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

    2,660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

Posts posted by Peckris 2


  1. On 11/25/2022 at 10:37 AM, DrLarry said:

    I suppose it has one advantage it saves having to  watch football....but then I am a man that watches paint dry most days .  I suspect  someone will develop an app one day soon that counts teeth 

    No need - my dentist already does, and the job is easier every time I visit. ;)

    • Haha 1

  2. 37 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    That is true, but it's the cache of a first edition which is important.

    I'm not sure cachet applies to learned numismatic works? It's very much a minority market! Ask 100 people if they know what book Peck wrote and I'd be very surprised if even 1 got it right (it would definitely be a Pointless answer :lol: )...

    • Like 1

  3. 39 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    Well done. You don't see many first editions. They're mostly the 1964 or 1970 reprints.

    It's often less good to have the first edition of a coin work - as a lot of work goes into updating or correcting things! I have a first edition Freeman but I wish I had the 1980s second edition...


  4. 16 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

    It is an amazing book, and of course being it about coins from a previous era, it never ages. The information gathered and presented, being as useful and relevant today, as it was in 1958. Despite a few new varieties being discovered since then.

    I got mine for £50 hammer at the September 2016 DNW auction. The £50 being a reduction from the £60 lower estimate, by the auctioneer, as nobody else was interested. The buyer had written February 1967 as the date purchased, and above that, in pencil, is £5-12-6 as the retail price then operating. 

    The book is so large and comprehensive, that in checking the price and date before posting on here, I started reading the section about Tayor restrikes. Really interesting stuff.  

    Have you got one now, Chris?

    I do - cost me £105 at auction in 2002 or 2003. It's the 1964 edition and it had its dust cover which has sadly become rather torn and marmalised since I got it. :(


  5. 22 hours ago, Rob said:

    Peck was definitely not mainstream literature for the masses. At the time the second edition was printed, you were looking at around a fiver for a book. The same price as Seaby's were asking for a gFine Elizabeth I milled 3d or an EF Chas.II 2d. Colin Cooke once said to me that many of his customers didn't have reference books, and a good number didn't even have a copy of Spink/Seaby. The reluctance to 'waste' money on useful books is an age old problem.

    I remember in the late 60s I'd calculated that if I cashed in savings certificates I'd probably near enough have the £5/5s/6d the local bookshop had quoted me to order a copy. Somehow though, there were parties to go to, albums to buy, bicycles to repair .. and I never bought it then. You're right, a fiver was a small fortune back then, though still reasonable value for Peck.

    • Like 1

  6. 22 hours ago, Rob said:

    Although there are examples of clashed dies in all reigns for milled coinage, the numbers really seem to increase in the Victorian era (possibly due to a large increase in production). But somewhat intriguingly, they drop off significantly in the 1880s. In fact, I can't remember seeing more than the occasional piece from the last 120 years or more. I wonder if this is connected to the refurbishment of the mint in 1882? At that point, the old Soho equipment installed in 1815 was replaced. So 30 years down the line, perhaps the mechanism for introducing the blank became temperamental? It would be useful to know when Boulton stopped making coin presses, as this may have had implications for repairs and replacement parts.

    Quality example whatever.

    Yes I think that's the reason. It wasn't merely "refurbishment", it was total modernisation, i.e. the replacement of the steam powered presses with electrical ones. This possibly means that the 1882 "no H" London penny was the first issue on the new presses?


  7. 4 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    It is no wonder that collecting coins is so confusing for people starting out.  One moment a coin with a broken F is given special status and someone decides it is a variety called  an ONF.  But then so many others seem to get no reference to them at all.  It sometimes seems as fickle as the art market , unless someone says so most errors are unworthy even of note.  The next minute they are as "rare" as hen's teeth....I am afraid I will never understand 

    The classic example (for me) was the 1961 halfcrown "designer initials omitted" which appeared as such in several price guides. But then some people found intermediate examples where the initials were partly or faintly there, and it was downgraded to a filled die and most people lost interest. you won't see it even mentioned now.


  8. On 11/15/2022 at 4:13 PM, DrLarry said:

    The Farthing box made or thin pressed copper foil with George IV and with William IV  .  I do not have the reverse of the William IV box but I see one illustrated in Rogers 4092  I like to think that this base fits my top LOL  .  You may laugh here but one day I was collecting roman pottery along the bank of the River Ouse and found a lovely rim of a Samarian Ware Roman pot. 

    Did you mean Samian Ware? Copper red glazed luxury pottery often with sophisticated embossed designs, and the maker's stamp?


  9. 2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    it intrigues me because it is so yet I cant stop thinking your father had a perfectly modelled seated Britannia why not just copy it.  The hand is correct and the position of the trident in good balance, the hand grasps it just as it would naturally. 

    the copper Britannia necessitated a bold and deep cut design. it probably wouldn't have translated in shallow form to bronze? so a new flatter design was brought in. having said that, I do like the bronze reverses.


  10. On 11/12/2022 at 8:42 AM, DrLarry said:

    Yes I have often wondered that very question myself.  I have various tokens with Entente Cordiale with the head of Victoria and you would have thought that this friendly juice could have perhaps stretched to having a chat.  Perhaps it is an issue of the complexity of the design as much as anything.   Having looked at the   Canadian bronze from this period there don't seem to be quite so many errors.  I think I have one 1862 over 1861 

    Yes, we went from a large thick copper with a bold and heavy design, to smaller thinner bronze with what had to be a shallow design. Major change.

    • Like 1

  11. 2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    can someone give me their wisdom please and tell me what is it in the Victorian Bronze coinage that changes after 1863 that results in a consistent mintage with few errors for many years?  Is it that the steel improves in quality so that they can simply throw away damaged dies rather than repair them.  apart from one error in the 1863 half penny with an  E over an E in PENNY and the 1865 over 3 nothing much happens.  the same in the PENNY 65 over 3 but then nothing until the Heaton years.   Was there a change in management and method? 

    My own tuppence ha'penny's worth: they encountered so many problems over the first 4 years of bronze that they eventually managed to iron them out. Also, it must have involved such a gargantuan effort between 1858 and 1863 that they may have decided to cut not only their losses but reduce such enormous expenditure.

    • Like 1

  12. 7 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

    yes I was just looking at the images and I think you are right the original planchet must have already been of the "right " diameter.   So like you suggest  just a very thin planchet hence the deformation or lack of detail on the reverse.  The reverse is undefined  whereas the obverse is quite a nice strike.  When is the edging  added ?   Have you ever come across one like this? there is a slight bulge but no more than a ew microns , the thickness is pretty uniform 

    Never seen one before. The bulging is clearly an optical illusion then.


  13. 2 hours ago, VickySilver said:

    Yes, but 1918 H are still better than the REALLY sorrowful 1919 H coins...I will try to post my own & as above appreciate the lovely colour of coins such as above but admit to personally resisting to buy lesser struck coins.

    So true - and is undoubtedly the reason that good top-grade examples of the 19H command such high prices, as good as 18KNs at least. My own example has virtually no hair detail at all, yet the obverse legend has virtually no wear, Britannia's shield and fingers are near perfect, etc.


  14. That's an interesting one. It raises so many questions:

    1. is the raised centre on EITHER the obverse OR the reverse the diameter of a farthing?

    2. is the physics of striking such that an undersized planchet would spread out laterally, or would it remain more or less the same size?

    3. Which would occur first - the 'spread' or the strike? It appears, from the design being present around the 'spread' that the strike (i.e. the impression from the dies onto the metal) must have been fractionally second, as how would the legend be so near perfect on the thin edges?

    4. Could this be the result of a deformed planchet that already had the thin edges and the central bulge(s), rather than from a farthing planchet?


  15. 10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

    When I noticed that an - in truth - very ordinary 1869 penny fetched over £2k hammer at the recent Baldwin's auction, I decided to buy this EF specimen, with slight residual lustre,  from Middlesex Coins, for half the price.

    At any rate it beats my current rather scruffy VF example.

    ETA: I should add that there is a ding in the upper reverse field. Not sure whether this is a metal flaw or post mint damage, but either way, it doesn't detract significantly. 

     

        

    middlesex complete.PNG

    Is your VF example for sale, Mike? If so, do you have pictures? PM me if so.


  16. 5 hours ago, Rob said:

    10 days old, but another gem from Darth Putin :)

     

    Day 250 of my 3 day war. My army advances backwards and I'm losing all my warships in a land war to a country that doesn't have a navy while my air force fires at Europe's largest country and misses it, hitting one next door.

    I remain a master strategist.

    Meanwhile I withdraw from Kherson but leave the announcement to my generals so they don't associate this colossal failure (sorry, "strategic realignment") with me.


  17. 4 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    you get a reasonable number for the price ..  I have to admit I am a bit smitten by toy coins .  most of which, since the 1860' s,  have been used for some educational use.  

    Yes, but you can't really class lifesize plastic 20p's as toy coins .. even if they are!!


  18. 9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

    Hi Bob,

    I remember we discussed Carole Towler once before.

    Whilst casually looking through some old Coin Monthly magazines, I spotted an article about her in the February 1969 edition, which includes two photos of her - one with her husband. Thought you might possibly be interested. 

    She looks about 30ish there, so she'd no doubt be in her 80's now. Anyway here is the article, with separate close ups of the the pics:-

     

      

     

    Carole Towler 1.jpg

    Looking not 100% unlike Emma Peel in that picture..

    • Like 1
×