Peckris 2

At least they have a sensayuma!

It's 1911 !!

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.

Good luck - it appears to be the "squashed-in-a-vice school of bad photography"

Really? It looks ok to me.

Probably - no, certainly - why trade tokens were struck so widely.

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).

The best part is the "3 available" !!!

Agreed - the portrait looks too big and Britannia too small for a genuine one.

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"!)

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.

Re-use of the die by repunching the worst affected letters / numbers?

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?

K ?

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.

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.

Original lustre? That's not possible. It's not a coating after all. Once gone, you can't restore it.

I've never quite understood this. Yes, they are COMPARATIVELY scarce, but with mintages of 10m+ and 7m+ they're hardly rare.

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.)

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?

Sixpence:

Ironic that the man who was second only to Henry VIII in defacing beautiful churches, should be so defaced himself.