Red Riley

Thanks Rob. I had a feeling that was going to be the answer but in filling the die they seem to have produced a whole lot more than just the appearance of an 8 over a 7.

I think that's the point. This gentleman in the USA has obtained a collection of coins with a statistically unfeasible bias towards a scarce variety, probably before the variety was even noted. He must have got them from somewhere. As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

That's the fellow, Mr Accumulator... I've never found one before, and I've looked at a darn sight more than 5, so I'm with you on that one. Then 6 turn up in the same Jiffy bag. I must do some number crunching of Mr Court's paper - I do have it, but I haven't given it the attention it deserves! I recall being at a W&W auction in the 1990s where one of the lots was a collection from someone who had clearly pulled a number of near Unc coins from circulation in the 1950s. Included was a haul of 1957 halfpennies, most with full or nearly full lustre - the majority were 'calm sea'! That may be the origin of your 1944s, retrieved from circulation at the same time and ending up in the States still together. Possibly, although I think Declan does have a point. Where very small numbers of identifiable coins have been produced, it has been possible to trace where they were issud e.g. 1950 penny - Northern Ireland; 1951 penny - Bermuda/West Indies. The same should therefore be theoretically possible of coins with certain identifiable die traits. I say should, but really I meant 'would' as it is far too late now to do anything other than speculate.

I don't have or if I'm honest, desire to have too many coins from outside the UK. The odd one does however come up from time to time but the cost of Krause is completely out of proportion to the use that I am likely to put it to. All in all therefore, this could be a handy website for me.

Looks very useful. I would suggest that Kraus are none too happy!

The good ship Venus.

Had to be a PLymouth lighthouse, and a little research confirms this. See here It is probably just a generic lighthouse ( the design does change subtly over the years). The introduction of the lighthouse on the coinage may however have been influenced by Grace Darling's heroism at the Longstone Lighthouse in 1838.

Looking at the background, I think it's just that the subject is not quite perpendicular to the camera. I think the bottom is slightly nearer the camera than the top and given a low depth of field the top half is slight fuzzy. I have a tiny spirit level which I use to adjust the tripod/stand once it is in place.

The problem with collecting is that you start off thinking it's a finite art ~ that you will collect a given series and then leave it at that (for a time at least). But the reality is very different. Once you start it's exceedingly difficult to stop, especially for those of us whose interest becomes all encompassing, verging on the obsessional !!! Even in any given series or date run, it's knowing the best time to call it a day in respect of that specific collection. Do you limit yourself to just dates, and then the odd upgrade. Or do you go beyond in the hope of obtaining every different listed type ? Do you content yourself with a mid grade rarer type, or do you practically re-mortgage your house in a bid (no pun intended) to get one of the few outstanding examples ? It is these philosphical points I frequently ponder in my quieter moments When I was collecting pennies, I had every date and major variety from 1797. What constituted a major variety was saomething I usually made up my mind on early on and stuck to. For example, I would always regard the 1874-79 wide/narrow dates as 'major' even if Spinks didn't list them as such and the portrait changes of 1874 and 1881 (far more noticeable in my view than 1926) too were major. On the other hand 1903 open 3, 1897 high tide and coins with sundry dots on just didn't seem to have enough different about them to make collecting worthwhile. There came a point where I tended to upgrade rather than add new varieties and once this became prohibitively expensive, I gave up and became a dealer!

Purely out of curiosity, have you just bought this coin? Yes I have just bought it. Were you after it too, or do you know something about it perhaps? Rob - thank you for the photos, very useful! I will have a proper look at the coin again tonight. Yes, so I know how much you paid for it. Not unreasonable, but I wasn't prepared to go quite that high. For the record I thought it was P1327. On balance, I thought it was just too pale for a bronzed coin but I only had one picture to go on and may be wrong. Peck's assessment was that the bronzed coins were scarcer, so more likely to be plain copper I suppose.

When I looked at it, I was undecided as to the reverse, as Rob has said, the breast (which often doesn't get fully struck up) and the vestiges of hair under the helmet all make me wonder whether it should be NEF rather than EF. But for me, the obverse is straight EF.

Purely out of curiosity, have you just bought this coin?

Her vacant gaze would indicate she's probably watching Eastenders somewhere off-coin!

That's a good photo and a good coin. Coins with good lustre usually photograph well. However, I am still looking of a way to reliably photograph bronze/copper coins around 'fine' especially Edward VII and George V.

I'd go with EF too. Perhaps a little too much paid but it's very easy on the eye. This coin more than any other shows that Britannia knows how to multi-task!

I wish I was into photography and then I could tell you what I use without going upstairs to have a look. OK, Canon 400D; Sigma (bugger I've forgotten... ) ah yes, 1:2.8 DG Macro lens, tripod/stand normally using natural light. Curiously, I don't find reflection from the tripod to be a problem.

Yes but could they tell it wasn't EF? I agree there's very little that can be done about it overall, but the odd little victory is good for the soul...

The thing they can never disguise is the wobbly lettering on the edge.

Would normally agree, but there's a lot of kids buy coins on e-bay and frankly I'd prefer they weren't ripped off...

Giving the seller the benefit of the doubt, I would call it Fine (and polished) but that still puts it 2 grades out - and this from someone with 'coins' in their handle!. Actual value = zip. Shall we tell him?

I couldn't have said it better myself! When children are getting paid to go to school, teenage girls are getting paid to get pregnant and asylum-seekers have the right to live in multi-million pound mansions in Chelsea, something is wrong! I'm all for debt reduction, but feel that DC and GO are attacking it arse-about-face - cutting NHS/Police etc budgets whilst still p1ssing money away on social benefits! We also need to take a significantly firmer line on foreign-national (serious) convicts... Rather than giving them free board and lodgings for X day/weeks (do sentences still run into months and years?!) we need to send the back to where they came from and revoke their right to ever enter the UK again! Apologies - I too will put my soap-box away! Quick! Head for the bunker chaps...

I stand corrected.

I think it's called a 'tile nibbler'. Get it for a couple of quid or so from any tile shop, B & Q etc.

The first is a half crown in fair condition and probably woth little more than silver value in that state. It was minted in the first year of a new coinage to celebrate Victoria's golden jubilee and is way the most common year for silver coinage encountered in the entire 64 year reign! The second (assuming you are comparing it to 1860-1970 pennies) is a copper penny of George III and would have been dated 1806 or 7. The same basic design was also used for farthings and halfpennies in different sizes obviously. No value, but big enough to make a useful paper weight. The 1918 penny is the standard Royal Mint version and sadly the world is awash with these. Haven't time to consider the other 2 coins at present. Will revert later if somebody hasn't beaten me to it.

Absolutely right. A die must exhibit way more than that to even approach being classified as a variety. IMHO of course!