|
|
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
3,293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
155
Posts posted by Peckris 2
-
-
Pictures of said coins would not only be appreciated, but are a must!
-
Welcome to the forums
You can always ask here for advice, especially about where to buy from, and what to get. What are your main interests?
-
1
-
-
On 2/11/2025 at 8:51 AM, The Bee said:Phew, What a comprehensive system and such a lot of information on "historic" and current prices. I guess at some point you need something like that to avoid duplication (I should have done this for my newspapers) and if you decide to sell bits off, it would to keep the Tax authorities happy, not to mention your insurer
Creating those historic prices was a right bit of hard work! So I've only done it for coins in my collection, but luckily I've got all the relevant Seaby/Spinks for the years listed.
-
1
-
-
I created my own database set of tables using FileMaker Pro - this is just four of the tables showing one of the coins:
-
wouldn't be a joke in America where they pronounce it ‘booey’ not ‘boy’!
-
1
-
-
there's a hammered forum here
-
On 2/7/2025 at 1:10 PM, Circulation penny collecto said:Secondly a question, so that hopefully i can learn things from your expertise instead of just arguing about toy aeroplanes. It regards the heavy flan pennies of the early 1860s. I want to know the following:
1. What was the purpose of introducing them? (Some weighing up to 16.3g compared with the standard 9.5g were surely an unnecessary potential extra expense).
2. Why are there so few of them?
3. Do you think they were genuine circulation pennies or do you think they were Trial/Pattern pennies which just escaped into the general population?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
my best guess - and that's all it is - is that they might have been an attempt to try and resolve all the problems caused by conversion from large thick copper to smaller thin bronze. The sheer number of varieties that occur between 1860 and 1862 shows the scale of the issues they had, the repairs needed, and the huge number of dies involved.
-
the 1806 is a halfpenny not penny - but quite common in that grade and not worth expensive treatment. if you didn't mind the resulting retoning (paler) you could immerse overnight in balsamic vinegar which would dissolve the verdigris into darker patches.
not to be done on a more valuable coin of course
-
1
-
-
On 2/7/2025 at 8:07 PM, The Bee said:1855 Halfpenny Could there be and overdate ?
Hi I have a few 1855 Halfpennies. Looking again at one of them, it looks as it the second 5 in the date might be over another date ?
I wondered, if it is an overdate, what it might be ?
Best Regards !
if anything at all it might be a 6 … or a cud
-
1
-
-
On 2/8/2025 at 1:27 PM, secret santa said:Get in quickly before the seller realises his penny is rarer than he thinks !
that is alarmingly convincing for a repro
-
On 2/7/2025 at 11:52 AM, Citizen H said:George V 1929 Shilling 1st issue?
1923-29 South Africa Shilling....
....that was an eye opener as i hadn't picked up the Africa on the coin until today.... learning also of the day......the Africa shilling silver content is greater than that of the 1929 shilling...
Crickey what a day!?
the 1929 is a florin not a shilling - as you can see from the reverse!
-
5 hours ago, jelida said:Absolutely true, a study based solely on the pennies surviving now would be quite different in its balance between common and rare.
That's long overdue, but how could it be done?
-
12 hours ago, Menger said:Then how can the system hope to improve?
To give just one example : Satin numbers (John Jerraims?) which are assigned by one expert to his post-Freeman observations of new varieties. However, we then have to have Peck, Freeman, Gouby, Satin, numbers. It does make life confusing but what other way is there?
-
25 minutes ago, Circulation penny collecto said:Thank you for your valued comments.
To respond - first to Mr Peckris, the 1926 proof is not missing as it is a collection of circulation pennies.
Ok, I take that point, but… 1. it’s an obverse / reverse combination unknown on circulation pennies and therefore surely desirable? 2. it could very strongly be argued that NONE of the 1933 pennies was intended for circulation.
Nevertheless an incredible collection.
-
10 hours ago, Circulation penny collecto said:Thank you for your warm and generous welcome, which is very much appreciated.
My pennies are listed on www.penny-collection.com so i can now sit back and wait for you to tear my claim of having a very fine collection into pieces!!! I have read some of the threads on here and i certainly do NOT claim to have equal knowledge to many of those who post on this website - so i am very much hoping to learn new things from you!
Well, that is a pretty awesome collection, and yes I'm envious!
Can I make two corrections and an observation on what I've seen so far?
1. The mintage figure for the 1869 only accounts for all pennies minted in that year. An unknown but significant number of these were dated 1868.
2. OMNIUM does not mean a long life - it’s part of OMNIUM BRITANNIARUM meaning “(ruler) of all the Britons”, OMNIUM meaning “of all”.
3. One penny that you may still be lusting after is the ?proof 1926ME that has the non-mule, i.e. 1927, reverse, of which I believe only 1 is known?
-
On 1/22/2025 at 7:29 PM, copper123 said:Just as a matter of interest an ord soldiers pay was around a shilling a day which meant a days pay was four of these little coins .
Few soldiers took their full pay with most signing it over to their mother to save up for them when they came home
That reminds me of the reason pewter beer tankards have glass bottoms. It was so drinkers could spot the “king’s shilling” in the bottom of the drink they'd been bought by the press gang - they could then refuse the drink and avoid being press ganged into the navy.
-
Very interesting piece, but hopelessly overestimated.
-
1
-
-
Not a hammered coin, so posted in the wrong forum (I only noticed because I generally mark all Hammered posts as ‘read’ as I have zero interest in them).
-
On 1/18/2025 at 10:48 AM, Sword said:I just can't bring myself to spend a lot more on this "inverted 1" variety when it is now well known it is due to a filled die and so not a "true" variety. The correct thing to do is to delist it as a variety. But there is no inclination to do that of course.
I'm old enough to remember when 1961 halfcrowns had a variety “EF missing”, the designers initials below the reverse shield. Of course this was just a filled die and that ‘variety' has not been listed for decades.
-
2
-
-
There are also scarce varieties in 1888 and 1889 where the second I of VICTORIA is missing part of the upper serif (die infill) making it look like a 1. Only significantly more valuable in higher grades.
-
2
-
-
Good condition but - unless it’s the photo? - it may have been polished.
By the way, PENNY is on the reverse, not obverse which is the side with the monarch’s portrait.
-
1
-
-
The penny ha’penny is a currency, not a Maundy, coin.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, alfnail said:The top coin does not have the I of FID repaired so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the repaired bottom coin must have been struck at a later date.
However, the top coin has a much more developed die flaw than the bottom coin so that must mean that, if both coins were struck from the same reverse die, the top coin must have been struck at a later date.
The conclusion must surely be that the two coins were struck from different reverse dies. Do you agree please?
Here are close up F’s of these two 1844’s.
Surely both coins have had the I of FID repaired? They both have a pronounced curve underlying the left hand side of the upright, which can't be an aspect of the font I'd have thought.
Yes I agree about the die flaw in relation to the date of strike, so it would definitely seem to be two dies. That would point to the punch used - not the master - having the flaw?
The top coin - being later - could also have a slightly more worn die, which would account for the difference in the F, which can also be seen on the D as well.
-
3 hours ago, Citizen H said:Hello Paddy, I seem to think I had a period of luck finding these regularly I knew they were silver so was buying them up, it did make me wonder if it was a Half Crown so now Ive been corrected all of its its information is going onto a tag so I can keep everyone in the family updated. many thanks "H"
This is the halfcrown reverse - the design (like the shilling) is a bit of a dog’s dinner, but this proof makes it look quite good.
-
5
-
Ebay's Worst Offerings
in Free for all
Posted
This is what happens when you've not noticed you did ‘Flip horizontal’