bilnic

I am aware of the changed ‘3’ on the 3d (small ball and large ball) during 1904, but what other variations of this coin are there during the reign of Edward VII - or indeed from 1817? Some of my Edward VII coins do appear different, but I think that’s because of wear and tear and weighing them would be pointless for the same reason. I also note that KM has two numbers, with the change during 1904, and they have quoted different ASW (0.0387 and 0.042 oz.) which I consider to be rubbish - but the revised ‘3’ is not mentioned. Perhaps they are more concerned with their melt value of silver (0.042 x .925 = 0.0388) than the actual coins. From 1816, the lighter weight is quoted for 1902-1904 only, and decreases to 0.0227 for the .500 period. I wish that they would use grains and quote the full weight of coins. Another point of possible confusion is that the correct abbreviation for grains is ‘gr’, which looks like grams - my electronic scales show ‘gn’ for grains. As I collect circulated coins, I can’t go to the high definition illustrations that you good people are capable of, but here is a scan of the two versions of 1904 alongside each other. Please, what variations of the 3d from 1817 should I look for, and which version of the ‘3’ appeared on the Maundy coins of 1904? Bill.

Any more thoughts about the Edward VII 3d variations from anyone? Or should we now move to 1893 variations? Bill.

Yes Peter, but at the time the move was either a case of a job continuing work similar to that which I had been doing at a railway depot (Selhurst) on the Southern Region which was closing and moving to the Eastern Region, or no job at all. On reflection, Ilford depot was a bit like going back about twenty years on what we had previously achieved and the latter choice of no job might have been more advantageous. My first move into the London area at Croydon was at a time when offices were being moved out of central London, so our office at Eastleigh (Hants) was closed - LOGIC STRIKES AGAIN ! Bill.

Sorry about unintended smiley! Bill.

There are a lot of things to consider. A "Proof", now legal tender, but formerly perhaps not, cannot really be considered as a coin in the accepted sense of the word as it is not intended to be spent. The format of a Proof may be similar to circulation issues, but being made from special dies there are often subtle differences between the Proof and Circulation issues. The RM's "BU" is perhaps an intermediate step. I therefore suggest that any Proof or BU is not really an example of coins of that year or era (or whatever), but is still only an example of the art of coining, which in itself is commendable but can be misleading. Regarding "year sets", as they are issued at the beginning of the year they are often incomplete, with even commemorative issues which entered circulation missing. My choice would be end-of-year sets including (a) only all circulation coins of that year, and ( end-of-year sets including all collector-only types as well. These should be from "circulation" dies, but the first ones produced and "uncirculated", having been handled and packed only under controlled conditions as applied to proofs at present. Bill.

Just a quick thought on grading of hammered coins:- They can be either "AS" or "AS" (As Struck or As Seen)! Sorry Bill.

Mat - P.M. on this subject sent. Bill.

First, please accept that I know nothing about coins of this period, but I am drawn to North Vol.1, plate X, pictures 3 - this referring to coin number 737. If I'm correct, your first coin could be Eadwig, local type, N.W. mint. I'll be watching with interest - I hope that it's genuine. Second one - no luck. Bill.

The listing progresses. I’ve checked the underlined ones from my collection of circulated coins so these entries will need checking against any existing information. Obverse 1 -‘ I’ of BRITT points to a gap,’ I’ of IMP to tooth and wide gap to ‘:’ 2 - ‘I’ of BRITT points to a tooth, ‘I’ of IMP to gap and narrow gap to ‘:’ Reverse 1 - small ball at bottom tip of ‘3’ 2 - large ball at bottom tip of ‘3’ with definite angle where it joins the curve 1902 O1 R1 1903 O1 R1 1904 O1 R1 (currency) / O1 R2 / O2 R1 / O2 R2 (currency) 1905 O1 R2 (Maundy) / O2 R2 (currency) 1906 O1 R2 / O2 R2 (I think mine’s the first variety, but it’s very worn) 1907 O1 R2 1908 O1 R2 1909 O1 R2 1910 O1 R2 Any more thoughts would be appreciated, also details of the Maundy coins for this period. Also, the weights as quoted by KM for 1902 to 1904. Perhaps later we can pick another block of years and try to put any other information together in the one place, so it might be worth looking out any info now. Is this sort of info in print anywhere? As an aside, I’ve always been fascinated by the silver 3d. When I was young (many years ago!), I used to spot them on the ground near bus stops and try to rescue them before the bus ran over them - much to my mother’s annoyance, as she had to rescue me from the bus swooping in to the stop. Bill.

How much ? Picked mine up for less than £15 on one of my raids on the unsuspecting booksellers of the South East.... The ones I saw were £40 and £95 Vols. 1 and 2 respectively. Message sent about a considerably cheaper deal. Bill.

Thanks Dave, that’s a great start. So far, I’ve made it: 1902 O1 R1 1903 O1 R1 1904 O1 R1 / O1 R2 / O2 R1 / O2 R2 1905 O1 R2 (unconfirmed) / O2 R2 1906 O1 R2 / O2 R2 1907 1908 1909 1910 Can anyone give any guidance on the differences between the obverses, and can we take this table any further? Is it possible to give the obverse-reverse type for the Maundy coins? Bill.

Reference to English Hammered Coinage Vol 2, there is an illustration of a Queen Mary Groat - Plate IV, No.58. This shows "TEMPO" only (Coin Ref. No.1960). There are minor differences that could be expected from different dies for hammered coins. Yours could be OK, but I'll leave that to the professionals! Bill.

I like to learn all that I can about the area where I was born - Bournemouth. There were several mints within a few miles of the town and the oldest is suggested to have been at Hengistbury, which is on the coast at the entrance to Christchurch Harbour. There was also a mint at Christchurch (then known as Twynham) in Norman times. Back to the earlier period, about 2000 years ago, when the Hengistbury mint is believed to have been active, there are considerable signs of civilisation and the coastal strip between Hengistbury and the Isle of Purbeck, as far west as Wareham, appears to have been a trading area with signs that Poole Pottery was famous even in those days. Within this area, but not as far inland as Badbury, the inhabitants appear to have been traders and it also appears that the Romans were possibly welcomed as new customers. Any resistance to the Romans appears to have been further inland, but perhaps not in the sense of "I came, I saw, I conquered". From the evidence that I have read, the "conquered" appears to be propaganda for "settled", at least near the coast of this part of Dorset. Historians have given the title "Durotrige tribe" to the inhabitants, but from what I have read they were just everyday people getting on with their lives. If anything, the “tribe†connotation should be split between coastal and inland. References to the Durotriges also living in Somerset seem to be exaggerated. But there are Durotrige coins. The early ones could have been silver, but this became debased over the years. They are known as staters and there are also quarter-staters. Although they have no lettering, at least we know which is the obverse and reverse as they are convex/concave and the lower (obverse) die was dished to hold the blank, which was possibly a heated blob of metal. Perhaps the silver came from the Mendip Hills in Somerset? I would like to find a book or other source which concentrates just on Durotrige coins as I feel that a book on Celtic coins would be too general for my interests. Here are a couple of silver staters (probably debased), which were possibly struck only a few miles from where I was born. Bill.

I must admit that I know very little about the finer details of pennies, but I always like to learn. This coin is from a 'job lot' some time ago, but as the '3' is different again, I'm showing it now for comments. Unfortunately it isn't to the same standard as the one that started this topic, but I don't collect these in quantity. What can you tell me about this version? Bill.

My particular interest is UK decimal coinage, but am also interested in any earlier issues that might still be valid (I will not use the words 'legal tender'). Can you help, please, with the dates various coins were demonetised. I am starting with the crown as the highest velue, but information on higher values would be appreciated. Where possible I have given dates that I am aware of. 5/- Crown 4/- Double Florin 2/6d Half Crown - 01 Jan 1970 2/- Florin 1/- Shilling 6d Sixpence - 30 Jun 1980 4d Groat 3d Threepence (silver) 3d Threepence (brass?) 31 Aug 1971 1d Penny - 31 Aug 1971 0.5d Halfpenny - 01 Aug 1969 0.25d Farthing - 31 Dec 1960 0.125d Half Farthing 0.0833d Third Farthing Maundy Money - original face value changed from old pence to new pence, i.e. worth 2.4 times original value. But have any very early issues been demonitised? (For some reason, I keep thinking 1820). Plus, of course, any denominations that I might have missed. I think that you will realise what I'm getting at. By a process of elimination we might be able to find any gaps in the system. Thank you. Bill.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Bill.

Here, I’m referring to the silver 2d issued for Colonial (British Guyana and West Indies) use, these being the same as Maundy but to circulation standard. Some catalogues/listings show 1838, 1843 and 1848. Others just show 1838 and 1848. I have seen figures quoted:- 1838 1,045,000 1843 261,000 1848 903,000 Much watching on eBay, plus enquiries elsewhere, have failed to produce any 1843 dated coins other than ones that are obviously Maundy issues. Here we have another problem - referring to all silver 1d to 4d as Maundy money by most sources, even for an obviously heavily-circulated coin. Plus the fact that pre-1816, we don’t really know which years the small silver coins were circulated. Is it possible that these 1843 circulation issues were dated 1838? There appear to be vast numbers of the 1838 compared with the 1848 and the “1843?†might make up some of this difference. My question is: “Have any of you experts ever found a circulation 1843 2d?†To show my interest, here are scans of 1838 and 1848 circulation issues surrounding an 1844 Maundy (which some *@#!* has soldered at some time in the past). My pension doesn’t allow me to collect Maundy coins in quantity or quality, only the odd one or two. Bill.

I can't explain why, but something is yelling "restrike" at me. We know that some of the Soho dies fell into "other hands", and I wonder whether this might be a 1807 die used to restrike after the date had been altered to 1806. As I said, only a thought, but also a possibility. Bill.

I think that Ireland is quite possible - but I think that it is probably locally produced "token money" during a shortage of coins and could be anywhere in the British Isles. I read the legend as GEORGE II etc., which is a clue as a coin would have either GEORGIVS II or GEORGIUS II. Could you give us the diameter, please, and suggest what metal you think it might be? Sorry that I can't help further, but I'll be watching with interest. Bill.

There need be no doubt about when British £sd was demonetised. From about a week ago, see: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4637&view=findpost&p=54664 Bill.

I think that this topic is useful as a stand-alone item. Perhaps the title could be altered to refer to "frosted relief"? It is my inderstanding that the "sandblasted dies" refers to a couple of coins of each type only, for the Royal Mint to be able to get decent photographs. My opinion is that, although they exist and should be listed, such items should be shown in small type in any listings - my same comment also refers to any "coin" which did not enter circulation, including proofs. Circulation in large type, NCLT in small. I have never known the word "cameo" used for a coin before. I believe that the modern proofs with "frosted relief" are produced by treating the incuse part of the dies with a weak acid. On the 1902 frosted proofs, the whole die was treated to give a frosted field as well. Bill.

This is proving interesting. Now we know how members of the legal profession make their money! Here are links to the various Acts: Decimal Currency Act 1969 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/19 Coinage Act 1971 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/24 Currency Act 1983 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/9 Bill.

As I read it, the penny, which ceased to be legal tender after 16th May 1969 is therefore covered by the Act. ... or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. I know that, as collectors, we must all detest this desecration of coins, and I think that if the wording had been "cut up" rather than "break up", the effect might have been different. Bill.

The coins appear to have been drilled. Whether doing this is illegal is questionable. I'm not sure how this will copy, but I'll try - the source is Coinage Act 1971 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/24 10Restrictions on melting or breaking of metal coins.. (1)No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. Is drilling a hole "breaking up"? I'm sure that, working to the spirit of the law, it is, but what about the letter of the law? Do we have any legal experts here? I would love to see a definate reply, but thoughts from members should be interesting. Bill.

As all governments are wont to do, until something blows up in their face? Bill.