Leaderboard

Interesting article o the minting of £2 and 2p coins from the Royal mit, as well as a discussion on the future of cash versus digital currency: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54196300 It seems the Royal Mint has huge stockpiles of coins ready for issue - which explains why no new £2 designs have made it into circulation in the last few years and why we occasionally get a glut of older issues in brand new condition.

😶

He sold me one some time ago.

Do you take the article to mean that the Royal Mint has produced lots of new £2 coins over the past few years, but which haven't been released into circulation? That's how I'm reading it. Otherwise, how would they know that there is a stockpile of 26 times the target? If so - just allow collectors to buy them for £2, especially if they are post 2016 designs please 🙂

Not as scarce as first thought. R17. Now R7 I believe as more turn up. I've boosted the population to the tune of 4. All lower grade though.

Yes, that damn 1984 specimen set was grabbed immediately as I signed on within 10 minutes and it was GONE! The less rare 1984 Jamaica proof set is scarce but that seller is crazy on his prices and I do not buy from him. I once tried to even up trade one of my Barbados rarities straight across for a much more common Panama Balboa, and he wouldn't do that either... I do believe this sale of the 2002 proof set will go through as it is indicated as having shipped. I know it is an UGLY design, but it is quite scarce (Royal Mint will not give information but I believe less than 50 sets) and so was delighted to apparently get it - not counting chickens until hatched.

I've got some racing geese for sale. Let me know if you want a quick gander.

I had my poetic license revoked.

Theories as to the precise reason why die numbers were placed on a very few pennies of 1863 have been aired on many occasions over the years, both by independent authors and on here. The favourite two being a) to test the die, and b) to identify the individual die operator. But in truth no-one knows for certain, and I hasten to add, are still very much in the dark. Testing the die strength/quality does sound the most plausible option to me, as we know from very well highlighted documentation made at the time, that die strength was a major issue. Although one would have thought that by 1863, many of the problems surrounding dies breaking had been resolved. Nevertheless, die cracks were still frequent at this time, as was die slippage. If it was to ID an individual operator, I'm not sure quite how effective that would be (or the point of it), as staff tend to either leave or move to a different area of the business. I'm sure that was just as much the case in 1863 as it is now. So clearly the initial operator assigned to say, die No 4, might have left a few weeks later, then it would be someone else. Although of course, the new man could easily have been assigned a different number. Nevertheless, we only have 4 numbers to go on, and a vanishingly small number of them. So that suggests - and I don't think there would be any dispute over this - it was a very short lived experiment. Started for no clearly defined reason, and ended again, for no reason apparent to us. As a result of the uncertainty I decided to send an e mail to the Royal Mint enquiring as to whether or not they might know of a possible reason. I knew this was a very, very long shot, as I've absolutely no doubt the same question, or variants of it, have been sent to them on many previous occasions. Also, I knew that to get anywhere, the person dealing with my enquiry would have to extensively interrogate old records from 160 odd years ago, potentially reading a lot of pages, and I wasn't sure how much enthusiasm they'd have for that, or whether in fact they'd just rely on previous stock replies to answer my current enquiry. Obviously one's level of success will vary depending on the skill, intelligence and motivation of that person. Nevertheless, I don't recall ever reading what the Royal Mint's view was of this, hence why I pressed ahead with my enquiry. Here is my enquiry and their reply, which I very much appreciate:- So there we have it - not much. Kudos to them for replying though. I honestly thought it might be forgotten with the pandemic having caused so much disruption. So many thanks to Chris Barker. I did wonder whether to put this in the "More Pennies" thread, but decided to create a new thread, as it might be easier to locate on a google or site search if anyone else makes a similar enquiry. It might well help them. I did wonder whether to just add to the "More Pennies" thread, rather than create a new one. But thought

One more image just to show reverse die is the same, rather than duplicated die number as occasionally happens elsewhere in the series. All die and date digits identically positioned and spaced.

Well, blow me. After years of searching I have finally got hold of another 1867 die 23 shilling which IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE 5+A mule ! Pictures below, alongside the normal 4+A pairing (mule on the right). Yes, a bit battered and worn, but presumably only the second known example? The original specimen sold at London Coins auction 122 in Sept 2008 Lot no 1791 for £320 in NEF. Are there any more out there?

For what it's worth, I'm definitely in the younger collector bracket (mid-20s) and while I don't collect pennies by Freeman number in a box-ticking way, I like owning examples of some the scarcer die combinations, latest acquisition was a really choice 1915 recessed ear piece, and I've owned a few decent bun pennies in the past. I do think the sort of prices paid for some of the rare varieties in very low grades are unlikely to hold up in the long term, as in my experience younger collectors tend to be less interested in rarities for the sake of rarity and more interested in purchasing really high quality pieces. Having said that, if the US market got seriously interested in the British bronze set, you'd end up with people trying to complete registry sets (sigh) so I may well be wrong about this.

Well you say that, but scanning through facebook yesterday I came across a thread in the "British pre-decimal milled coin collectors(1649-1970)" private group, where someone in about their mid 20's was looking for a number of Victorian Freeman types, including the F20 & F25, which I was able to sell to him as I've bought upgrades since. That's just an example of a whole new cohort of young coin collectors on the internet, quite a few of them foreign, but most from the UK. I let them go for a modest price as it's very encouraging to see this surge in interest, and over the past year or so, I've noticed that the level of knowledge in such groups has become more in depth and sophisticated.

Quite possibly. I imagine the period post D Day and beyond must have been quite a flat and depressing time as far as the modern market was concerned. All the prior enthusiasm was largely based on collecting from change in circulation, and that option was abruptly removed. With that said, there is another very interesting article from the October 1972 edition, on the subject of coin "wastage rates". This is something touched upon by Jerry @jelida earlier, and his opinion is vindicated by the research in this article. It starts on page 83, and is headed "A further analysis of coin surveys", by T.J.Cole B.A., B.Phil. Essentially, Cole concludes that there is a 2% per annum wastage rate on coins which have mintages exceeding 9 million, but this rises steeply for mintages below 9 million. So for example, if a coin had a mintage of say 20 million in 1945, by 1970, one would have expected the number of that cohort still extant, to be 12,069,286. I'm not sure I quite get the logic of why wastage rates due to pure loss (carelessness) should be any higher for mintages of below the arbitrary figure of 9 million. Cole seems to have established stats to support this contention, but I can't see why rates of loss should be any greater in absolute percentage terms if the mintage is lower.