk headline, this is a single collection auction. That's one hell of an expensive collection - all that gold and the proof sets!!

My other half's only interest in coins lies with spending them!!

I appreciate that London Coins is a reputable auctioneers, with plenty of experience, but are we absolutely sure that their assessment of this crown is correct. As far as I can see, the weight they quote is correct give or take 0.1gm and their only criterion for it being a fake is a small bubble or two on the reverse. Given the era it was struck in, it seems to me to be perfecty possible for a flan to show small flaws - after all they show up on coins almost uo to the present day. Is that really enough to condemn this coin I wonder, or are there other factors that they haven't quoted?

Eh? I just browsed the September catalogue online and there isn't a single wreath crown in there, that I can see? Lots 2061 to 2081?

I've just been looking through the London Coins catalogue and was struck by the collection of wreath crowns being sold, almost all of which are well worn. It's almost as if the seller set out to buy the lowest grade he/she could find.

Perhaps the answer to this lies in the question of how the Royal Mint actually distributed these crowns. Were they simply put out to banks for people to buy as souvenirs or were they actually put into circulation. Or were people invited to buy them direct, rather like the RE Proof of 1935. Anybody know as it might give a clue to the issue of wear?

Some certainly were, as the degree of wear is well beyond normal handling or keeping in change. The 1934 I saw, from a local dealer, was a poor fine and well worn. No way was that just a bit of handling wear. Going by Derek's grading book, I'd say the obverse was almost exactly like the illustration at the top of page 88 and the reverse, if anything, was worse than that on page 225.

I've seen one in no better than fine condition, so why not a currency piece?

Dave, I just took a look at Martin Platt's 1860, that you guys referred too...in my opinion it really is a Mule...FYI! Ha,Ha Bob, Fair enough - from the pic, I didn't like the look of the bead like teeth. Maybe more obvious in hand. Either way, at £1250 and cleaned, I'm not interested.

Some of those obverse 'teeth' look very bead like to me.

Here's his website, although curiously it makes reference to the prices he will pay for coins by reign and grade, but apparently doesn't list any for sale, apart from gold. http://www.malcolmelliscoins.co.uk/

That's REALLY weird. The first time I clicked on one of those links I was taken to the Photobucket site itself and watched paint dry while it finally decided to load the image. Then I clicked Goback and returned here. When I clicked the link a second time, I instantly got just the jpeg image on its own, and nothing else - no Photobucket. How is that even possible? At a guess, I'd say from the temp files on your PC.

Apparently this is a 'nice grade.' http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1914-KING-GEORGE-V-BRITISH-GB-FARTHING-COIN-NICE-GRADE-/161073593496?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item2580bbfc98

I don't know, but that's a very, very nice coin. Personally, I'd be inclined to send it to the American guy for a professional restoration. The damage would then become almost invisible and the result would be a fabulous coin, and I could easily live with it.