All Activity

Thanks, yes.....I'll take a look.

By the way , its a nice coin well struck and atractive

Many thanks for your answer, Rob. I really appreciate it I'm just getting into this coinage, so I could ask for your help again.

Probably some action in the last minute. Or seconds...

Depends on the age of the collar, and how intact the links are. Eventually it will burst with a resulting mistrike, likely quite spectacular. A small ring of raised excess metal is a good diagnostic tool for working out how much circulation the coin has seen. If still visible and obviously worn down, it ain't unc, despite offering some added protection to the die relief.

Looks more like a faulty flan than die. Lamination along fault layers due to trapped impurities in the mix are reasonably common, even today. Lumps on the surface are predominantly due to poor storage and resulting rust on the die which then flakes off when used, leaving an area of raised spots. This area can be any size up to an including the whole die face. If you search for rust spots or lamination on the forum, you can see many examples of these features.

Im not sure if you are on Facebook Chris but there is a couple of groups which you maybe be able to sell items at fixed prices if thats of interest to you. One advantage being no fees. You can search for these groups; British pre-decimal milled coin collectors(1649-1970) British Coins, Hammered, Milled & More.

I would add a footnote! All the action will be in the last 24 hours and ebay will promote the listing and for sure some people that see the listing will have not read this discussion.

I also noticed the 1967 penny struck in cupro nickel the size and weight of the coin possibly matches a Florin. The CUNI penny is pretty much same weight as a Florin with the penny being slighter larger.Looking at the CUNI penny you can see about 1.5/2mm of the rim missing. And the Florin coin is roughly that much smaller than a penny.

Given coins are being checked on conveyors Im assuming this quality control step is looking at coin blanks only? If it was checking struck coins alot of room for error only looking at one face of a coin? They must be checking for incomplete/damage blanks? This image is from 1966 right in the middle of 1965, 1966, 1967 coins.

The 1967 heavy flan coin @secret santa purchased from LCA also appears to show this feature. Although not as pronounced. You would of thought Given the 1967 coin was the heaviest out of the 65 and the 66 at 13.43 grams this should of shown the most amount of excess metal around the edge..? If this detail is infact caused by excess metal being forced/Flowing up the side of the dies, is this even possible? Thanks

Sorry not Peter 😊 and yes, good point, I should have made that clear but hopefully it will be known to most bidders now by this discussion. I can't change the description now but could add a footnote so thanks for the advice.

Can I ask please; Does anyone know whether its common to see a small raised rim around the edge of pennies. The 1965 penny @RChris has listed on ebay and the 1966 heavy flan coin sold through LCA both coins have what appears to thin raised lips on the edge of the rims? Is this because of excess metal? Because the flan is thicker the excess metal is forced up around the sides of the dies? The reason I ask is because I found a coin online which I purchased which has the raised rim/lip identical to the 1966 heavy flan coin. The raised lip is in exactly the same location on the obverse and reverse sam start and end locations to the coin shown on LCA. I have started at looking at 1966 Pennies and have not see another yet with this raised detail around the edge of the coin. Is it a coincidence the two heavy flan pennies sold through LCA show this feature? Is it also a coincidence the 1966 I found matches exactly that of the LCA coin? And to be clear by matches exactly the raised lip starts and ends in the same location on the obverse and reverse. Thanks

Good morning, and thank you for your opinions! After doing some research, I was also leaning towards classifying it as a currency issue, but I wanted to get some authoritative views before "closing the matter." What about the break on the reverse rim and the die flaw on the drapery at the front of the shoulder? Are both due to die wear, or does the reverse break have a different origin? I haven't found any other specimens showing a similar feature. Thank you very much for your input; I am fascinated by these coins—which I find very beautiful—and I am trying to learn more about them.

I'm not Peter 😊 and the listing says: London Coin Auctions sold one in 2016 for £280 hammer price. All I was getting at is I would of made it clear the coin in the auction is the coin which sold in 2016.

I asked AI for an opinion, it agreed with you so I gracefully concede 🙂

Currency. Too many things wrong for a proof. Using Peck's arguments for proof examples, the 1 should be clear of the sea, no flaws and should have a grained edge (which both currency and proofs have). The rims aren't good enough either. Peck also states the currency as having a grained edge in a deep groove, whilst saying the proof is merely grained. Normally this means light oblique graining in the centre of the edge, not in a groove. However, if it wasn't in a groove, there would be no reason to mention the other criteria as this alone would suffice. Muddy waters here. Prooflike examples are frequently encountered, but that is normally an early strike using fresh dies. Not surprising if you think about it, as a resetting of the press will probably require the force to be adjusted to reflect the new positions of the dies, which despite being nearly there, are inevitably going to be a few microns out as a minimum. Think physical length and diameter together with the depth of the relief.

that would go back into the melting pot as a badly struck coin if the mint were doing their job right

It might make it easy if you have a copy of peck does look like a raised dot on georges shoulder if that helps

If your max bit is submitted one second before the end then anyone manually bidding against you won’t have a chance to react. And with sniping no one knows you’re bidding until T-1.

Perhaps I'm being dense but I don't see much difference. I either win it or not and if not it's because it went for more than I wanted to pay - which was my prior placed max bid. Your snipe bid is also your maximum, which may also win, or not if it's not as much as the bid I place a week before. Either way both are maximum bids, just placed at different times. Before auto sniping existed I often sat watching the countdown with my finger hovering over the mouse to click and enter a last second bid. Others may still bid it up as the auction progresses or those sniping may still beat yours.

The problem with that is that someone else may keep bidding it up. With a sniper your bid is not submitted until the final 6 seconds or even 1-3 seconds with a subscription, which doesn't give then a chance to respond.

I'll probably offer this Gouby 'X' next. Not the finest example but I assume there might be some interest?

When I was buying I used to bid the maximum amount I was willing to pay. Same result, some won (often at a lower price than my max) and some not. I recall auto sniping was quite new back then.