Peckris 2

by Arthur Daily...?

Here's an even better one - the exceptionally rare 1799 over 1806 farthing - and yours for only £2 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/353869251507

Not TOO shabby... Yes, resizing on a desktop is a doddle, but on an iPhone...! Best thing is to go to the App Store and type in "jpeg" and hopefully an app to resize images will show up?

Yes, the normal halfpenny obverse for 1970 is the Type 2, which first occurs as a scarcity for 1956 then again as the slightly scarcer 1967 type. (I of DEI to a space? Anyway, a wider rim)

I bid live with the video on, but didn't win anything I don't know what happened to that particular lot.

LOL. Actually I was trying to get as close as possible to the original - "L.P. Hartley"!

"Do you have a copy of Fly Fishing by M.P. Party?"

That's why I backup four times a day to Time Machine (automatic) create a clone of my complete system as often as I remember have automatic cloud backups for smaller things like WP SS DB files, which includes all my coin stuff, so whenever I make a change it's automatically backed up And if ever upgrade to an OS which doesn't support my database software, I can get a newer version from eBay .. and as 'belt and braces' I can always output the databases as Excel SS's so a multitude of programs will be able to open them. So you see, it would take a widespread disaster to permanently destroy my data [touching wood ].

One reason the date looks smaller is that the teeth are small just below the exergue area giving the impression there's more space below the 9 and 6. Maybe it's an optical illusion, or a variety with compressed teeth?

I'm quite surprised the 72 set isn't worth more than it is, considering the date is only available from the set.

Nah. Too good looking.

Probably not... with one possible exception - Dave Groom. If you have a copy of his bronze 20th Century varieties book (I don't), he may have covered this.

In which case you don't mean "mostly" - none of the coins were for circulation.

the first one looks to have a noticeably smaller date.

I've never seen any Roman design remotely like that. I'd say it is more likely to be (perhaps) a token? In which case it is more likely to be 17th or 18th Century...

I'd say die damage, either manmade or accidental - otherwise it's something over 4 (the 4 being the underlying figure)

Then there was the lad who emptied a pint of milk down the sink and poured his late father's ashes in so he could scatter them behind the Juventus goal according to his dad's final wish. Unfortunately the officials wouldn't allow him to take "something that could be used as a weapon" into the ground. It's a sorry state of affairs when you can't even take a bottle of pop into a football ground...

Looks like he survived shell shock for a short time (4 minutes to be precise)...

NFC ?

I remember paying around £7.50 for one in the late 70s. That must be around £30 now? However I can understand their popularity - they are the only proof set of their type and were only created due to collector demand.

Here's someone who seems to have several sets: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1970-Royal-Mint-8-coin-Proof-set-/353541204797?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338268676&toolid=10044&customid=CjwKCAiA866PBhAYEiwANkIneN63Y_Dzh8MtNIVTCHFONtRqWQpNGPzxVLSMOvWoFU5eKG8pHuy3MhoCBXUQAvD_BwE

The main problem seems to be the left hand edge of each letter: on the supposed overstrike F/P, the serifs extend at exact right angles, like they do on the L. However, the P of penny has a regular curve extending from the bottom to the top on the left hand side; this makes the serifs rounded rather than extending straight at right angles.

I didn't mean that - I meant that breaking proofs out of sealed plastic might not do them any good in the long run.

Sue Gray

Oh, but has he performed well in tests?