|
|
The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com |
|
|
Coinpublications.com
Predecimal.com
Peckris 2
-
Content Count
3,287 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
155
Posts posted by Peckris 2
-
-
That's fascinating - I didn't know of all those 3d trials. Does illustration 5 show a brass or silver 3d? If silver, the thrift plant was ditched in favour of the 'ring pull' design which can be seen on the proofs (the 6d had the same motif).
It's quite telling the pressure on the Mint designers - even after continuing with the GeoV coins dated 1936, they still seem to have been forced by deadlines to recycle many of the Edward designs for Geo VI - the bronze, florin and shillings; and even the halfcrown was only modified.
-
23 hours ago, Iannich48 said:I have just won this on the bay, not bad for just over £15. Well i hope that it looks this nice when i get it.
Good luck - it appears to be the "squashed-in-a-vice school of bad photography"
-
1
-
-
-
7 hours ago, copper123 said:At one time around 1790 small change was often given by weight very few legal coins were in circulation
Probably - no, certainly - why trade tokens were struck so widely.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, copper123 said:This time the puffy lips and the thin britannia.
You would think a gram underweight was nothing , why not make it a five gram fake .
Might as well be hung for a sheep and not a lamb
One of the reasons for those fakes & evasions was the drastic shortage of small change - it wasn't all about making a fast buck. (Though I'm sure some of it was).
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, jelida said:The best part is the "3 available" !!!
-
50 minutes ago, Rob said:That's a wrongun.
Agreed - the portrait looks too big and Britannia too small for a genuine one.
-
17 hours ago, Madness said:Do you have any images of an over-dipped coin so that I can see an example of their appearance (dull & pale)? Thanks! Does this apply to all metals/alloys, or just silver?
I learned the hard way! and haven't kept any definite examples. I don't know if this coin from Google Images HAS been dipped, but often a coin that has been dipped too much will look rather like this:
... and yes, I'm talking about silver. Dip won't work on any other metal (it's why it's called "silver dip"!)
-
1
-
-
Oh dear, I have good news and bad news.
The good news is that I bought several of these in a job lot years ago, due to the low mintage figures.
The bad news is that they are SOMEWHERE, but god knows where and being disabled it's not going to be either quick or easy to find them. If no-one else swims to the rescue I will try to find them at some point. Or TRY to find them!
-
You can tell from the way the date sits in the top 2/3 of the exergue - in other words there is the space below where the H sat.
-
19 hours ago, Madness said:Notes to Self
Hypothesis 1 - If a coin has evidence of circulation wear and is "lustrous" it will have been dipped
As long as it isn't a weak strike. Do be aware that a coin that has been over-dipped will NOT be lustrous but will be pale, look cleaned, yet have something of a dull appearance.
Hypothesis 2 - If a coin is identified as a scarce variant shortly after being released for circulation it will be quickly absorbed from circulation by collectors.
Hypothesis 3 - If a coin is withdrawn from circulation by collectors shortly after being released for circulation it will be less likely to show wear than one that continued to circulate.
True.
Hypothesis 4 - Coins with scarce variations that require magnification to identify will be more likely to continue to circulate than scarce variants identifiable by the naked eye. It follows that, in general, the condition of the former will be inferior to that of the latter.
Also true. Hence the general awareness of rare dates and die marks such as H and KN compared to the very scarce but hard to spot bun penny varieties (for example).
Hypothesis 5 - Coins that were withdrawn from circulation by a collector are more likely to be extant than those that were not. It follows that coins with scarce variations identifiable by the naked eye will be over-represented and skew any attempt to estimate or determine the number of coins produced by a particular die. It is likely that coins with scarce variations identifiable under magnification will be somewhat over-represented and influence any attempted to estimate or determine the number of coins produced by a particular die.
Yes. However price guides are extremely slow to reflect this. It has taken literally decades for the process of reality in relation to what was scarce from circulation before D Day in 1971 to even begin to be adjusted following the Big Melt. A couple of examples : 1946 halfpennies and 1958 sixpences were first classed as 'very scarce in Unc' in the late 60s, and now at long last they are recognised as nothing of the sort.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, secret santa said:Absolutely no doubling of the queen's head but DEI is doubled together with the I of VICTORIA - so how exactly is this caused ? In the production of a new die ?
Re-use of the die by repunching the worst affected letters / numbers?
-
15 minutes ago, secret santa said:Actually much of the legend is doubled too.
Interesting - note that the GRA is doubled to the left, whereas the TIA is doubled below. Could a double strike cause that? And what about the portrait - is there any sign of doubling there?
-
13 hours ago, Rob said:Precisely. That's why they say hello, my name's David, or whatever. If they all used wrryyxxxdaa$$$!!!&***%%, I suspect it would default to what (Watt)? With apologies to BF.
K ?
-
2 hours ago, secret santa said:Many of them have the reworked/overstruck 8 as John says which Bramah recorded as 25c. My own specimen (large date) has this plus the 1 over 1 and all numerals double struck.
Not double struck - I would say the whole date has been repunched. We do know from the sheer number of 1858 varieties that dies were used and re-used, most likely to save costs ahead of a planned conversion to bronze in 1859 (postponed for a year and a half). I have that 'doubled' date but not 1 over 1. The absence of doubling anywhere else I think proves that it was a recut date purely to prolong die use.
-
1 hour ago, Iannich48 said:Here is the reverse of my coin from earlier. The date and condition of this coin must be quite scarce.
.jpg.a3edb99ec1c59905cbf1c74acdff6ec7.jpg)
The date is very scarce and rare indeed in that condition. The porousness will certainly have an effect on value but I don't see why it shouldn't carry a value between VF and EF ? Nice one.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Guest guest said:I have used cillit-bang on some of my modern milled coins just to enhance eye appeal. I found it great for removing grime and dirt also in restoring lustre to some of the coins, it does not destroy the coin in anyway and is a scratch free cleaner. Just give it a try on a sixties cupro-nical coin and see for yourself.
I have never used it on pennies or farthings.
Original lustre? That's not possible. It's not a coating after all. Once gone, you can't restore it.
-
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:If they were 1986 or 1988 he might.
I've never quite understood this. Yes, they are COMPARATIVELY scarce, but with mintages of 10m+ and 7m+ they're hardly rare.
-
9 minutes ago, Sleepy said:I thought coins used to be issued in paper mint rolls, or is that what the banks subsequently put them in?
Something like this.
Yes, that's a roll issued by banks for use by shops etc. RM 'mint bags' were for much larger sums, for example a £5 bag of pennies or halfpennies. The banks would split the mint bags into smaller quantities and roll them up or put into cash tills.
In the late 60s mint bags of common coins were issued 'for investment purposes' ... which failed dismally of course!
(That eBay seller is incredibly optimistic if they think they'll get £8 apiece for 1983 £1 coins x 20.)
-
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:You're absolutely right, but did they always use plastic bags? There must have been a time when they used paper or some form of sacking, perhaps?
IIRC in the 60s the RM mint bags were some kind of cloth or sacking (I only know that from pictures, I never had one!)
-
To answer the question, you'd have to survey as many of that date as you can, and see if there are any other specimens?
-
-
Ironic that the man who was second only to Henry VIII in defacing beautiful churches, should be so defaced himself.
-
1
-
-
Am I right in thinking he doesn't have to be Charles once king? I'm thinking of his grandad who was Albert ("Bertie") and only became George on accession. Shame really - King Albert would have been a fabulous name. One of Charles' names is Arthur, and wouldn't it be great if we had a King Arthur, albeit one who talks TO plants and OF monstrous carbuncles.
Ebay's Worst Offerings
in Free for all
Posted
It's 1911 !!