Peckris 2
-
Posts
3,626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
170
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Peckris 2
-
-
3 hours ago, copper123 said:
oh matron !
Its the same size as the Moore gothic crowns
What I mean is - if it's the same smaller size as other toy coins, then it wouldn't have been the Mint at the Great Exh. but probably Moore (presumably Heatons didn't strike toy coins?)
-
20 hours ago, copper123 said:
It might be interesting to get a list of exibitors from the great exhibition , to be honest i cannot see the royal mint being there but the heaton mint or moore could have been .
I am asuming the new model crown came after the much more common gothic example produced in 1848 or a little later
What size is it?
-
1
-
-
That would place it around the time of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Fascinating to speculate it may have been struck there to demonstrate minting machinery, just as the 1951 crown was struck at the Festival of Britain.
-
The 1900 is the best grade - edging towards EF.
The 1891 is at least F but perhaps a bit better
The 1853 has too little hair detail to rate F but getting there
The others are scrap I'm afraid
-
6 hours ago, Avocet said:
I can quite see how a snappy descriptor, coupled with just the right level of scarcity, adds a touch of glamour to a particular coin and helps to make it more sought after - whether the V word is carelessly applied or not.
Against the dot pennies, the poor old "1915 extra bar penny" doesn't stand much a chance, despite its origins and scarcity being broadly similar (IMO).
It may or may not attract enough interest to eventually be classed as a variety. Do some research, write an article, and who knows? Gouby listed the 1946 ONE' and claimed it was scarcer than the 1926ME. I used his note in my ultimately successful effort to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, which would have increased collector interest several times over.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, secret santa said:
In my humble opinion, varieties are created by the design process, i.e. the decision to strike a coin from a selected pair of obverse and reverse designs. Any anomalies created by the minting (or striking) process are exactly that - anomalies, collectibility of which is in the eye of the beholder. The confusion was probably started by Freeman's decision to grant a variety number to the 1897 Dot penny. As I say, just my opinion. And the debate will probably go on forever. On my websites, I refer to variations to a particular "variety", such as variation in the date spacing, as a "sub-variety" whereas Gouby assigns specific identifiers.
You pays your money......................
I agree with all that. However I'd lay the blame not with Freeman but with Coin Monthly! I started collecting as a schoolboy in the late 60s and the very first issue I bought had a Beginners Page featuring (did they call them "varieties"? Can't remember..) three pennies, two of which have been mentioned here: the 1897 O.NE and the 1946 ONE' - plus a Vic copper penny though I don't recall which date or where the extra dot was.
I think that as a result of that notoriety, those particular anomalies became accepted as varieties.
-
10 hours ago, Avocet said:
I'm not sure I understand. Is anyone suggesting that features like those on the 1915 pennies pictured above were not created during the minting process?
If we do call such things varieties (not an issue I was attempting to address) how does that give the green light to the sort of nefarious activity you are describing?
What is, and is not, a variety is something of a 'grey area'. Decades ago, 1961 halfcrowns without the engraver initials EF on the reverse were considered to be a variety. However as soon as it became clear that it was the result of a filled die, it disappeared from the list of varieties overnight. Only very rarely are such things classed as varieties, the exceptions being things like the 1946 ONE' penny. They are accidents of the minting process rather than design changes and therefore only collected by a small group of people.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Sword said:
Why don't you do that and find out as it is a cheap option? The cameras of the new phones are constantly getting better and you could very well be happy with the results.
I have an iPhone 15 Pro Max and it's now my main camera.
-
3 hours ago, blakeyboy said:
I've just formed an end-of-season football harmony group, called Manhattan Transfer Window.
You're welcome.
Were they the band that had a big hit with Carabao D'Amour?
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, absence of uniformity said:
Hi, could you please define extreme, @Martinminerva took the time before to explain this which I understood. But I cant help but notice these. Im posting this here I dont wish to hijack rather continue the conversation. Am I correct in thinking the image I have attached is not extreme. I can't see any trace of the right leg of the R.
I over R I dont think so.. but once I see these I kind of stuck on them. I know the early bronze coinage this is quite common. Where it could become interesting if it was I over R. Thanks
It looks to me like a repunched R (not extreme). The underlying letter looks offset to the left and a bit lower, and I can certainly see the traces of the right leg of the R
-
19 hours ago, copper123 said:
Are you sure britannia is a british lady? I strongly suspect she was made up by the romans who would be very unlikely to put a local near naked woman of ancient british origins on one of their coins
18 hours ago, jelida said:Not my statement, just quoting the vendor’s description, he/AI couldn’t even call her Britannia. Yes, I’m sure ‘Britannia’ has classical origins. Maybe this medallion of Commodus was an influence, it celebrates action in Britain.
Topless unless my eyes deceive me!
-
On 7/6/2026 at 8:51 AM, Michael-Roo said:
"Your coin will be carefully packaged in protective materials". WHY???
-
That size would make it a shilling. The one that's dated 1711 is the "no E" type (E is for Edinburgh where many of the post-Union - England and Scotland - coins were minted, and the E would be below the bust). The other shilling we can't see the date of, but it's a "plain angles" type - i.e. there is just blank space between the shields of the royal arms; the alternative would be roses or plumes between them.
-
11 hours ago, Chris Perkins said:
The user above was a member when they posted that, but they asked me to delete their account. I left the recent post and others elsewhere for posterity.
I suppose we'll have to arrive at the identity of whoever it is/was by a process of elimination. Could you give us a teeny weeny clue - a long term member or more recent? (Ah, no need. I've seen another 'Guest' post where it was edited before the member left...)
-
15 hours ago, King Kenny said:
Thanks Jerry. That makes a lot of sense. I have not studied die cracks much, a lot to learn.
It's a very specialised area - I would guess that the vast majority of collectors aren’t especially interested, or see them negatively as a defect?
-
10 hours ago, Avocet said:
An almost perfect match for Mr Court's example, a coin which featured prominently in a celebrated document. Wouldn't everyone want one?
No!
-
It's a bit confusing as the so-called 'single line' actually isn't - it's double but the lines are so close together it appears single, unless you view it through a magnifier
-
8 minutes ago, Dave Everitt said:
I just looked this up (I'm after a lustred example) and saw that it was 11% of the total mintage for that year. Google generated, so accuracy TBC!
Freeman estimated they were about 1 in 20 - i.e. 5% - based on his enormous survey of circulating coins in the 60s. Good luck with getting a high grade - I bought one from Colin Cooke in the 90s, he told me then that top grades of it are rare.
-
1
-
-
Just to add a bit more: the first few years of the changeover to bronze saw a helluva lot of repunching of date digits and legend letters. Bronze is a harder metal than copper, and the coins were thinner in size, so dies got worn relatively quickly. As well as that, the Mint is reported to have experienced a lot of problems caused by the change of metal, which the huge number of varieties (major, minor, and micro) in the first few years can attest to.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, ozjohn said:
Thanks for the information I already have a couple of 1916 florins in reasonable condition but I was trying to complete the series with a MS 63/4 encapsulated coin to join the other George V encapsulated florins I have. So there's no hurry and I will bide my time.
I'd say those are more than reasonable!
-
1
-
-
Yes, most certainly a worn die. And a truly shocking price which would be way too high even for a good strike UNC example.
Here's a much better example at a reasonable price:
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, ColdHands said:
Sadly you cannot get "rabies" out of "Jenrick"
Nor can you get a satisfactory explanation for his leader's £5m bung!
-
On 6/21/2026 at 8:07 PM, copper123 said:
well you have to be pretty good to play the hammersmith its quite big
isn't that where Bowie played his final Ziggy Stardust gig (and hadn't told his bass player and drummer)?
-
the left hand coin - no brainer
-
1
-
Is there still a demand for bronze pennies?
in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Posted
I know I've said it before, but the ratio of rare to common specimens has narrowed steadily since decimalisation, but the value guides don't really reflect this. The rarities are still rare but the common dates have become scarcer over such a long time.