All Activity

It suddenly occurred to me the other day I had put a bid in for a nice looking penny on eBay. I had to put the bid in early as I had a long drive when it was due to mature. By the time I got home the auction was over. Now here is my conundrum. I could check with the web site to see if I had been successful or not. But if I did I might have failed in my bid and had lost the coin. However, if I don’t check it out I could still hold the winning bid, but I won’t know until I looked at the listing. Therefor, I might have won that coin, or not, until I find out one way or the other. I( I have lost the bid then I would be disappointed, so am I in a better position by not looking? Unless I have won it.

I am inclined to agree with you, Paddy, now I see all 3 together. But, keep looking for a 1915 recessed without the broken tooth as they do exist. I have one!

Not at all... Genuine 1927 florins are proof only, barely 15,000 struck and typically change hands for £120 - £150 and are sought after. A Chinese poor quality copy (which this is just one of many, many examples peddled on ebay, Alibaba etc) can be got for maybe a fiver, so a disingenuous soul can easily make a huge profit... See above!

It does look a bit odd now you mention it. The lines under the eyes and BM don't look quite right either. Here's the link: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/267686864594?_trksid=p4375194.c102726.m162918 Does seem a strange one to copy though.

I am here to eat humble pie! Having considered this coin for a while I finally got round to doing some direct comparison work, and have to conclude the doubters were right and it is not a recessed ear. Here is a comparison picture: On the left is my "normal" 1915. In the centre is my existing 1915 "recessed ear" complete with the indicative broken tooth. On the right is the one I hoped was a better "recessed ear", but side by side it clearly isn't. I had put too much faith in the depth of the trench to the left of the ear, whereas the fineness of the top of the ear and the absence of the rib in the centre of the ear seem to be better indicators when the broken tooth is absent.

Yes, I would go with repro too. The over-detailed eyebrows and moustache just don't seem to occur on genuine coins, even proofs.

It's possibly more difficult to tell when the attached picture is of an entire webpage rather than a screenshot of just the coin, but it simply just doesn't look right. It looks wrong in exactly the same way as a Victorian YH repro looks wrong. So my money's on a repro unless we can see the coin isolated from the webpage.

Isn't it a case of "that's neither superb nor a proof" rather than a repro?

Unbelievably I missed seeing these posts. I think you've made a very valid point. The two 6's are indeed different, and there is absolutely no reason why they'd have two virtually identical experimental dies each with a different 6 stamped on, just to strike a few coins. The other suspicion - though it might sound rather trivial and inconclusive - is the colour difference; 1926 pennies are usually darker than 1927 onwards which usually have a paler more orangey hue. But as I say, that's not really conclusive unless someone has a record of an alloy change made in 1927.

My own set is in the cardboard case. Cost me rather more than 15/- though...

There are repros of 1927 florins? Why?

Do you have a picture? They're only worth anything (a few £) if in Uncirculated condition, a little more if it has full lustre. In other words, like this:

Oh dear.

The only example I have seen in hand which is completely unambiguous was the Adams coin. You will see that the underlying 3 determines the profile of the last digit with the 3 clearly present, but also clearly overpunched with a 5 given the vertical section to the left on the upper part of the digit. I have seen various others which purported to be over 3, but none with the same profile and arguably contentious. The 1845 over ? that I had stolen at the Midland last year looked to be to be more likely over a different font 5 than a 4 or a 3, but 4 would be a good call if not a 5. Not to say that the coins with a taller 5 are not over 3, but definitely a case of caveat emptor IMO. There are many coins listed as such, but most are reliant on the vendor's description. There is one coin listed on ebay that I thought unusual which is claimed to be 5/3, but it was the irregularity of the date which caught my eye. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335246363284

I decided to look at my 1845 half crown after seeing an example of a 1845/3 for sale. On this example the date seems to be double struck. Any thoughts?

Noticed on Ebay

I'm not into stacking but I always thought the Britannia looked good. Just because I think that it’s a nice looking silver coin, I added a 1 oz. .999 fine silver Britannia to my collection. Mostly these are aimed at silver bugs but eh, I like it. By letting them send a random year, it was like $10~15 cheaper but I think I got lucky - Liz’s portrait is better than Charlie’s, IMO. From 2018:

Post-1752 Maundy coins were never intended for circulation so they are usually in good condition.

Is it of any value

Loddy Heck!!! errrmmmm... This George V 1911 2 pence Maundy is also in nice condition as well 😕 I don't no how has happed but its in nice condition all the same. 👍

Yep, standard 4+D die pair - very common. The N indeed is just flattened through extreme wear. Nothing special here, I'm afraid.

Looks like a standard Freeman 22 to me, though as you say the indicators are not all clear. The ‘N’ is just bruised and worn. Jerry

Sadly passed in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Unwin_(comedian)

What became of dear old Stanley U ?

hi, I have an 1861 penny, which sadly is in really poor condition so a lot of the identifiers are worn away. I know there are many different variations of this year and would appreciate your combine experience to identify which one mine is. Please see the photos, ( apologies for the quality). 2 things I have noted are that the L.C. WYON appears to be below the truncation and the ‘N’ in ONE is abnormal. Thanks in advance.