Peckris 2

Oh, they'll get off. "Money talks"...

Crazily, this particular coin made $576 two years ago.

makes sense

No, but in the rapid bidding maelstrom, it's good to see the actual amount and not have to recalculate every split second.

Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically over the horizon?

There are also some in Eastbourne, but that's old gnus.

With decent auction houses, e.g. Noonans, the online bid window shows not only the current bid but also what that equals in terms of hammer, so you don't have to do any mental arithmetic while bidding.

A "kitchen widow"?

Interestingly if you look at my farthing you can see that the 6 has been rotated resulting in 2 tails. However you will also note that the 1 needs the same treatment, and the 2 is - as so often with the final digit - badly positioned. You can understand the correction of the 6 as it was needed for more than one year, but by that token you would think the 1 should have been corrected as it was the millennium digit!

interestingly there is also an 1862 farthing with similar 6 repunch

Yes, that's always also been an option in Apple Mail, though there the options are confined to 'Small" 'Medium' 'Large' and 'Full size'.

Yes, if you reduce the f ile size you shouldn't have any difficulty - there's plenty of software out there which will not only make the image smaller, but also reduce its quality to a still acceptable image.

The French title would possibly confirm that? Scotland and France had a strong alliance back then.

I'm sure you're right, wasn't thinking as a gardener!

me too - he actually replied and asked what made me think it was a fake!

well at least you'll be warm this winter!

Let's face it, the Irish got these designs nearly 100 years ago!

It looks very well done, in the same way as false 1933's are often convincing with no signs of a join.

Peck says of the first reverse that the exergue line is "faintly single" and of the second that it's "distinctly double". He doesn't go on to explain this further, but the implication is that the single line isn't clearly single, but - as others (I believe) have said - consists of two lines so close together that they appear (especially on less than perfect condition) to be a single line. I'm not sure what condition the 4th penny above is in but it MAY illustrate this 'grey area'? My penny is all but BU so if it is the second reverse, the double lines would be absolutely clear - they're not!

It's the difference between a strictly UNC example and - e.g. - GEF; the waves start to merge with the exergue line rather quick. Here's an AUNC 1939 reverse and you will see that the waves are still a bit distinct from the line. On Type 2 reverses there is a distinct gap between the upper line and the waves. Also, I believe that the so-called 'single exergue line' is actually 2 lines so close together that they appear to be one? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I paid Colin Cooke £20 for mine in the 90s:

Interesting that you called it "F139" - time was they were invariably called "2mm".

That's where the vast difference in condition comes into play.

I see what you mean, but given the big difference in condition I don't think you can say definitively that it's enough to establish a separate variety (it would only be a micro variety anyway).

Lustre is the special gleam you see on newly minted coins - it's created as part of the minting process. "Shine" imparted artificially is a world away and can be seen not to be lustre. As a rough analogy from stamp collecting : a genuine postmark is part of the stamp's value, but someone simply writing over it destroys the value.