Leaderboard

Another added to the collection a Hooper Struve's surround. Although the Hooper Struve's Encased Farthings are the most common ones you will find, and are always turning up quite regularly. Finding one with a 1894 Victorian Farthing is not as easy as say George V or George VI. Very pleased I have got this one, as it may be quite some time before another turns up.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Rarest-1p-I-have-Honest/303448343442

Yes it is.

I haven't got Freeman to hand, but if F328 refers to the wide date reverse then yours is definitely that.

Copy of something like this: https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=877&lot=6

The most significant crown collection to come to market after the wreaths were issued was Lingford in 1950. He had 3 years listed as proofs - 1932 (601) said to be one of four struck for special purposes, ex- G C Brooke collection; 1934 (603) listed as only six struck; 1936 (611) proof from polished dies, only two known. That suggests they are available, but not in large numbers. The Brooke coin note is probably significant as his collection was sold in 1935, and Brooke worked in the BM's C&M department where he had access to the relevant information being in receipt of new strikings from the mint. His collection of English crowns ran to 614 lots, with issues collected by die variety. It's likely in my view that they were rare enough for the missing years not to have resurfaced, or if the odd example had done so, he or Baldwin's (his usual supplier of material) had not seen them, given he was probably their biggest customer at the time. Brooke's English Coins reference volume first published in 1932 was also dedicated to L A Lawrence - 'My friend and helper', which again would lead one to assume that there was frequent communication between the two. Lawrence's sale 11/7/1951 had full year sets for 1930-1936, all described as brilliant and very rare (the very rare implying proofs or specimens given it would not be difficult to assemble a complete contemporary collection of top notch current coins, but not noted as such). He also had one lot (879) which was '1929 Crown to Sixpence. Special strikings, like proofs, rare'. So, as Vicky says, maybe Lawrence was unconvinced (or at least the Glendining cataloguer was) as to whether they were proofs or not. I think on balance it is likely they did produce a few proofs of each year given the accepted existence of proof halfcrowns through to farthings, which would make the lack of similar crowns unlikely), but I am also of the opinion that the number of crowns slabbed as proofs seems to be a little generous. This is not without precedence, as I have Freeman's F329A halfpenny, which has been mentioned before on here as being another contentious proof/specimen coin. It was categorised as such by Freeman and slabbed as a proof in the Terner sale, but a number of equally respected views consider it not to be up to proof standard.

I think the Royal mint has been particularly unfair with regard to the old £2 pieces. They minted over 30 million such coins (over 8 million for 1986, 7 million, 5 million etc for other years) in total and it is hardly surprising that some got into circulation. I remember paying £4 as a teenager for a 1986 coin housed in the usual packaging thinking that it will always have an intrinsic value of £2. The Royal mint site currently states "The commemorative £2 coins were issued to mark special occasions rather than for use in general circulation. They are legal tender but contrary to popular belief this does not mean that banks and retailers automatically have to accept them. Indeed you will probably find that most banks and retailers refuse." My feeling is that every piece of junk the Royal Mint make these days is marking some special (or not so special) occasion or event or cartoon character. The mintage of some of the old £2 coins are so much higher than the so called circulating Kew garden 50p for example. I would be surprised if they had told anyone in the 80s that such coins are not for circulating and so will not be accepted in banks. Since the £2 coin is a current denomination, I think The Royal Mint should do the decent thing and ask banks to let people exchange the old pieces if they wish to. An episode of the Simpsons come to mind: Woman: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money? Homer: What's that? Woman: Well it's money that's made just for the park... And it works just like regular money, but it's, er..."fun". Bart: Do it, Dad. Homer: Well, OK, if it's fun... let's see, uh...I'll take $1100 worth. (gets the money and he walks in and sees all the signs that show places prohibiting Itchy and Scratchy Money) Awwwww!

Really hard to say just based on that photograph, look forward to seeing the reverse. Definitely looks like it could have been cleaned or lightly polished if genuine.

I was pleased to spot this penny in a dealers £8 each 'rummage tray' at the Midland Coin Fair today. One for Richards site; perhaps the second best known ? Jerry

I have known about this find since the police first took an interest several years ago, the finders were members of several South Wales detecting clubs including mine, and though I do not know them personally I know a lot about them through friends. Powell is said to be a nasty piece of work, he has been to prison before and has a bad reputation regarding drugs etc. Layton is easily led, but has previously worked well with the FLO in Cardiff and posted a number of coins from the hoard on various forums before suddenly claiming he had found they were all fakes, and ending the conversation. I suspect Powell got at him. I think left to his own devices, Layton would have seen sense. Wicks, the dealer from Sussex, is a long term dealer in fake coins and artefacts on EBay under various guises. Paul Wells I know well, a likeable man who was very stupid. I have heard his side of the story several times at Numismatic Society. I think the judge got it right with Powell and Wicks, and Layton and Paul Wells were foolish be led. The finders would probably have done very well had they abided by the law, they had the tenant farmers permission though not the landowners; that occasionally happens, and does not usually affect the Treasure Act payment to the finders if they were acting in good faith, though it might have left them open to private prosecution. Either way they all deserve their significant sentences for the damage they have done to the hobby of metal detecting and the reputation of coin dealers and purchasers. Jerry