Chingford

The most obvious feature of the forgery is an elongated serif to the 1 in the date, I only have a poor image of a forgery listed last year on Ebay, I have paired it with the Nicholsons coin.

wind?

It's a very rare coin by modern standards. If you've seen one go for £2700, then that's what one person was prepared to pay for one. The only thing against it is that it's a decimal coin, and - 20p mule aside - is the only well known decimal rarity, in a market that's dominated by over-priced Royal Mint issues and slashed-price secondary market decimals. I don't see Charles coming to the throne will make any difference to its value, and whether you keep hold of it depends entirely on your needs and wants. If you're a coin collector, £2,700 would buy you some very nice 20th Century items, or a smaller number of pre-20thC coins. I know what I'd do! Yeah, I'd sell it in a heartbeat, although I think £2,700 is unrealistic.....but you never know. £2,700 would buy a nice 1869 penny, when one becomes available. I looked up the auction, seems it was never completed as the coin was relisted at £1,750.00 a couple of weeks after but was ended early, also all buyers were listed private. I have seen them sell for circa £1,200.00 genuinely.

I'd like to wish all Forum members and readers a very Merry Christmas and a Happy prosperous New year.

Commonly but incorrectly. Technically an evasion has some legend alteration so that it stands out from the official coinage,eg "GEORGE RULES" This is certainly a contemporary forgery halfpenny based on the mint dies. Well, a date of 1776 would certainly qualify as an evasion, then! Sounds more like an evacuation!

To me this reads as a 1971 and 2011 mint set covered in gold leaf in a pretty box, value, the decimal point should be moved one to the left.

I think you are on the right line, coincidentally the only other year that saw this number of overdates/reuse of dies was 1848, and the same numbers were in use as well 3, 6 and 7

These were the two coins decided as 8/2 by the Royal Mint, the three pointers are the same as found on the 53/2 Halfpenny, Top of the 2 showing top left hand, diagonal of 2 within the bottom loop from right to left and point protruding bottom left

Bramahs points out, there are several varieties of 57, Michael Gouubys site show all the different types of 7 and spacings, As Rob has pointed out most 58/3 could be attributed in some way to overdates over 7 because of this enormous variety. Personally I haven't seen a coin that I would say 100% is a 8/3, The 58/2 theory only came to about when I acquired Jessops coin, there was record of a Royal Mint letter saying that they believed it to be 58/2, I showed it to Michael Gouby, around the same time a similar coin with the paperwork sold on Ebay, but I was the underbidder. It was when Michael was writing up an Auction Catalogue a couple of years later, he came across the same coin type and rightly recorded it in the catalogue as 58/2 detailing why and at the same time published his Spink article to coincide with the auction. Unfortunately I am having problems with Photoshop and will try to add a close up image of the Jessops Coin this evening John

Bramahs points out, there are several varieties of 57, Michael Gouubys site show all the different types of 7 and spacings, As Rob has pointed out most 58/3 could be attributed in some way to overdates over 7 because of this enormous variety. Personally I haven't seen a coin that I would say 100% is a 8/3, The 58/2 theory only came to about when I acquired Jessops coin, there was record of a Royal Mint letter saying that they believed it to be 58/2, I showed it to Michael Gouby, around the same time a similar coin with the paperwork sold on Ebay, but I was the underbidder. It was when Michael was writing up an Auction Catalogue a couple of years later, he came across the same coin type and rightly recorded it in the catalogue as 58/2 detailing why and at the same time published his Spink article to coincide with the auction. Unfortunately I am having problems with Photoshop and will try to add a close up image of the Jessops Coin this evening John

The coin I have as 1858/3 has been discussed in the past, and I now believe it is something else altogether. I really haven't studied the copper overdates, certainly not to the extent of someone like John (Chingford) but I'm keen to get a better knowledge. Anyway, for comparison, here's my (probably not) 8/3: That looks like a lower and higher 8. The debate over the 1858/3 has gone on for years and Michael Gouby has spent a considerable amount of time on it. However, this coin has the crossbar of the 7 showing on top of the 8 whereas this is not seen on others and there is also the remains of the downstrike crossing the base of the 8. It also has the top left angle of the small 5 superimposed on the large 5 in quite high relief. It's always a good thing when they don't fill the old digits in perfectly. . I can feel a short note in the Circular coming on and that's one less entry in Peck unless someone can come up with a suitable alternative. It's a great shame that Peck's notes have gone walkabout as it would have been useful to see what he noted against each variety and in particular this one given its ambiguity. Unfortunately I've only got his notes for the first ten years of the bronze coinage. You may be right about my coin, though it does exhibit a portion of what is potentially a '3' to the lower right of the '8' (the 3's do protrude more) and there's no evidence of the lower part of a 'higher' 8 anywhere at the bottom. Have you got a small date '57 to compare with your coin? I only have a poor photo, but comparing to this the serif on the 7 of your coin is way too short. I'm not convinced its a 58/7. I have added the descriptions from Braham that Peck relates to in his notes regarding 1858 overdates 1858 25. O.—As type. w. w. on truncation. B.—As type. 25a. ALTERED DATE. O.—As the obv. of No. 25 but the die has been altered from 1857. At least five dies have been altered in this way, the varieties being perceptible by the slightly differing positions of the 8 in relation to the 7 below it. JR.—As type. 25b. ALTERED DATE. O.—As the obv. of No. 25 but the die has been altered from 1853. The upper terminal of 3 shows to left of upper loop of 8, the upper curve of 3 within upper loop of 8. No trace of lower part of 3. B.—As type. 25c. ALTERED DATE. O.—As the obv. of No. 25 but the last figure of date has been altered though it is not obvious from what. At left base of 8 is a knob, like the lower terminal of a 3 or a 5, pro¬truding slightly inside the loop. Higher, inside same loop, are two dots, as the remains of a line. But on right side of 8, between its loops, is a shallow vertical stroke, irreconcilable with a 3 or a 5. B.—As type. 26. O.—As type. No initials on truncation. B.—As type. 26a. MISCELLANEOUS. O.—As the obv. of No. 26. B.—The first i is without serifs. John

Very nice example, others examples I have seen have the 5 looking like it is slowly slipping downwards, closing the gap between the loop and top bar, seems to happen on a few of the 1850s dates, also Halfpennies, 53 and 55 come to mind. I have seen them listed as 5/6 on Ebay but definately 5/5 as Numisdan very good images/overlays show. I'll post some images of other examples later tonight John

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360490069416;jsessionid=7EB0503E42F64FC75A72D7D6BFBA59A3?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_sacat%3D0%26_nkw%3D360490069416%26_rdc%3D1

Not me! Just thinking if he had gone to the right of the Lighthouse, it would have been rarer still

Make your own rarity! seems some Ebay sellers go to any length including the tool shed http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160889089740&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:GB:1123

Bramahs was before Peck and he lists more varieties than recorded by Peck, if you can find a copy A Guide to the varieties and rarity of English Regal Copper coins Charles II 1671 - Victoria 1860 Ernest Bramah Still not a complete guide as many are still unrecorded. John

Hello Bob, Yes, Michael has quick a good article on his website reagrding pennies, clearer in explanation than above and with some images, but the feature extends to Halfpennies, probably Farthings too

Very rare, the reverse is likely from the 1841 proof die, the mane to Britainniars helmet and repaired 2nd A in Britainniar are consistent. John

The feature you decribe is more obvious on pennies, because of the size difference, but is fairly common to Victorian copper pennies and halfppennies It is caused by dies clashing without a blank, the feature is the gap between Britainniars arm and body just above the shield, being transferred onto the obverse die, whilst it is incuse on the actual coin, it is raised on the die itself. John

I heard the Poles are still leading the table for Brass, Lead and copper

One to be wary of and has been reported as being a fake http://cgi.ebay.co.u...ME:B:SS:GB:1123 '1860 Halfpenny dug up in backyard', is actually a chinese fake, several of these were on Ebay along wirh 1845, 48 and 51 halfpennies a couple of years back, The distinguishing feature on all these coins is the extended serif on the first 1.

It is a recorded error, price depends very much on condition and type of issue i.e circulation or proof, generally Canadian dollars are between 50 and 80% silver, proofs around 90% try the following link http://www.coinsandcanada.com

Left 2 bids and got an acknowledgement back. Not heard any results yet. Results have just gone online

No worries azda after re-reading my post I see how it could be misunderstood. English Proof and Pattern Crown-Size Pieces, 1658-1960. H W A Linecar and A G Stone. 1968 116pp. Illustr. Standard ref Patterns listed with chapter and verse on their rarity Only Crown publication I can think of, try galata books, always has a good listing of publications

Gibraltar The Queen Elizabeth II 80th Birthday Portrait Gold Sovereign Collection 2006 a four coin set Proof FDC issue limited to 250 sets Only referenced set that comes up with the same/similar spec. if that is the one then it is a Westminster Collection set. Regards John