DaveG38

There's also one in the Lockdales auction on 16 May - Lot number 197. Like others on this thread, its in VG condition.

Just like buses these things all come along at once. My other half amuses herself working in a shop for a few hours most days, and I usually check through the till for anything interesting. Blow me today if I don't find a NI £2 coin as well!!

Talking about shells, has anyone heard the rumour that WWI shell cases were melted down and added to the alloy for bronze coins? I only ever heard about this once, in a Whitman folder of key date pennies I picked up at auction. Among the 'usual suspects', there was a 1920 and 1921 with what looks like brass flecks scattered through the planchet. The previous owner had added a note that this was due to "WWI shell cases". I've still got them and I guess if there is interest I could scan and upload pictures. When I was in the midst of assembling my shilling collection, I read somewhere that the 1920 shilling was 50% spent shell casing. I thought I remembered where I read it, but when I looked it wasn't there. So it must have been somewhere else. At any rate, the assertion, wherever it is, was totally believable to me, as my UNC 1920 shilling is definitely slightly darker than its peers of that era. Got it ~ click here Scroll down to 1921 Not that some bod on the internet is necessarily going to know more than you or I, but it does confirm the belief. Would have been useful if he'd given a source. Its certainly true that the silver content changed in 1920 from 92.5% silver to an alloy containing 50% silver, 40%copper and 10% nickel. This latter alloy is described by Davies as being from old shell casings - if this is correct then the casings were not technically brass as this is an alloy of copper and zinc, not copper and nickel. Davies also comments that an alloy containing 45% copper and 5% Manganese was used, but in 1923 the content was again changed this time to 50/50 silver/copper. So far as the coins go, these changes show in the overall colour of the final finish, which is grey and relatively dull for the earlier alloys and brighter for the post 1923.

Thanks Dave. It makes you wonder if there might even be a health risk from such fakes, consisting as they do, of depleted uranium. Although it does look as though such risks would be extremely slight. link The uranium used for shells is depleted from processing and thus has a lower radiation level than normal uranium, so its technically less radioactively hazardous. Close to the action, the danger posed by depleted uranium is from breathing in the dust from an explosion i.e. when a shell explodes against a tank. Then the uranium gets into the body and stays there!! Nasty. Ordinary uranium is not especially dangerous - I've got some as uranium nitrate and acetate at home left over from my student chemistry days - and its perfectly safe in a glass tube. In the pockets? Well that's another matter, but I don't usually carry sovereigns or other gold coinage about my person, so I'm not too worried.

I was caught out by a couple of fake sovereigns a year or so ago. They weren't particularly well forged and the seller refunded promptly enough, so no problem. However, they were obtained by the seller from the middle east, via, so they claimed, a relative. They were the correct weight and size and as stated had to have been made by plating another metal rather than being made from 22 ct gold. The clue to them came from them being mildly radioactive!! What were they made of - almost certainly depleted uranium left over from exploded munitions from the Gulf war in Kuwait. Uranium is the densest of all metals so its easy to see why it was chosen. The moral of this story? Buy a geiger counter!! A must have for all coin collectors. I must admit, I thought osmium was the densest (and heaviest) of the metals. But yu may be right, it's just an observation and it certainly doesn't detract from your very interesting point You are right that Osmium is somewhat denser than uranium, as are Platinum and Iridium. However, these are all rare metals and would hardly be used for counterfeiting gold. Uranium, on the other hand is quite close to gold in density, so that size/weight of a counterfeit can be got right without it being obvious. The other great advantage is that there is loads of it about. Basically, depleted uranium is a waste product from uranium enrichment and has virtually no other use than to make tank-busting shell casings - hence the reason why there are loads of fragments of this stuff all over parts of the middle east.

I was caught out by a couple of fake sovereigns a year or so ago. They weren't particularly well forged and the seller refunded promptly enough, so no problem. However, they were obtained by the seller from the middle east, via, so they claimed, a relative. They were the correct weight and size and as stated had to have been made by plating another metal rather than being made from 22 ct gold. The clue to them came from them being mildly radioactive!! What were they made of - almost certainly depleted uranium left over from exploded munitions from the Gulf war in Kuwait. Uranium is the densest of all metals so its easy to see why it was chosen. The moral of this story? Buy a geiger counter!! A must have for all coin collectors.

When you look at the quality, finish and toning of some of the Chinese fakes, its very worrying, since almost anybody, including dealers could be taken in, once the counterfeit coin has entered the UK collecting system. The 1763 shillings are extremely well done as I am sure are other types, including the rare US silver dollars. Now, so far as your seller goes, it seems to me that there are two possible positions, bearing in mind the other coins he is selling. Firstly, it is perfectly possible that all his coins are legitimate. Certainly some of the more common, nice condition ones are and they would not really justify the cost of forging. The second position is that this seller has a fair number of legitimate coins in nice condition which he sells perfectly fairly, but in between he has a number of counterfeits and these are the rarer, more expensive types. In other words, he is deliberately hiding his forgeries in with other material, so as to appear a bona fide seller. Which type is he? Don't know, but azda's advice about not buying from China sounds pretty good to me, especially when you consider that China seems to be the faking capital of the world. DaveG38

£400 for a Penny The obvious lady dealer is Curlietailz, who is, I seem to remember, Sue Smith from Cleveland, trading as 'Ye Olde banknote Shoppe'.

A currency issue 1839 half crown sold on ebay US during Christmas holidays, it was in about Very Good to Fair and it sold for around £900 if I remember correctly, I think that was grossly overpriced considering you can buy one in VF for £2500-£3000. I wouldnt be prepared to pay more than £800 for one in Fine... if I was collecting.. Mat, Its these prices which deter me from completing some areas of my collection - I simply am not that interested in spending that kind of money even for good condition fillers. I'm probably being short sighted, but there are limits! Unless the lottery comes along of course......

My collecting habits were formed in my childhood, during the era of Brooke Bond Tea Cards. Put simply, when a new design came out, I had to collect them all - after all what's the use of an album with a couple of gaps in it. Its the same with coins, I simply collect all English milled back as far as I can. And that's all denominations. The only thing I have drawn a line at is patterns - I think because I don't regard them as 'real' coins. Otherwise its farthings all the way back to 1672, including the James Tin and the 1689. Halfpennies ditto, but I still need a 1686 to complete. Pennies to 1797. Maundy I'm still infilling from 1800 back - not sure why I am not interested in going forwards, although the sheer volume of material would make it both expensive and fairly boring. Sixpences and shillings back to around 1730ish, with plenty of earlier coins, but also gaps - WCC in particular in the George I series of shillings. Halfcrowns and crowns mainly complete back to around 1739, but with odd gaps. Florins all except 1863. Gold is much more problematic so I only collect London Mint - so far back to 1900 only, but it has got very expensive. Mostly the later coins are around GVF-EF, with the earlier mostly around F-VF. The exceptions are the rarities which I simply buy the best I can find - try finding a 1689 halfpenny in VF!! My main problem now is finding and being able to afford the more difficult coins. If anybody's got a nice cheap 1934 Crown, 1863 florin, 1841 and 1839 halfcrown, a 1823 1st bust halfcrown or an 1816 three shillings then I'd be pleased to hear from them!!! So, I'm afraid I'm a date filler - there's something very satisfying about sliding a coin into a long outstanding gap. A really nice moment when I found a 1854 sixpence, even though it wasn't in great condition!! For reasons I can't explain, I don't have much interest in threepences, so I go back to 1834 and only a few further back.

Hi all, I've just acquired a William and Mary tin halfpenny - the 1692 edge/1691 date type in GF -VF condition and I wonder if anybody has access to Peck for details of the varieties. I've checked mine against the Nicholson types on the Colin Cooke website and it doesn't seem to be exactly the same as either of them. If possible, I would like to compare its features to those specified by Peck, so could anybody with a copy of Peck post the details for me?

All varieties read NVMMORVM FAMVLVS then the date. It's what's between that differs. N . . F . 1690 . N * F * 1690 * N F * 1690 * N * F * 1690 N *+ F . 1690 +* N *+ F . 1690 * N *+ F . 1691 +* N *+ F . 1691 * N ++ F . 1691 + N + F . 1691 + N + F . 1692 + (1691 in exergue - your coin?) N ++ F . 1692 ++ No varieties listed for obverse or reverse. Listed as 'second issue'. Peckris, Thank you for taking the trouble with this for me. Its interesting as Peck only identifies a single type whilst Nicholson had two different ones in his collection and my new addition is different again from both of these. Basically, my edge is as you describe for the 1691/92 type according to both Peck and Nicholson. However, Nicholson had one specimen where the 'A's of Maria are unbarred and one where the bars are in place. Both the Nicholson specimens have stops on the obverse after GULIELMVS and after MARIA. In my case, the 'A's are barred, but there are no stops on the obverse anywhere, suggesting it might be yet another variety of this date combination.

Aardhawk, Many thanks for your heroic efforts regarding the 1969 ten pences. I can well understand the tedium of variety checking large numbers of the same coin type. I was always in awe of J. C. Rudge who counted milling nicks on pre-decimal coins to show that the Mint used this as a kind of mint marking process, leading to what might be called micro-varieties for each date. Surely nobody would ever want to collect using this level of minor difference, would they.........???? So far as your data goes it all seems clear to me. The only possible issue is this matter of the two sets of measurements of sizes. I have seen the 24.15mm figure quoted alongside the 24.25 and 24.5mm sizes and I agree this was probably a misprint. However, I have seen the figures quoted where the size starts at 23.75mm and then includes 24.15mm. I guess this difference arises from the issue of where the measurements were taken from. As you say nobody is able to peer review this to check for certain. For my book, I have also found several other references to minor varieties for this date, based on the diadem jewels and these apply to both the obverse 2 types and the Wiles and Mackenzie obverse 6 type, but as Peter say this is a pre-decimal forum and so I think this is as far as I need to go without inducing yamns and driving readers commatose. Once again, many thanks. DaveG38

Yes, I know the boring old early 10 pence series! I have a basic question that I would be grateful for help with from any members who happen to have decimal in their collections. It goes like this: According to Davies, the 1969 ten pence has a single type with the 3+B die pairing. Obverse 3 has, according to Davies small incuse lines above the eye, forming an eyebrow. My own specimen doe not have this feature, nor does it have the incuse lines to the hair behind the ear. I've had a look at the best specimen I can find on the net for comparison and that too seems to be like mine. This would imply that Davies is wrong. The alternative is that I have an, as yet, unrecorded type, which given the work done on this in the 1970s, seems unlikely. So could you check your own specimens and let me know what types you have, so that I can settle this properly? Thanks. DaveG38

You could always try having a mad and passionate affair with your secretary (or anyone else's for that matter). That would divert her attention and, trust me, she just wouldn't notice those little brown envelopes anymore! I have my many little brown envelopes delivered to work. Mrs D is still suspicious I'm afraid that I have the opposite problem. Mrs G has crap, sorry goods, flying through the letter box from every fashion house you can think of, so much so that she is keen for me to spend more, in order to redress the balance! I'm going for a new stereo shortly, a rather nice telescope and a bloody expensive Yamaha synthesiser and she's disappointed that it all come to less than £4k.

Aardhawk, A bit of a cheek, I know, but any chance that you could scan the articles and email them to me? I'm trying to definitively work out the series of 10ps through the 60s and 70s and am finding it a nightmare given that there is Davies, Wiles and Mackenzie and Ron Stafford's attempts, all of which are different, and sometimes changed as new discoveries were made!! Sealy's view would be another layer of information, but might help clarify what I have done already. Alternatively, can you identify which issues of Coin and Medals have these articles in them, as this could allow me either to find them on the web for sale, or I could approach the publisher to see if they have them in an archive and if so whether I can consult them? Somewhere, I have a Ron Stafford survey from circa 1980, where he reviews the numbers of each obverse and reverse, by date, found in a fairly large sample. Unfortunately, as far as I remember, it doesn't detail the actual differences, presumably because he must have thought that any reader who cared would have kept the original article? (I never actually had the original sadly). If this is any use I could scan and upload it for you. Peckris, Thank you very much for the offer. Unfortunately, I already have the article in question - its in Dec 1983 of coin news. The annoying thing about Stafford's survey is that correlating it with Davies and with the earlier Wiles and Mackenzie surveys is tricky. I think I've done it, but Aardhawk's example of a 1969 with obverse 2 has thrown up a variety that none of these commentators mention - hence my interest in what David Sealy has to say.

Aardhawk, A bit of a cheek, I know, but any chance that you could scan the articles and email them to me? I'm trying to definitively work out the series of 10ps through the 60s and 70s and am finding it a nightmare given that there is Davies, Wiles and Mackenzie and Ron Stafford's attempts, all of which are different, and sometimes changed as new discoveries were made!! Sealy's view would be another layer of information, but might help clarify what I have done already. Alternatively, can you identify which issues of Coin and Medals have these articles in them, as this could allow me either to find them on the web for sale, or I could approach the publisher to see if they have them in an archive and if so whether I can consult them?

Hi Reluctant, This is where the anoraks come out to play!! If you look extremely carefully at the RH coin you can just see very faint lines above the queen's eyelids, which are not present on the LH example. As Aardhawk says, tilting the coin against the light would probably show these better.Also, if you look at the hair immediately behind and above the eye on the RH coin, you can see that it has at least one quite long additional line cut into it, which isn't there on the left - there are also several others in the hair, but you get the idea. Also noticeable is the fact that the jewels to the diadem on the LH coin are slightly larger than on the right. All this makes for a variety and, believe it or not, turns some of us on!! DaveG38 PS: Incuse simple means cut into the coin rather than raised.

Aadhawk, Thank you for this. I think this now explains my confusion very nicely. Davies, in his book, only describes a single obverse type (obverse 3) for the 1969 10p yet my own example is clearly obverse 2 i.e. it has no incuse lines in the eyebrow or hair. I assumed, therefore, that Davies' explanatory notes must be the wrong way round. However, now that you confirm that there are two types of 1969 10p, it becomes clear that Davies' was describing the obverse 3 version in his book and, therefore, his descriptions are correct as far as they go. Equally clearly, he must not have been aware of the obverse 2 type, or he would presumably have included it in his catalogue system. Once again, thanks for helping clear this up. One other thing I'm interested in (really geeky this, probably no-one else will be!) is the difference in finish that was used - I think starting from 1969? All 1968 cupro-nickel - if I remember correct - has what you would call a 'silk' or 'semi matte' finish, which to my mind was gorgeous. Many 1969 coins, including possibly ALL the 50 pences?, have this too but some 1969s brought in an uglier mirrored finish. The mirrored look gradually took over until by the early 80s all cupro-nickel had it. Certainly by the mid-70s all 10p's were mirrored, but I'm sure I remember seeing 5p's dated 1978 - 1980 that may have still had a silkier finish? I've never been quite sure what the Mint's thinking was on this. Peckris, I'm not exactly sure about the dates of changeover, but for reasons best known to the Mint, those 10ps minted at Llantrisant have a shiny finish whilst those minted at the London Mint have a matt finish. Another issue is the changes made to the dies in 1972 when they were produced in a single punched operation, whereas previously the process was two staged. This led to some changes to the quality of the strike as well as the 'ledges' that were found on coins of that time. The mint also chrome plated the dies in the early 70s, which again changed the quality of the finish. So, all in all, the mint were mucking about quite a bit around that time. Not sure exactly what changes led to which finish and when, but hope this helps a little.

Aadhawk, Thank you for this. I think this now explains my confusion very nicely. Davies, in his book, only describes a single obverse type (obverse 3) for the 1969 10p yet my own example is clearly obverse 2 i.e. it has no incuse lines in the eyebrow or hair. I assumed, therefore, that Davies' explanatory notes must be the wrong way round. However, now that you confirm that there are two types of 1969 10p, it becomes clear that Davies' was describing the obverse 3 version in his book and, therefore, his descriptions are correct as far as they go. Equally clearly, he must not have been aware of the obverse 2 type, or he would presumably have included it in his catalogue system. Once again, thanks for helping clear this up.

Thank you for this. Yours is the same as mine and as such has no little lines above the queen's eye. This means that it can't be Davies 3+B type because obverse 3 according to Davies does have the incuse lines. Since ours are of the only known type for 1969, then clearly Davies' book is wrong. My guess is that in the production, obverse 2 and 3 got flipped somehow, which would explain the error. Davies is the author of a book entitled 'English Silver Coinage since 1816' and is something of a bible for silver collectors since it does contain a large amount of info concerning varieties. However, he's not the only cataloguer of silver, but he is an important one.

Hi all, I have just been reviewing some old coin monthly mags from the1970s - sad isn't it? And I came across a couple of what were referred to at the time as 'reader's rarities' and I wondered if any body knew what happened to the actual coins and if any others have been discovered. One such was the 1671 Charles II crown with the quarto edge date, of which I have an example, and I have come across a couple of other examples over the years, but I have never seen another 1847 sixpence, nor have I found a 1903/2 penny. These last two seem to be as rare as the 1954 penny or the 1952 halfcrown, but have never had quite the same hype. Does anybody know anything about either of these? There are other coins, but these are two which stood out for me.

Not necessarily, it may be the case that dies were prepared but in the event were not used. This makes overdates more likely, why throw away perfectly good unused dies just because the year is wrong? Simple solution... change the year. I think you are quite right that the dies were prepared in readiness, but simply weren't used for 1847 and then were recut for 1848. My guess is that the coin I saw in Coin Monthly, which was only in fair/fine condition at best and had obviously been in circulation, was some kind of trial striking to see how the dies stood up and was simply dumped into circulation by the mint - after all they weren't there to engineer a rare date for the collector, and they probably saw this as a useful way to get some use out of the trail strikings. For me the interesting thing is whether there were any more, whether they all eventually got melted down, or whether there are others out there. also, of course, where is the example from CM?

Currently my constant companions are Dave Grooms Bronze coin Varities and Dereks grading British Coins, probably in that order. Gary Gary, Thank you very much for the free 'plug.' However, I really don't see my book as well written as its aim was always to just layout all the indicators for collectors, more a case of extensively researched, I feel. From some of your 'finds' lately, I get the impression it's done you well as a source book, for which I'm pleased. I don't know if you are into silver as well as bronze, but if so, then watch out for the sister book, 'The Identification of British 20th Century Silver Coin Varieties.' I've just about finished all the pre-decimal material and am just stating the research for the decimal series. Should be ready in a few months and contains many varieties either not described in Davies or which are just given a passing mention. As in the case of the bronze, I have tried to include all the features from all the sources, so that it is easy to unambiguously distinguish the types.

I'm still having trouble finding and example of the dot to dot 1992 10 pence and the 20 pence of that year with the earlier (smaller) effigy. I am beginning to think that the only way will be to go to the bank and search through bags full of change to find them. They certainly don't turn up in the pocket!!