Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Peckris 2

Coin Hoarder
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Peckris 2

  1. 40 minutes ago, craigy said:

    One explanation is that the Mint simply ran out of time. A firm deadline had been set for the issue of the new coins, in June 1887 and, given the enormous amount of work that attended the preparation of tools for all the gold and silver denominations, it is not surprising that the Mint had to abandon any thought of also including bronze

    They could have done as with the Old Head, and introduced the bronze 2 years after gold and silver i.e. in 1889. I suspect that the JH was already deeply unpopular by then so they abandoned the idea? Also, I suppose, the last iteration of the bun head was already 'aged' compared to the YH silver so there was less urgency.

  2. On 19 June 2018 at 9:18 PM, UPINSMOKE said:

    Another added to the collection. Not the best condition but Victoria 1886 my earliest one so far. The search still goes on from more of these. If anyone has any or finds any please let me know I am always interested in acquiring more:D

    1886 Victoria Encased Farthing Comedy by Pathe Rev 400.jpg1886 Victoria Encased Farthing Comedy by Pathe Obv 400.jpg


    How very retro of Dire Straits...

    • Haha 3

  3. 1 hour ago, Madness said:

    Just want to make it clear that I didn't "discover" the overstrike.  I saw the DNW auction listing, was interested and decided to investigate further at the suggestion of @Peckris 2.  Just wanted to verify that it was a genuine overstrike, determine how rare it was and try to work out how much it was really worth.  This hobby is teaching me to be less trusting of people.  Hmm.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

    Oh, you can trust me... :lol:

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  4. 1 hour ago, Michael-Roo said:

    I love Bowie's early work. The Deram/Anthony Newley years, much underrated. 

    He was guilty of knocking out one or two absolute stinkers during that period though. How about this demo. He never bothered to develop the song further himself (thank god) but, astonishingly, it was picked up and recorded by a group called Oscar, fronted by Paul 'Dancing With The Captain' Nicholas.

    To think.. Reaction was the home of Cream and The Who. :o

    • Like 1

  5.  It's easy enough to do, using something like Excel - just have column headings for e.g. denomination, date, condition, variety, perhaps reign, date acquired, where from, price paid, and you can always add more column headings later. You could have a separate worksheet for pictures.

    To sort by any criterion, you'd just click that column heading, and Bob's your mum's brother.

    I don't know of any particular app (I created my own bespoke solution using a database manager) but post again in the relevant forum, e.g. Free For All and I'm sure someone will help.

  6. 11 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

    If you get chance Mike, it's worth listening to the live auction.

    The auctioneer would refer to your £2000 bid as "with me" until the bidding exceeded your amount, then it would be "in the room" or "on the internet" etc.

    Yes, that's right. The auctioneer would open - if he had a bid on the books - at the reserve or estimate. Then if there were bids in the room, the auctioneer would raise (often by pointing at his book) with the next highest bid. If the room cleared what was on the book he would say something like "I'm out" and point to the overbidder.

    • Like 1

  7. 2 hours ago, secret santa said:

    I think we're getting there although there will always be a degree of subjectivity as we can never truly know what was in the mind of the "designer" even if it seems obvious.

    Yes. Getting back to the 1926ME (I hear your groans from here...) - many millions of halfpennies, farthings, and the 1927 penny saw the introduction of the ME obverse on bronze together with a modified reverse. Just because there are maybe 100k (give or take) 1926ME pennies with old reverse that completed what MAY have been an emergency issue of pennies, doesn't prove anything about what the original design intent was .. or wasn't. I personally think there is enough evidence that a modified reverse was the intent, but circumstances proved it impractical for the end of the 1926 penny run.

  8. 10 hours ago, Lotad said:

    Thanks, so would the next grade be A.UNC? I think it has full lustre, but I can only compare, in person, to worn/circulated ones and this one looks miles better.

    Anyone who can confidently differentiate between GEF and AUnc should be wearing a red cape and dating Lois Lane.

  9. 1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

    Let's be honest, in the absence of an overriding definition accepted by all, there's never going to be full consensus on this issue, so, in terms of what is a mule and what isn't, to each his own. 

    It all depends on what your definition of "is" is...


    18 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

    It can be said that the very act of placing a die in the press indicates intent by definition of the word intent...

    The crux of the issue is whether the original intended use of the die was how the die was ultimately used and whether that is the only determination that should be considered as well as how much latitude should be acceptable in making that determination..

    I don't think it's down to dies - it's down to "designs". A die may well have been placed in the press intentionally, but if the design on it was "not originally intended" to be used with the design on its paired die, then the discussion about whether or not it's a mule comes into force.

  10. 18 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

    Wouldn't those be better categorized as Fantasy pieces....


    2 minutes ago, Rob said:

    Call them what you will. As a private company, everything produced by Boulton & Watt or Taylor with the exception of the commissioned output could be described thus.

    Now we're really getting into murky waters! Weren't some tokens (i.e. what we would call 'trade tokens') actually produced specifically for collectors or as pieces not meant to be used for trade? Those could also be called Fantasy pieces.

  11. 17 hours ago, Rob said:

    No by definition, because a pattern is an unadopted design and can be a combination of any dies. A mule can only be produced from an obsolete and therefore superseded die (with the caveat of how ongoing changeovers are treated) in combination with a current die or dies that are completely unrelated, but somehow were paired. Crucially the dies already have to be or have been current.

    Good point ... but didn't Taylor do some pattern restrikes that were mules in the sense that he paired obverse and reverse dies had never before been paired?

  12. I'd like to propose that the term "mule" be divided into two - "accidental mules" and "deliberate mules". The first would be the result of error, the second the result of a changeover where the old dies had to be used up, or unusual circumstances. I'll give a few examples of each, and a few where the intention or otherwise is not known.

    "Accidental mules"

    • the change from beaded to toothed border in 1860 obverses and reverses - we can deduce these are accidental by their rarity. However, the puzzle is that the error occurred twice, as both extremely rare pairings exist (maybe the dies were inserted in the wrong pairing into two presses at once, and as soon as  the error was spotted, both presses were stopped and the dies changed around?)  
    • the 1983 2p NEW PENCE - again, we know both from rarity and from the other denominations that this was an error
    • the 2008 undated 20p - although not especially rare, we can certainly conclude that any undated modern coins are the result of error.

    "Deliberate mules"

    • 1913 pennies: although there was a change to both obverse and reverse halfway through the run, it was probably decided that any old dies should be used up because of the expense of not using them. The fact that both combinations of mule exist tends to confirm this, and it would have been entirely a matter of chance which pairing was used before the old dies were used up; though not rare, both "mules" are very much scarcer than 1+A and 2+B
    • 1953 farthings : probably the same as for 1913 pennies, as both types of mule exist, and much scarcer than 1+A and 2+B 
    • 1926ME pennies: see above for argument as to why this could be considered a mule (unusual circumstances)

    Unknowns :

    • the 1862 Obverse 2 penny (error? using up an old die?)
    • 1915 farthings with early obverse (ditto?) - the change was halfway through 1914, so one would think all old obverse dies had been used up (apparently not); plus, the 1915 variety is rare
    • the "1968" (1967) halfpenny; that obverse die had last been used in 1956, but why is there such a long gap before its reappearance? Perhaps, with the halfpenny soon due to be demonetised, they scoured the Mint for any old dies / punches to be used up? Can this be considered a mule of any sort?

    Over to you.


  13. 3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    Another interesting mule conundrum to ponder, is the F38 1862 penny. Given that by that point the de facto obverse for a number of years to come, was already established as obverse 6, could the use of the by that time, apparently discarded obverse 2, be considered as a mule?

    Was the use of obverse 2 a mistake by a production operative, or the intentional using up of old dies? 


    I'd say that is a mule by either use.