brauereibeck

If you're US based then why not try RLC Coins.

Don't spend the money on something else until you're certain. Once having not heard from an auction house I assumed I'd won nothing and spent the money elsewhere only to then get an emailed invoice a few days later. That was an expensive month. It wasn't Baldwin's though, London Coins in fact.

It's a 5 figure deal any day of the week.

I'd thought I'd kick off the 2000th topic (is there a prize Chris???) with this question: what is (if indeed there is such a thing) the most collectable post 2000 coin, or are they all pretty uninspiring?

The withdrawn one has this design I can see why they withdrew it, looks like she's been run over by the cycling team! Thanks for the info, I'll keep an eye out for it.

No! 'Most collectable' is a tough one because what people collect is subjective. Rarest is probably that Olympic swimmer 50p with the lines on the face that was withdrawn, or was just the Royal Mint being sloppy. As the public aren't aware of it though, it's not generally collected like the dateless 20p was. It was mentioned in Coin News but the press haven't picked it up.The Olympic 50p's are also being tucked away.(Even my mother keeps them) Is this the coin you're referring to, or is there a rarer variation that was withdrawn?

Well done. I should really pull my finger out and get a decent 1948 (don't care about the edge type) - it's a nasty gap in my collection. FWIW my AEF 1949 is the sharp edged variety, but it's not going spare! (Though I'd happily swap it for a similar round edge example as I don't care about the edge distinction - however if the 1949 sharp edge is notably scarcer I would probably hope to swap mine for a better example of the rounded edge). In my personal opinion I'd say the price differential between a standard (rounded) 1949 and a sharp edged has got to be a grade's worth i.e. if the value of a standard (rounded) aEF is, let's say, £125 then your sharp has got to be £200-250 (i.e. what you'd pay for an EF+ grade). Like I say, I base this on personal opinion rather than experience and indeed £250 may seem extravagant However, as you'll of course know, many of the George VI varieties can be fiedishly hard to find in decent grades. None more so than this one. My 1949 is a presentable EF but with quite a few smudges so, from your point of view, it wouldn't be a fair one-for-one swap.

Got this off ebay... Gap filled! Result! Still on lookout for a sharp cornered '49 if anyone has one going spare.

London Coins have one. CGS slabbed UNC80 1 of 6 joint finest. A snip at £100 http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=retailv2_details&coin=Penny+1915+George+V&uin=0018901

Has anyone seen this? http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=397&lotNo=13773 This sold for $48,875 in Jan 2006 and now seems to be back on the market. It got me thinking... I wonder if there's any feasible way to get a syndicate together to try to repatriate it back to the UK. You'd probably need about 100 plus people in the syndicate to stand any chance of buying it. Why would anyone stump up £300 or so just to own a 1/100th share of a coin? a) because it would be quite fun there are worse things to blow £300 on c) there could be some publicity/marketing potential in the whole enterprise (e.g. for this marvellous website of yours Chris). I'm not necessarily putting myself forward to organise it but I would be prepared to cough up £300 and chip in a few ideas.

I think the reason why my idea has gone down like a leadballoon is that I was too coy about the philosophical and, dare I say it,emotional side of it. So, I just want tobow out with this rather silly thought: Have you ever found yourself casually glancing through aprice guide for any given coin series only to find your attention momentarily drawnto the 1933 penny or the Edward VIII florin or one of the other untouchable SpecialOnes? Wow, you pause to wonder, whatwould it be like if I actually had one of those! I mean, these are the Holy Grail, these havean almost transcendent significance, these are objects that will still becoveted 10,000 years after my demise. The idea of owning one, being a part of the story of that object, havinga direct connection to that magical object, is so utterly, utterly compellingthat even if ownership were somewhat diluted it would still be a mouth wateringprospect. I told you it was silly.

Nice idea but it immediately raises a few questions for me: If it was run like a company, would taxes need to be paid and annual paperwork filled? would a solicitor need to be hired? If no one has the greatest share who makes the decisions? I suppose you could vote on which coin to buy next but there will always be some that aren't happy with the decisions. Also what happens if members want to keep buying coins and other members can't afford to? When do you sell? what happens if a member loses his/her job, retires or wants to sell up and cash out? Who is going to run the operation? if someone runs it will they be paid or do it for free? If they get paid do all the members chip in to pay them (this will be an additional ongoing cost). I would imagine there would be a fair amount of work eg. emailing, meetings, phone calls etc.. especially if there were many members to correspond with before any decision was made. Where would the coins be stored? Is there a max budget buying coins (for example if you asked around some members could maybe afford to chip in £100 others only £1000) There are probably more but those were just off the bat. There appear to be two versions of the idea on the thread. My original suggestion was for a number of people to get together to fund the acquisition of an important and prestigious British coin (there are a number of obvious candidates, this 3d just caught my eye). The other, much more complex, version of the idea that has emerged seems to be along the lines of acquiring a portfolio of coins. The absolute minimum for either of these versions to work would be to appoint solicitors and set up a website. The structure of the venture would be determined prior to it being launched (by the enthusiasts who would fund the initial outlay), therefore additional members would be opting in to something. If their circumstances or opinions later changed they could of course opt out by selling their share. A website would solve many of the organisational issues by acting as a communication hub (as well as many other functions). I personally would only sign up to something like this if it were run on the basis that the coin(s) are owned equally among all members (although some members would, out of enthusiasm for the enterprise, have a greater degree of administrative involvement).

Wouldn't that be fun? Set up a hedge fund and buy coins with it. I think most of us would run it pretty well. I'm sure somebody proposed doing that with wines on The Apprentice once. Seriously, this is an idea that I would entertain if it were run well. It would probably have to be set up like as a company with each member having the status of a director and shareholder. Maybe the best way to approach it would be to set it up first and THEN look around for the right coin(s). It would, I feel, have to be inclusive rather than exclusive i.e. the more members the better and no-one person having a greater share than any other.

I won one of these playing the Dolphin Derby on Brighton pier

Exactly, it would be like a time-share but without the sunburn. Actually some people buy vastly expensive bits of stuff like paintings etc only to then lend them out to a museum. I think what you would get is the idea of owning something. You would be part of the story of that object (my God, I sound like Dan Cruickshank!)

It's all about being a completist. As soon as a variety is found, everyone has a gap in their collection to be filled. As Peck says, they're not that rare (VR Court estimates 6:1 in favour of the more common variety) so can be picked up by the eagle-eyed at a very reasonable price. There's always a good feeling from paying standard money for a rarer variety. Just reading this thread and thought that, from the completist point of view, there are four 1944 penny varieties. The narrow date mint darkened, the wider date mint darkened, the narrow date not mint darkened/light hypo, and the wider date not mint darkened/light hypo. By 'narrow date' and 'wider date', I presume you're referring to the 'recut waves, clearly double exergue line' varieties? I think of it as top of the second 4 pointing TO a wave and, alternatively, pointing to the left of a wave. Am I wrong to assume the date is wider, is it just that the waves are cut differently? If you re-read this entire thread again (I don't have the energy!) you may well find there is a micro difference in date width - however, most references to the variety refer to the recut waves and clear doubled exergue lines. thanks for clarifying that

It's all about being a completist. As soon as a variety is found, everyone has a gap in their collection to be filled. As Peck says, they're not that rare (VR Court estimates 6:1 in favour of the more common variety) so can be picked up by the eagle-eyed at a very reasonable price. There's always a good feeling from paying standard money for a rarer variety. Just reading this thread and thought that, from the completist point of view, there are four 1944 penny varieties. The narrow date mint darkened, the wider date mint darkened, the narrow date not mint darkened/light hypo, and the wider date not mint darkened/light hypo. By 'narrow date' and 'wider date', I presume you're referring to the 'recut waves, clearly double exergue line' varieties? I think of it as top of the second 4 pointing TO a wave and, alternatively, pointing to the left of a wave. Am I wrong to assume the date is wider, is it just that the waves are cut differently?

It's all about being a completist. As soon as a variety is found, everyone has a gap in their collection to be filled. As Peck says, they're not that rare (VR Court estimates 6:1 in favour of the more common variety) so can be picked up by the eagle-eyed at a very reasonable price. There's always a good feeling from paying standard money for a rarer variety. Just reading this thread and thought that, from the completist point of view, there are four 1944 penny varieties. The narrow date mint darkened, the wider date mint darkened, the narrow date not mint darkened/light hypo, and the wider date not mint darkened/light hypo.

Without doing a completely scientific survey I think that the B of BR slightly to the right of a corner is the standard obv pairing with the wide gape legend rv (i.e. the E of THREE is 0.5mm from the rim). Call this A+a. The B of BR pointing (more or less) to a corner is the standard obv pairing with the narrow gap legend rv (i.e. the E of THREE is less than 0.5mm to the rim). Call this B+b. I don't have any A+b or B+a coins out of the 7 or 8 1937 3ds that I own, therefore I guess that this is a non standard die pairing and much scarcer.

Obviously I can't throw stones in the inaccuracy greenhouse as I should've put '1/4 penny'. Why is it that when you go on-line your mind goes to mush?

for instance this current ebay listing 380381398851 "1/2 penny ( farting ) 1946"

That is the big problem with slabbing companies that don't insist on good quality images! CGS are as bad, a lot of their images are just token gestures, totally underexposed and blurred at times, as good as useless. Any 'jasmine' slabbers would surely be trawling the TPGC sites looking for the unidentifiable images and using those slab numbers on their own slabs, wouldn't they? I think slab buyers, and slabbers, should begin insisting on quality images, especially when dealing with milled coinage! I just bought a slabbed coin that looked much better in the hand than the photo had suggested it would. CGS had used very directional lighting that highlighted a surface flaw that 'in the flesh' was almost invisible to the naked eye. On the one had I was glad but on the other hand I know that their pic could be a problem if I come to sell it on. Although to be fair to them, even a bad CGS photo is almost always going to be better than a good ebay photo.

Just browsing the bay and came across two listings for the 1939 brass threepence, one from AJW coins, the other from the US based Wybrit. The first E of THREE on the reverse of Wybrit's coin (item number: 180951072422) seems to be noticeably further from the rim than on that of AJW's coin (item number: 320958634004). Everybody knows about the wide gap/narrow gap varieties of 1937 brass threepence identified by Peck, so is this also the case for the '39?

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only. You have nicely summed up George VI brass threepence collecting in one paragraph. As for Elizabeth II, just to complete the list, I've added the 1953 type 2 obverse and the standard 1958 which seem to be scarcer in true BU than their mintage numbers would suggest. Perhaps the availability of the 'plastic set' gave a false impression that BU specimens of the '53 were fairly common and hence were not worth hoarding. But of course it was only the type 1 that came with the sets. As for the 1958, these seem to be weirdly scarce in true BU despite a mintage of over 20 million! My only guess is that they were issued in numbers sufficiently high as not to be perceived as worth collecting, only to then fall victim to the big meltdown after decimalisation. Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939, 1948 and 1953 type 2 obv. Not so easy to find - 1945 and 1958 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 The 1958 3d is one of those weird inexplicable cases - it was actually identified as a scarcity in BU before decimalisation, as was the 1946 halfpenny, and other strange items like the 1957S shilling (the 1957E is really common in UNC) and the 1958E shilling. Not forgetting the 1958 sixpence and who knows how many others too. I guess we may never know why some dates are scarcer than others - it may be a combination of factors, e.g. time of year issued, whether any were held back, demand for certain denominations being greater at some times, a shortage in one denomination causing lower denominations to circulate more, the hoarding of certain dates more than others for different reasons... One thing's for sure, the great meltdown should have evened out those weird discrepancies more than actually happened - there's a kind of inertia to price guides that is resistant to reality at times. Interesting that the 1958 3d and the 1958 sixpence were identified as scarce in BU even whilst they were still currency. I really wouldn't have guessed that. If anyone who worked at the Royal Mint between 1957 and 1959 ever comes across this discussion it would be very interesting if they would share their insights into the mystery. I wonder if large quantities of certain coins were shipped out to colonies that then become independent in the late '50s to mid '60s and whether, in some way, this had an effect on subsequent scarcity. I personally have always found it slightly remarkable that collectors resisted the temptation to spend their BU coins. I mean, pre-credit cards if you were out of cash then your nice shiny 1958 threepence that you'd stashed away would suddenly seem like an expendable luxury!

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only. You have nicely summed up George VI brass threepence collecting in one paragraph. As for Elizabeth II, just to complete the list, I've added the 1953 type 2 obverse and the standard 1958 which seem to be scarcer in true BU than their mintage numbers would suggest. Perhaps the availability of the 'plastic set' gave a false impression that BU specimens of the '53 were fairly common and hence were not worth hoarding. But of course it was only the type 1 that came with the sets. As for the 1958, these seem to be weirdly scarce in true BU despite a mintage of over 20 million! My only guess is that they were issued in numbers sufficiently high as not to be perceived as worth collecting, only to then fall victim to the big meltdown after decimalisation. Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939, 1948 and 1953 type 2 obv. Not so easy to find - 1945 and 1958 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944