All Activity

That (and several ones like it) are AI generated slop and have no connection to the reality that silver was too expensive and too useful in industry to make coins of.

The recessed ear is a three-dimensional phenomenon, but most photographs are taken from directly above. With a coin in the hand I'm sure we all look from a variety of angles without thinking about it. With the images above I purposely used an angle to help accentuate the contours. It might be interesting to look at a similar view of a near uncirculated coin. Not to be found in my collection sadly!

While surfing YouTube I came across the post titled " Why They Stopped Making Silver Coins in 1964. The Real Reason They Hide". makes interesting viewing on how the US stole the silver from the people as did the UK earlier.

I'm fairly new to coins, and the only reason I ask is because the size of this in hand is a bit bigger than my other half crowns of the period, which all seem to be around 32-33mm. It seems to sit at around 34-34.5mm. It weighs 15/16grams on my (cheap!) kitchen scales, is non magnetic, and has the correct side inscription - DECVS ET TVTAMEN ANNO REGNI DECIMO NONO.

It's not the thinness - it's the recessed area as you say. On the left coin you can clearly see a hollow surrounding the ear which is absent on the Unc example.

Those prove my point about it being easier to see on more worn examples - the ear on those is far better preserved than you'd expect looking at the obverse as a whole.

You're thinking of skanga!

1873: 1 to 6, 10 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 to 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39 to 48, 50, 53 to 65, 67, 69 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 83 to 89, 92 to 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 105 to 107, 109 to 111, 113 to 115, 117 to 123, 125, 127 to 129, 131, 132, 135 to 137, 141

Thanks the image is not a good representation of remaining luster and the colour, I was playing with the ISO setting on the camera while the image shows nicely the depth of the strike the remaining luster is a higher percentage than the image shows and the colour is better aswell. I need to learn about lighting and practice more with the camera. Looking at sold examples of the 1904 this coin I think is roughly around the £60 price point. Similar coins have sold for quite a bit more and quite a bit less.

The challenge is to find a uncirculated 1915 with the thin defined ear, regret to say I have not found one yet.

Here it's clear cut, the "uncirculated" coin does not show the flat/worn areas on the face highlighted by red cicles on the worn coin yet the the top curved part of the ear on the uncirculated coin is not a thin defined line. I know strike and die wear are factors on this year. But how can a worn coin have a more defined ear if the ear is not recessed? Given its hard to find a sharp struck 1915 with or without a broken tooth if the ear is finely defined IMO its a recessed ear. It really stands out to me.

For me its all about the top curve of the ear, a thin defined line broken tooth or not, with overall wear to coin or not. The top curved part of the ear looks rounded without any flat spot. You can clearly see flat worn areas on this coin but the the top curved part of the ear remains thin and defined. Coins listed as uncirculated which are not recessed ear types dont have the definition to the top part of ear. For me thats the easiest way to know with or without a broken tooth.

I thought the ganga dynasty started with bob marley in Jamaca

Thanks Avocet. That makes it a lot easier.

If you think of the ear as an ellipse, the feature I find most readily identifiable is a crease running along the line of the shortest axis. Well-worn examples of a 1915 and a 1916 to illustrate: Both of these pass the broken tooth test. Note that the tip of the ear remains distinct despite the considerable wear.

That one is more worn, but doesn't look the same. On the one I posted before the trench is more noticeable down the left side and around the lobe.

Around the right hand side like this ?

For me it grades AUNC with lustre. A nice coin at the right price (I wouldn't care to say what that would be!)

It's a weird one - I remember when I was searching through bank bags as a schoolkid in the late 60s; now and again I'd see 1915 or 1916 pennies where the head just 'looked weird', especially around the ear. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I did notice each one when it appeared. It may be that the difference is more obvious on a more worn penny than on one that's EF or better? In other words, the ear is less worn than it should be and seems a bit more sunk than on normal examples.

For me it is the "trench" around the ear that struck me. The actual design of the ear is unchanged, but as the name suggests, it is recessed into a hollow. I am very poor at identifying all these varieties. Even "colon to gap" and "colon to tooth" often leaves me puzzling which I am looking at!

Help me please - what exactly stood out ? I still can't see any significant differences in my own recessed and non-recessed coins.

I agree - I find these very difficult to sport generally. I was fortunate this time that the next image was a 1916 in similar condition and the difference in the ears stood out, even to me! Here is the 1916:

Was that a proof? Wow, if ever to sell I need that venue! I bought a proof 1863 florin about 10-12 years ago from Baldwin's (basement?) for 1250, possibly a better piece - it graded proof 63+, subjective but probably accurate IMHO...

I personally can never see much difference between recessed and non-recessed ear varieties.

Thank you