Chris Perkins

And it has George III on it? Is there a date? If between 1791 and 1798 or 1810 to 1815 then it's probably a Provincial (merchant) token, and probably for halfpence going by the size.

No, nothing like that. That could be collar damage I suppose, I would think it would make it harder to sell not easier (which isn't really an issue for low value coins like this). I think there are pictures somewhere else in the Forum. All the writing was in the wrong oder, the Latin dates were superimposed etc.

There are also a couple of documented edge errors caused by slipping of the 3 part collar which surounded the blank as it was struck. I sold one like this once for over £300 and it's listed in my book Collectors Coins GB, linked to from above and also available on predecimal.com.

Lots of people gathered some coins in the 60s and naturally a few thought about just keeping the best ones. Usually though, the best ones from change are not always that great in the eye of a collector, especially after such a long time in circulation. I expect some of the 30s coins are VF or even EF. The 60s ones will be as new (and are very common). The 1920s coins may well manage Fine and the Edwardian and later Victorian will be all readable and not unattractive, but usually less than Fine. All that is quite normal. I would be very surprised if any are worth £50 each, but you never know. Can you post some pictures of what you think are the best ones? You can do it on here by using the Attachments/Select a File below the text box. I always seem to come across a bit negative when accumulations of coins like this are concerned. Or perhaps not negative, but not exactly overwhelmed with excitement! I'm sorry about that, it's nothing personal it's just statistics! Over the years hundreds of people have contacted me after saving some coins when the old money was about to be demonetized. Often it's the people themselves but mostly it's younger relatives or heirs. In over 95% of cases the coins are all simply run of the mill and are of extremely high sentimental value and very low monetary value. Each time I hope it will be different, but there's a little voice in my head that tells me it's probably the same again. So melancholic already and I'm not yet even 30!

With this kind of accumulation the bulk of the value is usually in the silver. What you could do is split the silver coins into 3 catagories: 1. Pre 1920 coins, 2. 1920 to 1946 coins and 3. 1947 and later. From that I can make an offer based on the silver content. The chances are that the bronze coins, if normally circulated (as most would have been in the 60s) will just be worth a few pee each. In fact, unless your granddad carefully selected high grade coins they may all just be worth a few pee each! Is it a postable quantity and where are you?

Yes they did have the normal one for those years. Source: My book, Check Your Change linked to above!

That bearded geezer looks like one of the Egyptian Ptolomy's. They were all called Ptolomy and all married their sisters!

JMD, I have a 1953 2+A Proof farthing available. Do you want it for £90.00?

It's because its very worn and only worth scrap value (around £7). They are very common in that condition, in fact the 1821 Secundo is the most common GeoIV crown. Truly brilliant ones will of course sell for more. Condition is the main factor for 'modern' British coins, always.

That'll be a sovereign then, not a guinea (20s, not 21s). Post pictures if you can.

Looking again, that's 1887. That was the jubilee year and a lot of 1887 coins were enamelled and sold as souvenirs. I've even seen 1889 coins enamelled to look like 1887.

Or, more accurately, enamelled. The Victorians did that a lot to their own coinage and to those of previous reigns. They are not really of interest to most numismatists but very pretty ones or completely intact ones are saleable.

Take no notice of £1650! That's just someone quoting you the EF price from the Spink book! That coin is not EF, more like VF, albeit an attractive VF. I'd offer £450 for it and hope to eventially sell it on for £600. PM me if that sounds worth doing.

Watch you don't confuse that for the box labelled 'pants' that actually contains your pants! ;-) Quite often they are not as obvious as that. One coin is often hollowed out and the other reduced in thickness and diameter and glued in the hollowing in the first coin.

No, as with 98% of coins, they are not. Simply little demand for that kind of thing.

It's not really all that clear is it Joe. The bust of Victoria shows a bit of ear, a bit of crown and not much more. In fact it's very nearly a silouette. On an 'as new' one you can see the folds in the veil and the jewels in the crown and practically the Queen's earwax! That's scrap silver I'm afraid, 20 - 30p. I sell them like that for people to munch on in Christmas puds: http://www.predecimal.com/forsale/christmasthreepences.htm Sorry to be the bearer of bad news again.

Maroccan, not as old as they look as they were made like that until the 19th century I believe.

That's just worth a pound or 2 because it's quite worn.

Very little probably. The age is almost irrelevant for the modern machine struck milled coins, it's always condition that counts and the standards that coins have to meet to be 'collectable' are very very high. Attach pictures again and we'll have a look as soon as scottishmoney has admitted he was wrong all along

It's not evasive!

I'm simply suggesting that it was never made with any evasive intentions. It was made to commemorate something, probably the life of George II, or coronation (I thought I saw a death date on the back though). Had it been pseudo-commemorative, about halfpenny size or more resembling regal coinage and crude in execution, then yes 'evasive'. This is none of those. What do the others think?

3.5cm is far too big to be a halfpenny or a farthing and there were no pennies then so it would have circulated at it's rough copper weight. It's not an evasion piece the quality is too good and now the size data also supports my theory. Evasion pieces are always crude in terms of workmanship. Some aren't bad, but none are as good as this medal would have started life. The value is next to nothing though as it's very worn. Couple of quid to someone that wants it.

I wouldn't have called this an evasion piece, the quality of the workmanship looks like it would have been too high when the medal was struck. I think this was struck as a commemorative medal with no evasive intentions. The fact that it probably got spent as a copper coin shows how desparate people were for change. What's the size in mm if you're still there Jow_Mander?

It's not a penny. It's not even a coin. It's a little medal or medalet with George II on it. It may comemmorate the coronation or something political. From the heavy wear I imagine it probably circulated as a coin, either a farthing of a halfpenny (depending on size) when no one would have been able to read it and just accepted it because the King was on it!

"The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" from Rotographic should put a stop to all that!