Peckris 2

It is almost certainly the strike and not post-mint damage. It's hard to tell from your pictures, but convex / concave farthhings are not unknown, especially given the size of the coin.

I think it was from the big Photoshop Sale last year - Baldwins, I believe ?

There's a post about an 1839 plain edge proof halfcrown with coin axis in Confirmed Unlisted Varieties.

Spink lists 4 distinct varieties of 1839 plain edge proof halfcrown, but they are all inverted axis. Are you convinced the coin is genuine - do you have pictures?

Oh no, I just accidentally bid £10,000 on a 1902 halfcrown ... --- ... / ... --- ... / ... --- ...

Just chucking my two pennorth in here... I would argue that the bun penny market has generally always been larger than the copper series; also, the wide / narrow date varieties are immediately recognisable even to novices, and it's USUALLY (though not invariable) the case that the more recognisable a variety is, the more popular it is and therefore the higher the prices achievable.

I agree. It doesn't float my boat, but the amount of work you've done deserves to be published.

I'd take issue with his reasoning - i.e. the Jubilee Head obverse - as the change to medal orientation had already been done for bronze nearly 30 years earlier.

That's the point I was making: either wreath crowns should be regarded as proofs, or - as generally accepted - NOT proofs. In other words, describing certain examples as proofs is not valid IMO. There may be a few VIP wreaths as you say but I don't think those for sale are. 1951 Crowns from the proof sets are not noticeably different to those issued in cardboard boxes, which have often been described as 'prooflike'. It's something of a grey area when you have proofs and specimens which can not really be separated as such.

That's a hell of a time ago!! I would have responded to a reminder... Oh well.

Balloon festival. (No! Really?)

Damn. I'd have loved to make you an offer on that. (If you remember, davidrj's F176 wasn't, though @Rob and I both thought it was). Oh well. Sailor V.

A picture I took in Exeter Cathedral, where the sun shone through a stained glass window:

In one sense, all wreath crowns - like George III crowns - could be considered 'proofs', being very limited issues struck on special dies for collectors. No-one has defined officially whether 1951 crowns are proofs, or 'prooflike'. I don't think those few wreaths for sale are any different from UNC specimens.

I'm no expert, but I think the main drawback is the use of both the circular kaleidoscope graphic AND the photographic colourful interior. If you used either but not both, it would be a huge improvement?

Unlike the obverse (which COULD be a proof) that reverse obviously isn't. Do we know the process by which coins were bronzed, and if via a treated die, could that have been used for a few currency pieces?

Hungerford, near Dresden?

I didn't know that either. It would be great to see pictures of an example or two.

Just specify the pixel count you want after you've cropped. Then you can get the pictures the same size, though the slight difference above isn't an issue for me!

Impressive research! My conclusion would be that you could generate more interest if you were able to separate true varieties from Mint sloppiness (cuds, graininess, wearing dies). I feel collectors would more interested in the former than the latter (which as you've recgnised yourself, there are very few disciples of),

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victorian-1862-Penny-In-Good-Collectable-Condition-R63-/325160503448?hash=item4bb5138898%3Ag%3Ak-EAAOSw7A1iY93V&nma=true&si=Rxbv5INqUmg1Ders9n0juMr1c2k%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

My own estimation is that it's scoring - if graffiti I can't make out anything that makes sense.