Peckris 2

"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.

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...)

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?

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

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.

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.

I'd say those are more than reasonable!

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: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/157378763239?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338946167&toolid=20006&loc=&customid=4581527531114051_710033490_o.9beeaa501cf11ef92efac014f4958c05&msclkid=9beeaa501cf11ef92efac014f4958c05

Nor can you get a satisfactory explanation for his leader's £5m bung!

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

That obverse is such an obvious repro

I used to keep a few, purely for amusement.

I saw them 6 times altogether - 5 with Gabriel, once without. If you want to see the nearest thing to an actual Genesis show these days, Steve Hackett's tours usually focus on a particular era, much as Nick Mason's 'Saucerful of Secrets' tours concentrated on pre-DSOTM Floyd. Hope you enjoy the show! (Just watched The Musical Box on YouTube, at Hammersmith Odeon - they seem pretty good )

Have you seen - Ancientart has changed his forum name!!

Britain had had a token currency since 1816. Before then the wild fluctuations in metal prices - especially silver and copper - during the reign of George III saw only very limited strikings of those coins for currency. However, even a token coinage needs to not be unprofitable to produce, which it had certainly become by 1919. I'm sure you're right about the reasons behind that. Fascinating that the recent rise in silver values more or less brings it into line with the increase in cost of living since 1912.

Superb condition

Nice. Hope your shop finds a buyer.

I've no interest in die numbers on silver Vics, but die "1" must surely be collectable?

It's allowed but it would make far more senses to add to your previous post to save this kind of confusion.

I still think it's odd - there are many low mintage proofs in the 20th Century. Repros are usually of extremely rare coins, or are obvious bad copies of particular types (though not often of 20th Century coins unless extremely rare such as 1933 or 1954 pennies).

You don't want to know if you won the penny?

It's possibly more difficult to tell when the attached picture is of an entire webpage rather than a screenshot of just the coin, but it simply just doesn't look right. It looks wrong in exactly the same way as a Victorian YH repro looks wrong. So my money's on a repro unless we can see the coin isolated from the webpage.