1949threepence

.........Not to mention scanning the lines of coins paraded in those "penny falls" machines in amusement halls, to see if there were any there worth trying to coax out (sad but extremely enthusiastic git that I am)

You are so lucky to have lived in the days when lsd was circulating. If I'd been around then, I'm sure I'd have been making a nuisance of myself in banks, buying pound bags of pennies to sort through I bet that if an uncirculated example was auctioned it would easily fetch more than the £1500 book price.

Well I have now tried Googling it, and the wiki entry is the only reference to the "incident", as far as I can see. So you may well be right. I know if I had been collecting at the time, and I'd heard about it, I most definitely wouldn't have forgotten it. If it did happen, it could also have been a deliberate publicity stunt by the company concerned, in order to attract attention (as opposed to a real find)

On the subject of really rare coins, I wonder if the story contained in this wikipedia entry is true ? I would bet that it is How unlucky was that guy ?

Tell that to the collector trying to get an uncirculated 1926 modified head penny Seriously though, I know what you mean. As you say there are a number of "common" dates which are actually harder to find in BU than apparently "scarce" or at any rate "scarcer" dates, in the same condition. For me the classic example has to be the 1953 penny ~ obviously collected and stored extensively at the time, being the Queen's coronation year, and all that ~ but woth just £4.00 book value in uncirculated, notwithstanding the low 1,308,400 mintage. I think any serious collector is well aware of the difficult years for each denomination, which, whilst including the classic ones, like the 1932 florin, 1905 shilling, 1919kn penny, 1926 ME penny, but also much less obvious ones, like, as we mentioned in a different thread, the 1921 shilling. Hahaha - I should have specifically excluded the 1926 ME penny from my previous point. Oh boy, I would LOVE a BU one - wouldn't we all? For pennies, I would say 1914 - 1916, 1930 and 1931 are seriously underrated in BU. But also - judging purely on list values - the 1946 penny in Unc isn't nearly as easy as the book suggests. I'd also say that Unc 1958 and 1959 halfcrowns are somewhat overrated, especially in comparison to all 1950s florins. Actually, I wasn't really referring to Unc coins as the number of those saved from the Great Smelt Down was probably largely unaffected. And I guess that the 1953 penny was never really intended for circulation anyway, being sold only in those souvenir plastic sets. And a mintage of 1,308,400 for a commemorative is really high and beats the number of coin collectors quite easily. Similarly with the 1951 and 1953 crowns (and as for the Churchill, let's not even go there!). On the other hand, a coin created purely for true collectors, such as the Wreath crowns ... I've been collecting since I was 12, and the best 1926ME penny, I've even seen, let alone bought, was a VF example. Even if you've got the money, you would have to be very patient to get a high grade one, as they do not come on the market every 5 minutes The one I've got is barely fine, probably no better than fair, with the reverse lettering slightly rubbed.

This is a hopelessly difficult question to answer. Coin collecting (and therefore prices) has different stimuli at different times : Late 60s (medium inflation, but impending decimalisation) : coin collecting fever, modern coin prices go through the roof Mid 70s (high inflation) : post-decimalisation, modern prices collapse, but pre-1887 values increase sharply (a "true" market) Early 80s (medium inflation) : speculation e.g. in silver bullion, pushes coin prices to 'silly levels' Mid 80s - mid 90s (low inflation) : gradual stabilisation (aka decline) in coin values, leading to stagnation Mid 90s - early millennium (low) : shortages of good material; a return to coin collecting by many of the '60s schoolkids'; the takeover of the Standard Catalogue by Spink - prices go up double or threefold or even more Currently : coin values stabilising from the dramatic increases, but shortage of good material persists Whether the economic recession will result in a 'flight of money' (leading to lower coin values), or see coins as a 'hedge against recession and better than shares' (which should stimulate the market), remains to be seen. But, it will be increasingly true that there will be more collectors than coins as the supply of pre-decimal coins remains ever-fixed. Never has the maxim 'buy the best quality you can afford' been so true. To give you a humbling lesson : 12 years ago, new to dealing and therefore still wedded to 'book price', I bid for a BU 1873 bronze penny at auction, pulling out when the bidding went past the then book price of £75. I should have known better, I should have hung on. That coin would now easily fetch £400, probably considerably more. I hate to say it but the biggest skew on coin prices in the last 3-4 years has been ebay. It's the only dealer in town with a daily average of 40,000 UK coins. It's has certainly made coin collecting widely accessible. It has made coin collecting much more accessible, and I would bet that those 60's schoolkids referred to by Peckris, have had their youthful interest in numismatics re-kindled by a tour of the coin pages on e bay, and with available money many orders of magnitude greater than the peanuts they had available to spend back then. I take on board all the criticisms and obvious weaknesses which attach to e bay, but at the same time, I would offer in their defence the fact that I have managed to find coins on there, which seem to be almost completely absent from the dealer's shelves. However there can be no doubt that much of the stuff is seriously over-priced, not to mention overbid for, by people clearly not experienced collectors. It's often possible to buy a better example of a given coin direct from a dealer, at lower than the winning bid price on e bay. There is at least one dealer on a bay (power seller), who I am absolutely sure consistently undergrades his coins. But he is in the minority. Probably a minority of one.

Something that has always puzzled me slightly, and I've never yet been able to find a definitive answer. Why is the 1869 penny worth so much (£2,500 in unc, for example), yet its mintage of 2,580,480, is more than twice that of the 1868 penny (1,182, 720), yet the 1868 in unc is worth a mere £550. No doubt this will be elementary to most of you, and I aplogise in advance for sounding a bit thick.

Tell that to the collector trying to get an uncirculated 1926 modified head penny Seriously though, I know what you mean. As you say there are a number of "common" dates which are actually harder to find in BU than apparently "scarce" or at any rate "scarcer" dates, in the same condition. For me the classic example has to be the 1953 penny ~ obviously collected and stored extensively at the time, being the Queen's coronation year, and all that ~ but woth just £4.00 book value in uncirculated, notwithstanding the low 1,308,400 mintage. I think any serious collector is well aware of the difficult years for each denomination, which, whilst including the classic ones, like the 1932 florin, 1905 shilling, 1919kn penny, 1926 ME penny, but also much less obvious ones, like, as we mentioned in a different thread, the 1921 shilling.

Not really a useful assumption - there are so many forgeries around of £1 coins that you can 99% say that a misalignment = a fake. I agree, with the proviso that if the forgers were so careless as to get the obverse and reverse misaligned, there would very probably be other giveaway signs of fakery, such as a blurred strike, or an incorrect reverse pattern for the year.

I hadn't realised there had been any more additions to this thread. Some very interesting thoughts there, guys. I have to say the whole idea of batches of coins from a given year (dated that year) being held and then issued into general circulation up to several years later, sounds very plausible to me. In deed, I think it still goes on to some extent, as I have been handed uncirculated coins from say three years previously, at times. Not isolated examples, but say three totally uncirculated 2005 2p's given to you in your change in 2008, at Marks & Spencer, say. Moreover, the point about years in which no coins were minted ~ ie: none dated that year, threepences dated 1947 for example, never having any mintage shown, kind of negates, to some extent, the theory about previous years coins as yet unissued, being issued in and included in the following year's mintage figures (viz, the 1868 penny) or coins minted in a given year, bearing the previous year's date. Food for thought....

Well I've e mailed the Royal MInt via their contact us service, as follows:- I'll post the response on here (1 - 3 working days, they say)

Yes, that's exactly it, Chris. I've tried both types of edit, equally unsuccessfully. When I click the relevant button to confirm my text amendments, a "loading" symbol briefly appears, then nothing.

Am I right in saying that all the post 1992 "bronze" is magnet attractive, whereas pre 1992, not at all ? Somewhere around that year, anyway.

Apologies for the spelling errors in the previous post. Tried to edit, but it keeps blocking me

I wondered that as well. I was afraid they would be instantly recognisable, ans it seems that dear may be vindicated. Nonetheless, I'll still be purchasing a set, and let you all know what I think about their appearance as compared to an ordinary uncirculated soecimen, side by side.

I'm not sure that's entirely valid - if it's not a proof then by definition it's a currency (albeit 'specimen'). However, I would take the "highly polished" with a pinch of salt myself. I think that's the Royal Mint selling to complete lay people who would be more impressed with the phrase "highly polished" than "brilliant uncirculated". They wouldn't actually be polished or they couldn't sell any sets to genuine collectors. And don't forget that brand newly minted coins in change these days often have a highly mirrored finish, in contrast to the (to my mind superior) 'satin' finish you got in the late 60s. I think if you broke up a Baby set and stored the coins separately, no-one would be any the wiser in years to come. It's like the 1985 50p - no-one cares if it's from the set, or a genuine currency coin. They're all scarce. In that case, I'll buy one and let you know what I think On reflection, I'm sure you're right.

Just to put that into context, I've only ever received one 2002 Commonwealth Games £2 in my change, and they are of comparable mintage. If you buy the 2008 baby set from the Royal Mint you get the whole lot brand new. OK, thanks Gary, and here it is The only problem being is that they are not ordinary uncirculated coins. They're highly polished, which unfortunately kind of sets them apart. Although maybe not as much as a proof would.

Just to put that into context, I've only ever received one 2002 Commonwealth Games £2 in my change, and they are of comparable mintage.

I've seen all except the 50p.

Does he have illustrations, Gary? If so, can you see from them if 1805 is indeed the first obverse? (But in any case, the obverse 1 does have a "full neck" while the shallow protrait has a "hollow neck"). Also, does he state rarities? If he does I should estimate that 1805 will be the rarest, unless any of those low relief varieties is also truly rare. And you're right - Spink have listed those descriptors the wrong way round ! (At least in the 2005 book which is the latest I have). 'Nose to S' is the common shallow portrait (I of Georgivs to space), 'nose to SV' is the rare first obverse (I of Georgivs to bead full neck). Ignore your Spinks, folks ... Apart from a discription Davies doesn't give much more information. There are pictures but they are just close-ups of the areas he's interested in, eg. RGIVS showing bead alignment and IMP showing the tuft alignment. He also doesn't give rarities although he does give a 1982 values in mint condition. 1805 £85, 1806 £42, 1807 £75, 1808 £60 and 1809 £30. I guess you could infer comparitive rarity from this. Gary Thanks Gary, very interesting. I just wonder how many collectors are actually aware of these very subtle differences.

I wasn't previously aware of Saltzman, either. I noticed your photo of the two 1949's (sharp and rounded edge) on another thread. Thanks for that, Gary I think we're talking more about the outer edge, as opposed to the internal angles. As I said earlier, and like you, I'd never heard of a sharp cornered '49 until I read about, and saw, on here. I wonder what proportion of the 464,000 were sharp cornered. It makes sense that some would be when you think about it, as 1948 were all sharp cornered, as were 1950 to 52, and henceforth after that.

Nothing so far. I shall look out for one, with interest.

All four of my 1941's are type c. Both my 1949's are rounded edge (of course). I've never seen a sharp cornered '49, nor knew of their existence before reading this. So thanks.

Ah, understood. Thanks very much for the clarification, Peckris My EF 1921 is definitely of the second "nose to S" variety.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down! A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems. clicky Another thing that make 1921 tough is the five Davies types for this year, I still need the nose to VS which come up ocassionally but I'm looking for EF or better. I'm not aware of these different types & would be interested to know. By "nose to VS", do you mean one of these, currently for sale on e bay ?