Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Peckris 2

Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

    2,128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    87

Everything posted by Peckris 2

  1. It may just be a temporary glitch, but today the main Unread Content button missed loads of topics, which I gathered from the bottom of each topic which showed other unread posts. Yet the main Unread page showed only one topic per forum unread.
  2. nevertheless, it's a very nice spoon!
  3. Peckris 2

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    "Bob" pronounced as in Blackadder Goes Forth, of course...
  4. Peckris 2

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    Apparently someone here messaged her in her dimondgirl guise and addressed her as 'marleybob' - he says she never replied which doesn't surprise me in the least!
  5. Peckris 2

    More Pennies

    Because *IF* (and it's just an if...) the pennies were struck just to test out the new electronic presses, then it makes sense they weren't testing dies but merely the equipment. If that wasn't the reason, then yes, it's all up for grabs.
  6. Peckris 2

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    ...
  7. Peckris 2

    More Pennies

    Au contraire: the very few examples of London Mint "no H" 1882 pennies surely proves that only one die set was used. Moreover, the examples extant could quite possibly have been struck in order to test the new electronic minting apparatus; given that the entire mintage for pennies had been 'farmed out' to Heatons, there would have to be a special reason for striking a few pennies at London. Testing the equipment seems as good a reason as any, and once struck, the few examples for testing would have been released into circulation as no-one would have thought then that the existence or otherwise of a mintmark would have been of interest. (!) If a coin leaves the Mint with no H , then it is definitely a "no H " wherever struck. But given the very large number that appear on eBay (worn), it's clear they left the Mint WITH an H and it has been worn or filed away; however if such an example with the wrong dies is in high enough condition e.g. VF, one would then - in all reasonable suspicion - look to the expertly created 1933 penny fakes and strongly suspect that a machinist had been at it. As for 1922 cents with no D caused by die fill, fetching large sums, I guess that indicates the gulf between US and UK collecting. We had a 1961 halfcrown variety with the designer initials "EF" missing on the reverse; initially this was thought to be a die error and examples fetched a pretty modest premium over book price. Once it was discovered that the 'error' was caused by die fill, interest fell away quite quickly, to the extent that you will find no reference to them now.
  8. Peckris 2

    More Pennies

    Also, the 2 looks a bit suspicious, with a definite vertical change in colour to the left. Given the expertise with which machinists can drop a 3 into the last digit of a 1933 penny - often with little or no sign of disturbance - it's not too big a stretch to think it could be done with a 2, especially given the monetary value involved (reworked 1933s only fetch a few hundred..). Martin's negative picture is of interest too.
  9. Peckris 2

    More Pennies

    On the other hand, if the only "no H " specimens that aren’t that die combination are extremely worn, then it's too much of a coincidence to think that no better example exists anywhere; I'm happy to believe the H on these has worn right away.
  10. Peckris 2

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    Someone could be about to be badly burned. I think we should send her a PM saying she should end the listing or else.
  11. "Luke... hsssshhh hhhsssss... I am your optician"
  12. Peckris 2

    More Pennies

    Not surprised - it must be as rare as the 1933, if not rarer!
  13. That compares nicely to the one I got off Richard last year. 😊
  14. That's where my own design of database comes into its own. I began it in the mid-90s - before that it was in a little book, where the dates before early 90s were just the year. I'd be lost without my database, but it has many backups including a couple in the cloud.
  15. FWIW I've seen many many wide dates in that series and don't regard them as significant. However, I've not seen an example of 1895 before, so yes, scarce indeed!
  16. Possibly because bronzing copper made more sense than bronzing bronze?
  17. I assume Peck was referring to currency pieces? And presumably when he says "care must be taken" he's talking about beginners, or experts making hasty, superficial, lazy, or downright dishonest judgements?
  18. Horses for courses. I find my iPad is great for TV and radio, music and audiobooks, email, quick notes and reminders, browsing, taking photos, etc. But Photoshop and database management, even proper word processing, have to be on my Mac, there's no tablet software that's as powerful (yet).
  19. Peckris 2

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    Pfffft. THIS is the one you want... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/255045123269? I mean, how often is Half A Crow offered on eBay?
  20. Peckris 2

    Back to the future?

    That's all very true .. but if they said 7.5 cm of rain instead of 3 inches, then you'd know it REALLY pissed it down!
  21. Yes, but are there bronzed proofs that AREN’T copper?
  22. Yes, that's technically and chemically correct. However, PROOFS are described as either "copper proof" or "bronzed proof". To describe one using both terms appears to be a deliberate move to cover up uncertainty ?
×