Got myself a new error

[Hussulo 6]

1964 Offcentre and partial obverse brockage 3d.

[scottishmoney 29]

The best part of that one is most importantly for any detail to be present, it is the date, and it is very nice and clear. A truly dramatic error with the date is a fantastic find, good job

[Colin G. 147]

Hussulo,

That is a very nice example, of what I think is a very attractive coin design (but not many people tend to agree with me). I have a near complete lustrous set of these (awaiting the 1946 and 1949) which to me have great eye appeal, and it is a set that can be put together on a restrictive budget.

You certainly have an eye for obtaining appealing error coins!!!

[Rob 3,152]

Looks like a small piece of metal that inadvertently came into contact with a 1964 3d die! Well done, I'd buy that too.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Always at a premium when it has a date......

great acquisition

[E Dawson 0]

Hey, that's nicer than mine! These '60s mint sports are rather fun...

[Peter 615]

I Luv Thrupenny bits

[Gary D 76]

I Luv Thrupenny bits

Yes a much under rated coin. I've managed to put the whole run together including the all types in BU except for the 1948 sharp corners.

[E Dawson 0]

Go Gary! Perhaps you could share your ideas of relative scarcity in mint for these bits, 1937-1970? That would be a nice addition, with extra marks for relative scarcity of the VIP proofs if you can manage.

[Colin G. 147]

I Luv Thrupenny bits

Yes a much under rated coin. I've managed to put the whole run together including the all types in BU except for the 1948 sharp corners.

Gary,

I have never understood the sharp corners rounded corners thing, although I have to admit I have never really closely looked, I seem to remember hearing it somewhere. Is it an obvious difference and on what dates does it occur?

[Rob 3,152]

I Luv Thrupenny bits

Yes a much under rated coin. I've managed to put the whole run together including the all types in BU except for the 1948 sharp corners.

Gary,

I have never understood the sharp corners rounded corners thing, although I have to admit I have never really closely looked, I seem to remember hearing it somewhere. Is it an obvious difference and on what dates does it occur?

1937 - 40 have sharp corners, 1941 both types, 1942-6 rounded, 1948 both, 1949 rounded and 1950-52 sharp. It was done to increase the collar life during the war when the availability of steel for making dies was reduced. See Peck p.515 where the above was taken from.

There was an article written by L V Larsen in Seaby's Bulletin March 1961 which I can scan in and send if you want it.

[E Dawson 0]

Can you show pictures of the two edge types (round and sharp edges)?

[Gary D 76]

Can you show pictures of the two edge types (round and sharp edges)?

I hope this works

[Colin G. 147]

[E Dawson 0]

I second that, and thanks for the definitive pitures! Always nice if somebody shares a bit of homework with us.

Anybody care to venture a scarcity and/or value rating of these brass bits?

In mint, I would say possibly this:

1949>1946>1951>1950, and then a distinct fall to the remainder.

Proofs:

1948>1949>1947 (never seen one)>1946, then the rest with the matte proofs being nearest to most rare.

[Gary D 76]

I second that, and thanks for the definitive pitures! Always nice if somebody shares a bit of homework with us.

Anybody care to venture a scarcity and/or value rating of these brass bits?

In mint, I would say possibly this:

1949>1946>1951>1950, and then a distinct fall to the remainder.

Proofs:

1948>1949>1947 (never seen one)>1946, then the rest with the matte proofs being nearest to most rare.

I can't help with the special proofs although their numbers will have been preserved unlike the circulated coins which in some cases will now be as scarse if now scarser.

I'm not sure about the order of your list as 1949 and 46's being low mintage were probably put away in large numbers whereas the higher mintage weren't bothered with. I would probably drop the 1951 in favour of 1948 and make the list 1950>1948>1949>1946

[Coins4u 0]

Great coin Hussulo!!!

[E Dawson 0]

I would say that for rating purposes that those in mint state might still be seen to follow the posted order. I agree that survival of the circulated bits was very much favouring preservation of the '46 and '49 bits. The situation for full lustr mint pieces has still seemed to favour the two listed.

Proofs of the non-standard years in VIP format are very rare indeed and despite knowing these proofs of record very well note that I have NEVER seen the 1947, only three of the '49s, two in sets; I have seen about 5 0r 6 of the 1946s and only two of the 1948s. The 3ds in proof of '62 - '64 are fairly rare with those of the late '50s a bit more common but must admit to there being the possibility of one or two of those being "sleepers" as well.

[Rob 3,152]

I would say that for rating purposes that those in mint state might still be seen to follow the posted order. I agree that survival of the circulated bits was very much favouring preservation of the '46 and '49 bits. The situation for full lustr mint pieces has still seemed to favour the two listed.

Proofs of the non-standard years in VIP format are very rare indeed and despite knowing these proofs of record very well note that I have NEVER seen the 1947, only three of the '49s, two in sets; I have seen about 5 0r 6 of the 1946s and only two of the 1948s. The 3ds in proof of '62 - '64 are fairly rare with those of the late '50s a bit more common but must admit to there being the possibility of one or two of those being "sleepers" as well.

I don't think a 1947 exists, but the possibility still exists that one could appear in the same manner as the 1954 penny. Although Peck doesn't refer to mint records for this year, the fact remains that he referenced the Mint Records when stating that 7/8ths of the 1946 strikes were from 1945 dies in the previous sentence, suggesting that he was quoting at least word of mouth from the mint in saying there are none.

As for relative rarity values for the VIPs I haven't a clue. I only have one Elizabeth 2nd VIP proof (1960) acquired as a type example. I too think the later dates may well be sleepers as it is possible that many of the original recipients are still alive

[E Dawson 0]

Hi Rob, can you clarify your sentence after the 1945 dies. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying.

I was thinking that a proof VIP 1947 might have a greater chance of appearance than a currency!?!?

I have not kept an exact census of appearance of these VIPs, but note that I have not seen 1962 or 1964 & can not recall 1955 or 1957 but have seen 1954, '56, '58, '59 I think, '60 several times and '61 & '63.

[Rob 3,152]

Hi Rob, can you clarify your sentence after the 1945 dies. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying.

I was thinking that a proof VIP 1947 might have a greater chance of appearance than a currency!?!?

I have not kept an exact census of appearance of these VIPs, but note that I have not seen 1962 or 1964 & can not recall 1955 or 1957 but have seen 1954, '56, '58, '59 I think, '60 several times and '61 & '63.

To quote Peck on p.516 - "The scarcity of those dated 1946 is due to the fact that about seven-eighths of the pieces struck during that year were coined from dies of the previous year. None dated 1947 was struck."

The first sentence is referenced to Mint Records 1946 p.3. The second second has no attribution but it is reasonable to assume that if he looked at Mint records for 1946 in order to establish scarcity, he would also have checked those for 1947 because there were still pennies, halfpennies and farthings to consider.

Dependant on whether a die for 1947 exists at the mint or if one was known to have been cut from the Mint Records, what I was suggesting was that a few strikes could possibly have been made and destroyed, and if as in the case of the 1954 penny one escaped then it could one day re-surface. In the absence of any die or record of die produced, the likelihood of a 1947 threepence existing would be very much reduced. Unfortunately Hocking was written in 1910 so is of no use.

[E Dawson 0]

Very good, perhaps a forum member may one day come across some such at the mint as I have heard that many dies are extant there.