secret santa

It's got the dropped 90 as per Gouby's book. Nice one.

Do you have the link ?

Whilst filing away some old £1 coins today, I found a 1992 £1 with the Irish Flax reverse. The correct reverse for 1992 is recorded as English Oak. Is this likely to be a forgery ?

I wonder if there's a market for them, tapping into the nostalgia/curiosity ?

Pictures below:

My 1853 proof has a similar marbled look.

Absolutely fascinating. I recommend watching it all but if you're time is limited, the coin-relevant content starts at 38 minutes in.

I have always maintained that it is not possible to definitively identify a proof striking of a "normal metal" copper or bronze coin from a photograph unless it is totally pristine. We have all seen the same coin portrayed differently according to the conditions and technology used. The exception might be where a proof die is recognisably different from the working dies used to strike circulation coins. And I'm not sure that I've ever seen such a "different" proof striking. Coupled with the fact that there are probably no existing specimens of freshly struck Victorian circulation coins that have been immediately taken out of circulation and preserved in a collection, it is hard to know how close to "proof condition" an early, well-preserved circulation coin might be. Some of the bronzed proofs are clearly identifiable as proofs but probably because they definitely have never seen circulation. I bid on that 1859 penny at LCA but might have bid higher had I been able to examine it in hand. I did buy an 1860 F6A proof penny from DNW this year but not before I'd discussed its condition with DNW staff and also obtained a guarantee that I could return if not convinced. In hand it has very reflective and "polished" surfaces that satisfy me that it's a proof but photographs just do not capture that aspect. My 1861 F37 proof penny has very sharp edges and teeth but photos of it don't look particularly proof-like, although Colin Adams, who owned the coin previously, clearly considered it to be a proof. Bottom line is that you need to look at it in hand and decide for yourself.

Peter Andrew alerted me to the 1934 penny that sold in the Heritage auction for $1620 !!!!!!!!!!! https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-george-v-penny-1934-ms67-brown-ngc-/a/232150-63471.s?ic=homepage-myrecommendations-WorldCoins-item-052114&tab=MyRecommendations-080216

Nice one, Bruce - I haven't seen that before but Ian F may know more as he's studied copper pennies for years.

Feast your eyes !

Bernie has a lovely AU specimen. I'll post it with his permission.

BBC Sports Personality of the Year -

Definitely in the top 3 of F69s that I've seen.

Blake, could you post a pic of the obverse as well, please ?

That one shows the pointed top to the lighthouse very clearly.

See my penny varieties website for good pictures of Victoria reverses.

Exactly, and then go to the catalogue lot by lot for the detailed photos.

Of course, I'm not actually hopping mad but this hasn't stopped the word "literally" from becoming the latest word to enter the populist vocabulary like a tornado. Just listen to anyone on the TV or radio and they'll slip the word into every sentence that has a verb in it. People literally don't understand when to use the word. It has become the only adverb available, just as "amazing" has become the only adjective to expressive some degree of value. Zoe Ball is the current record holder for frequency of use of the word "amazing".

These coins don't grow on trees you know.

Sadly, I think the 90 year old and I would have very similar standards and vocabulary ......................

I think I've only heard Americans use that phrase.

Yes, or "100 per cent" as everyone seems to say nowadays.