All Activity

Your call, m’friend! Though I could argue that, in the context of this post alone, Rob’s comment appeared very much tongue-in-cheek to me? That’s how I interpreted the bandit emoticon at least?

I started the question with I doubt it.. So no seeing these for the first time I wasnt classing it as a rarity rather simply asking the question for confirmation out of interest if nothing else.

Rather than missing waves, I'd say that it's the exergual line that's (partially) missing, probably damaged post-mintage.

Alas, not a variety; I think I can rationalise it as a planchet defect, but I'd be delighted to hear what others think. I hope the images are clear enough. I see a fairly well-defined circular or elliptical area where the die has not properly impacted the surface of the coin. Until I took the pictures I hadn't noticed that the right edge of the date zero falls within the area in question and the character has suffered some distortion. Maybe this complicates the thinking a bit? I can see no corresponding distortion on the obverse, making me think that the planchet may have had a weak patch which fell away during the minting process. I have no interest in value. I imagine most people looking for a 1950 penny would want a normal one in better condition! But if someone's trying to put together a penny date run of coins with minting errors, the scarce dates would be tough to find.

In respect to this post tolerant of what? It's a valid question I asked is it not? It's not about making sides/ brown nosing. Im going to say it how it is. This is a public forum, keep it amicable or 🤐

With all due respect to Rob, I too have noticed that he’s coming over as being a little less tolerant than usual…I think this could be, in part, on account of the gulf between his knowledge and the cerebral challenges he getting on this forum nowadays, if ever, to be fair! Top tip, though…as infirm, elderly, decrepit, grey, miserable and grumpy as he may be…he’ll be worth much more to your numismatic journey onside 😉

I guess seeing some of these for the first time its a rarity, working through my hoard and seeing double stamped and clashes for the first time I get this feeling "Wow Ive found a rarity!" ........moving on I've calmed with education.... Still is is great to see these and find them... 👍

there are a few where a small ish premium can be gained the 1850 farthing 5 over much lower 5 comes to mind

Ok thanks.

Excellent thank you for taking the time to explain this. Makes perfect sense.

Honest answer - absolutely not.

I was under the impression this forum is for educational purposes. A genuine coin related question IMO is worthy of a relevant response. For you and any other's please just scroll past if you are not capable of keeping it informative/educational.

I can only real talk about my observations on copper or bronze pennies, as that is my major interest . I find that over stamped letters/ numbers are extremely common on coins up to about 1863 though some can still be seen through to the 20th century . The last I think being 1945. The ones that are of interest to me and I would guess a lot of collectors are the ones that are dramatically out of place or triple struck . Some examples below Triple struck Y quite sort after , note the G and D overstruck but of little interest Here's Y over Y dramatically out of place 8 over 8 And just look at this one !!

Are you bored again Rob?

Only if it was struck on a rectangular blank, like yours.

I doubt it but will this add any premium to a otherwise normal coin? Thanks.

Congrats, Eric for getting the PL descriptor! Looking forward to seeing it. Obviously, the reflective fields would be obvious to someone seeing the coin in real life, but it is really nice to have it as part of the grade as a photo might not capture it so well. I agree that calling a prooflike coin a "variety" is just wrong. But I think NGC is using the term proof like simply to describe a circulating coin with unusually reflective fields and it is just a description of the appearance. The amount of "reflectivity" needed for the PL destination is of course subjective and depends on the opinion of the grader but then all grading by a TGP is subjective. Descriptors like PL also indicates that coins of the same "grade" can differ significantly in value and desirability despite the impression often given by TGPs to the contrary. From NGC website: "Most circulation issue coins have minimally reflective fields, even in Mint State (MS) grades. When a circulation issue coin’s fields exhibit a higher-than-normal degree of reflectivity, the coin is said to be “Prooflike” (or “PL”) because it is reminiscent of a Proof coin. If the fields are deeply mirrored, the coin is said to be “Deep Prooflike” (or “DPL”). NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness."

the higher relief is not a one off, in fact the low, more regular looking strike is rare. the relief is the same on the reverse between he 2 types the die looks fine to me I am not very well versed in proof strikes, but the features look very well defined on the more common 2017 coins, can’t rule out that possibility.

Better relief due to a plundered year specimen set? Is the strike of better quality or is that die a proof die recycled for the next stage down in quality? Does the bottom one look like it is from a worn die on its last legs? Is the relief similar on both sides? etc. All valid questions required to make decision. I won't say taken from a proof set because the rims aren't right, but that doesn't preclude the use use of a worn proof die or collar without the other bit. With less than 30K specimen and 14246 proofs struck across 3 sets, the dies should have plenty of life left in them.

Something I’ve noticed is that the vast majority of 5p coins from 2017 seemingly have a much higher relief than other coins from the same queen portrait, but i have seemingly found a 2017 coin with much less relief than the other coins from 2017, much like the other coins from the same time period. I have a photo of the coins here

I find it difficult to comprehend that it needs to be confirmed as 'prooflike' by a TPG given the lack of official designation or description. How do they cope with coins that are proofs but not all shite and briny (e.g. matte), and those superior currency strikes that look exactly the same, or close to? It only takes the use of a wrong die or collar to produce something akin to the real thing. This is as bad as Bull assigning prooflike to a halfcrown and calling it a variety, which it ain't.

Absolute classic! 🙌

Love that book and film.

Phew, thank goodness you don’t, this fella may have been a little too much for you!

No, not at all. It's all my fault.