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. On 5/5/2021 at 7:16 AM, Sword said:

    It's no surprise that George VI refused. Since, his brother didn't want to be King, why should he want a set of the coins?

    Edward VIII's abdication hurt George VI deeply. Hence he didn't allow the Duchess of Windsor or their future descendants to use the HRH title. George told his staff not to put phone calls from his brother to him. The coins of George VI faced the same way as George V, which simply ignored the fact that Edward VIII faced the "wrong" way.

    I read recently the request came in 1951 as well.

  2. On 4/30/2021 at 5:17 AM, Zo Arms said:


    I have neither the knowledge nor experience to be taken seriously so these are purely amateur observations.

    Using Mal Lewendons photos in the thread '1874 half penny' 2015, the only concrete difference that I can spot is the pointing of the second T in Britt.

    Obverse 11 shows it pointing smack bang to a tooth. On obverse 12 the tooth is slightly to the left and the upright noticeably takes in some of the adjacent gap.

    Transfering this observation to the side by side obverses shown in Freeman, page 89, the difference can be seen with a shift of the eyes.

    You might be on to something, though I think obverse 11 and 12 are probably the same more of less - I looked for any appreciable difference that wasn't a comparative and all I could notice was that some coins had the R of BRITT pointing below the serif of the I and some had it in line. Both types could be seen on coins that were supposed to be both 11 and 12.

  3. 6 hours ago, copper123 said:

    On the subject of edward VIII coins can anyone confirm that when Edward asked for one of the four sets he was turned down by the royal mint , that must have felt like a right smack in the face .

    George V would have gone spare if he was turned down .

    I remember reading that though maybe it was brother that rejected the offer?

    I've noted to myself that the first stroke of the N in ONE helps with the 1909 penny.

  4. On 3/21/2021 at 11:55 PM, Rob said:


    The counterfeiting of British Victorian £5 gold coins in the 1960's

    The Public Records Office, Kew, has been recently given a "make over" and renamed the National Archives. Here are deposited the record books and official files of the Royal Mint. British law usually allows these to be examined after thirty years. One of these files, prosaically named: "Requests for examination of £5 pieces", Ref.2, allows us to find out about the glut of counterfeit £5 pieces which entered Britain in the late 1960's.

    The file is documented to cover the periods 1965 to 1969. It starts with a request, in November 1965, from the Customs and Excise to the Royal Mint to examine a 1887 £5 gold piece. This piece was one of a number imported from Kuwait by a Mrs.Akel, a Birmingham jeweller. It was alleged she was selling these pieces on to other small jewellers in the English Midlands. G.P. Warden, a principal scientific officer at the Mint, reported the piece was a counterfeit. This was based on the low weight and density of the piece, the incorrect number of millings on the edge and a number of visual defects on the coin. From the density of 17.05g/cc Mr.Warden estimated that the coin contained about 89% gold as against the 91.66% found in the genuine coins. The file contained a photograph of this coin and it is reproduced below.

    Photograph showing the 1887 Jubilee gold £5 ex. Mrs.Akel





    Mrs.Akel counterfeit




    Genuine coin

    39.87549 to 40.00507g

    17.45 to 17.55g/cc


    The file does not detail the visual faults of the counterfeit but examination of the photograph reveals a number. On the reverse, the body of St.George had not been completely "made" during the striking operation. Both The file does not detail the visual faults of the counterfeit but examination of the photograph reveals a number. On the reverse, the body of St.George had not been completely "made" during the striking operation. Both sides contained a large number of pimples and depressions. The pimples were especially noticable on the table next to the body and leg of St.George and on the bottom part of Queen Victoria's veil. There is also a small die crack visible near the top right hand side of the I of Victoria.



    Sorry for the late response - thank you, very helpful.

  5. I was flicking through my Davies and it looks like the threepence dies used for George V Maundy sets is incomplete (it starts with 3C for 1920).

    Anyone know what was used for 1911 to 1919? I know I can look (it looks like 1911 is 1A: https://maundy.co.uk/catalogue/product-details.aspx?id=nPLwqfwFJrE%3D; 1919 looks like 1B: https://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=168&searchlot=2237&searchtype=2) but just in case anyone has already looked and figured it out.

  6. 9 hours ago, 1887jubilee said:

    Yes you are onto something here. I have examined my extensive 1887 collection of 6d. There are as you say different obverses but not limited to the two you show. Even the reverses are not limited to the A-E in Davies. there being at least four of 1887 alone. For comparison I would like to see your obv. 2 if it is 1887. I only have one.

    Four different reverses for 1887? What are they?

  7. On 3/5/2021 at 7:01 AM, coinkat said:

    The reverse is different... I would suggest substantially different. There was another thread I started under varieties that address the main difference between what I refer to as the type I Reverse which is the type we see on the pattern and the type II Reverse which is the reverse type on the other that was posted on this thread. There are significant differences in the detail of the horse, the dragon wings, the forearm of holding the sword. What I find puzzling is how this difference could go virtually unnoticed for the better part of 69 years. For these interested, the discussion is more developed on the other thread

    Related to http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/13797-1951-crown-type-i-and-type-ii-reverse/


  8. On 3/1/2021 at 4:59 AM, VickySilver said:

    I am trying to see, but these old eyes can't see a lot....I wasn't too keen about the initial SNC offering but the shilling has more differences (I can not find that one at the moment).

    Hard to say from the pictures, but comparing to https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/57841, there might be a bit more detail in the King's hair and area under his eye, and on the reverse the left arm of the centre cross almost touches the bottom arch on the pattern but is well clear on the standard.

    Both reverses have 180 denticles and both obverses have 183 denticles by my count.

    Are there any better images?

  9. On 2/28/2021 at 7:20 AM, 1887jubilee said:

    The 1887 Halfcrown with 7 to a bead is a significant rarity. I have sent the information to a friend in Australia who has been looking for one for some time. The double florin obv.1 rev. B is well known but represents only about 5% of 1887 double florins. If you have anything else 1887 please contact me.  PS good to see all the familiar names on the forum.

    Do you know if the 7 to head is known on circulating coins? I'm inclined to call it a pattern because it looks like an unrecorded obverse too - there are two lines on the bottom of the crown like obverse 1 but three pearls on the central arch like obverse 2.