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


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.

Mr T

Sterling Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mr T

  1. Cyrpus had coins with roughly the same sizes as British silver coins (9 piastres was one shilling) and I read recently that Essequibo and Demerara were the same (one guilder was one shilling).

    Does anyone know of any other examples like this? I think most of the rest of commonwealth used the pound or some sort of dollar (where the half dollar usually seemed to be equivalent to a florin).

  2. On 8/22/2021 at 2:48 AM, VickySilver said:

    A 1937 proof half crown in 68* sold for 4500USD. Yikes!!! I absolutely don't get it.

    Ouch! Someone is going to make big loss at some point.

    On 8/23/2021 at 11:40 PM, oldcopper said:

    I've just checked and the illustration of the pre-enhanced version of the 1770 proof halfpenny ex Gregory has now been removed from the PGCS website. It was PR65RB, but only one different one is now shown in that classification. It is now PR65+BN, so I suppose it has gained a plus but lost the RB designation, in my opinion a downgrade. A little spot on the neck was a useful pointer. The old version will still be on the CNG archive on sixbid early to mid 2018

    So why did they remove it, was it at the behest of the dealer who enhanced it, and didn't want anyone finding out? it would be interesting to see PCGS's reason for removing it from their site, not that they'd ever give it of course.

    I'm not saying the third party grading services are dishonest, in the main I'm sure they're very professional, but it's only going to be human nature to push slightly up rather than down if there's wiggle room for an important client  This is easier to do as the grade difference at present doesn't have to be very much to make all the difference to the price, especially in the upper echelons. And all those extra classifications and increments on top of the number grades are just more subjectiveness - cameo, ultra cameo, plus, plus plus, gold star etc etc and are designed to create extra bigger price tiers and value. And it's working.

    I thought they removed the old one if you sent in the old slab or the bit of paper in it when resubmitting?

  3. On 12/8/2008 at 1:18 PM, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

    I recently acquired what is possibly the 5th known specimen of a Half-Penny variety, unlisted in Freeman but acknowledged by Dracott in his Half-Penny study.... An 1873 obverse 8 paired with reverse C#.

    What I later discovered amongst some coins that I already had, but passed over because it was not an obverse 8, was another 1873 Half-Penny with reverse C#, but paired with Obverse 7... UNKNOWN & UNLISTED till now.....

    See attached scans......



    @Bronze & Copper Collector do you have those images handy? I hadn't heard of this until now.

    And just confirming that the C# can be spotted by a flat shield rim while the other reverses used in 1873 all have recessed shield rims?

  4. I would echo the above sentiments about buying a book before anything else.

    If you're going to sell as well I'd be checking my change for anything worth selling as it seems like some of the low mintage commemoratives can got for a bit over face value.

    I use a spreadsheet to track my coins - it's not perfect but it does the job.

    • Like 1

  5. On 5/22/2021 at 9:17 AM, Rob said:

    The question of the numbered strikings was addressed by Graham Dyer, former curator at the RM Museum in a 1982 article entitled 'Numbered Strikings of Victorian Bronze Coins, 1860-1868'. Whilst people are unlikely to have this, the important points are laid out in Michael Gouby's 2000 publication 'The British Bronze Coinage, Pence, Halfpence and Farthings 1860-1869' whereby Dyer has shown the improper fractions seen on a few coins relate to the total tonnage of bronze to that point (larger number) and the tonnage of that denomination (smaller number). As the BM has an example of an 1864 farthing with 236/11 (P1872) and there is a penny with 237/134 (P1662), using the consecutive numbers as a total for bronze output in tons, we can deduce the tonnage of halfpennies to that point, as after 236 tons of bronze struck there had been 11 tons of farthings and (using 237/134 as a reference point) 133 tons of pennies. ie, the remainder is 92 tons of halfpennies. 

    Further to the above, the introduction to the publication gives a little history, including some useful snippets, summarised as follows:

    Victoria was only happy with the portrait at the beginning of August 1860.

    The mint was very busy at this time with gold and silver and didn't have the resources to produce the number of coins required for the changeover. Consequently they gave Watt a contract for 1720 tons (including all three denominations) in the first week of Sept. Production was underway at the Tower mint by the end of the month. On the 15th October, daily output of halfpennies and farthings was just over 150K - 50K short of the 200K target. The deficiency was due to too many dies breaking, with an average of 30000 strikes obtained instead of the usual average of 60000. There was a need to reduce the relief on all three denominations at this point. The farthing was done, the halfpenny was 'very nearly ready', but the pennies required a further alteration, so at this point were still not in production. Nor had Watt started production by the end of November. The beaded border created a problem, with flaws appearing in this area regularly.

    Taking the above into consideration, it is hardly surprising there are fewer pennies extant than the other denominations for 1860. 

    Given the delay in getting the bronze coinage started, I would have thought they prepared 1860 dies for all three denominations. 1859 halfpennies and farthings are both scarce, and the halfpennies I have had of this date were all struck from old worn dies, whether 9 over 8 or not. So it is likely they intended to strike a good number of the smaller denominations in any case. As John pointed out, the halfpenny obverse was certainly used commercially. 

    It is beyond debate that they intended to change over to thinner, harder bronze coins earlier than they did, but as the decimal patterns of 1857-9 show, the bronze flans were prone to lamination. See below for the F689 edge. All 686s have this problem too. As these are both dated 1859, it is clear the problem was ongoing. Both are struck in bronze with a thickness of 1.5mm and are 27.5mm diameter. Freeman analysed the similar F686A to have 92.5% copper, 5% nickel, 2 % tin and 0.5% zinc, but this variation in alloy didn't cure the problem.

    For those unaware of what the numbered coins refer to, please see attached 1866 halfpenny showing 405 behind the head and 138 in front, i.e. 405/138. 

    F689 edge.jpg


    Where was it published? British Numismatic Journal?