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

    2,142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

Posts posted by Peckris 2


  1. 14 hours ago, secret santa said:

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/255194362264?hash=item3b6ac4f198:g:VV8AAOSw3L1hdYTQ

    Why oh why do people do this ? Do they really think that someone might buy it ? Are there really people out there paying stupid money for worthless coins ?

    I'm wondering if it's an eBay thing? In other words, if you offer something at a high price and it stays unsold, perhaps you get some kind of improved status as a seller though I can't think what..


  2. 10 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

    Yes, but....running microprocessors gulps energy, and that's the problem. Reading a book does not......

    When you're in a wheelchair it's a lot easier to negotiate a computer than a book. Anyway, the newer Macs are very low on power as they're using 5nm chips, and before long will be down to 3nm which consume ridiculously little power.

    • Like 2

  3. 2 hours ago, JJs said:

    Very impolite. I hope any future contact from this forum begins Dear Bob ...

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

     

    • Haha 2

  4. On 10/11/2021 at 8:45 PM, copper123 said:

    I emailed the seller to say it was a forgery - I never got a reply

    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!

    • Haha 3

  5. On 10/9/2021 at 3:58 PM, VickySilver said:

    Peck, I think you missed the point about evidence - a small population makes it difficult to make judgements other than there is a small population. That would not of necessity prove anything. We have no idea if there were different dies trialed and especially if in scant numbers,  if more were struck and then destroyed, lost (or ? whatever). Obviously many alternative hypotheses may be advanced.

    What would be the point of a die trial in any case? We can only infer. Why, if the hypothesis of trials is advanced, can it be excluded that more than one die combination was trialed? Numbers extant alone would not be proof of either motive or event.

    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. 12 hours ago, VickySilver said:

    The thing is, if there is no mintmark there is no mintmark which is my point about the 1922 "Plain" cent with no D mintmark. We are virtually certain all 1922 cents were struck at Denver and all were struck by dies that probably originally had "D"s on them (although that point can not be proven of a certainty), just that one or two dies were struck by dies with the "D" filled or worn off or possibly not applied to begin with I suppose. These are readily accepted and bring strong prices.

    I also am not convinced by the converse: only one die set was used to strike coins sans "H". That seemingly would be impossible to prove, and given the paucity of "no H" specimens of the "correct" die type that it makes it doubly hard to prove. Rather, I would think logic dictates that the accepted die type is indeed "no H" but would not exclude that other no "H" coins might have been legitimately struck by another die combination(s). And metallurgic matching would not necessarily exclude the latter as of course the possibility and even likelihood is that other "no H" coins would come from different batches of metal. BTW, are all accepted "no H" coins matched metallurgically?

    And so if a coin leaves the mint with "no H" that it is "no H", and horror of horrors would be so whether struck at London or Heaton. Now that is rather a sacrilegious statement! If it takes a microscope to present even ambiguous attribution of an "H", that seems excessive as conclusive exclusion would IMO require unambiguous exclusion.

    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.


  7. 5 hours ago, Bernie said:

    If you stare at the space below the two eights long enough I do see a boxlike section. Could be my imagination !

    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.


  8. 1 hour ago, VickySilver said:

    You know, that is dogma, but I really am not all that sure of it - However, I must bow to the true experts here. 

    Personally I do not understand why another die or set of dies might not have been employed for a few. Also, in that there are very "weak H" coins out there would it not be possible that there are some where there is absolutely no sign even under magnification of an "H"? As readers know, this is precisely what happened with some of the 1922 D cents from the USA where there were weak and then also absent mint marks that are collected as 1922 "Plain" specimens....

    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.

    • Like 1
×