Leaderboard

One can born with scars unfortunately. I remember some salesman once said on TV that inclusions in a diamond are a good thing as they give the stone unique character. Who was he kidding? Back to the 1902 matte proof. In my view, the minting process was over when the coins have been struck. The wiping wasn't part of the minting process and was mishandling by workers after minting. The fact that many (but not all) 1902 matt proof have wipe marks do help to make them more tolerable to collectors but you won't find many people thinking the marks are a positive feature. If you buy a modern commemorative coin from the Royal Mint today and it comes with a fingerprint, you would immediately return it due to mishandling in the mint.

one of the commoner coins of elizabeth

A facial birthmark or scar can be argued to add "character". I would still rather not have them...

well spotted Terry, got me looking at my three 1861 Gouby G's , the first from LCA and then cheap examples from Ebay and the Midland Coin Fair. To my mind the second coin could also be a 're-entered colon' example, though with a narrower colon in this case. What do you think? Jerry

Edward VIII didn't have any coins OFFICIALLY issued, but the new brass 3d was issued to traders for them to try them out in slot machines. They were supposed to be returned but a few weerent so these are extremely rare and valuable. Also, there are rare proofs of many (all?) denominations, so it could be argued you can exclude him from the list. As for Lady Jane Grey, she is not included in many lists of official English monarchs - Edward VI had tried to disavow Mary and Elizabeth and nominated Jane as the nearest Protestant candidate. Even if you do allow her, 9 days was hardly enough time to prepare and issue coins!.

Just to clarify, as Rob tried to do, it is a One Shilling coin (or 12 pence), not a 12 shilling coin.

Anyway, that's a shilling. What about the halfcrown? You tend to see them more on larger flans, which is probably a reflection of the greater difficulty in getting the correct and even temperature conditions across a large flan than a small one

Probably insufficiently annealed. Stress cracks happen quite often and I tend to ignore them if not too obtrusive, or the coin is rare enough to override them.

I have this excellent little poster that gives answers to questions like this. Probably still available online somewhere. This indicates only Edmund Ironside and Lady Jane Grey as the "No coins" examples. I had an earlier version of the chart years ago, which also showed Sweyn Forkbeard as impossible, but it seems that has changed. Edward VIII is possible if you go outside the UK. British West Africa and a few of the other Commonwealth Countries issued his coins in good numbers, though without his head, only his name.

Round and full. Very collectable coin 🙂

This one was up for auction at a starting price at £2.80 with no offers. Then it disappeared only to turn up as sold for £47. Its a Satin 28a. I only know of three, Bernie's one on Richards site, this one, and one other [No pic.] 1861 Freeman 4+D Centrally cut ribbon with misaligned colon after F:D: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/205436457401?_skw=1861+penny&itmmeta=01JSA06W8S3BFBQPH51PKENESB&hash=item2fd4f791b9:g:IdcAAeSwbtRoA5S2&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA4FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1d%2BQkGYEEyLO3zLsTXIJEyWIa6xLVpE35IrDPBn9qmxFJkZt0i3drt54CP8OXL5UPAyG9trH%2BjDR7UMWMpvhzXH7myS8d%2Fd4JBE1laG5KNccTvpGKw7T3DMCEV3fO2Z6ITP0C3rgaINuxjo1RJL3idV2kEdE6qQm5oTP8%2B54xIdtP6%2FNX7G4Fll3veMNqzHmOvE7pQB5hccRPNsdluyKgyyudwU1IYz%2FJ0ybeGiPjwjhGC%2FihHVRDDaM0DEYNiUFa8tAWHkXoIIu%2BkvuOEnUgrA|tkp%3ABk9SR8zEm8DKZQ

First is London, but not so sure about the second. Maybe an A in the middle of the first part, so Canterbury?

And sadly not class 4 but class 5, one of many subtypes but without the book and after a good few beers I’ll have to come back to this tomorrow. Jerry

NICOLE ON CANT

Crikey, so many classes, (for me its steep learning curve..... still early days) I did carefully work through them all..... pleased to find out its earlier than Edward III 👍👍👍

This one’s a class 3 London penny 👍

Yes, a threefarthings with Bust 3I, the threehalfpence were only ever issued with bust 3G. You’re lucky with this one because, even though you can’t see a mintmark either side, we can say it’s a pheon (broad arrow), because you have lions 33 on the reverse, which were only ever present in combination with a pheon. Equally all the other corroborative reverse devices are unusually clear (Lis 19, leaves 15, and shield 24). They were only ever present in combination with the bust and mintmark for 1561. Without all this lucky info (the clear devices I mean) it would’ve been difficult to even offer a mintmark. Also the date could easily have been min-interpreted without the amazing efforts of BCW. Edit: and yes it would (does) have a rose behind the bust.

Yes, second coinage penny with bust 3H Jerry has given you the mintmark.

Mintmark martlet. Jerry

Ah, I didn’t notice the diameter. Could be a threefarthings then.

Not really my period, but it looks like a 1561 Elizabeth I threehalfpence to me. The third, fourth and fifth issues did have dates, although not the penny.

Michael G has a summary on his page: http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/GB20pence.htm

I didn’t even know there were two different designs on the 1992 20p?

Well it's a paradox of sorts. I believe the coins without the privy mark have higher mintages comparative to the mint set issues. However, with the full mintage of non-privy marked issues going into circulation, it means they will be hard to find in true UNC/BU condition, hence the need to get them out of circulation as quickly as possible.