Peckris 2
-
Posts
3,651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
173
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Peckris 2
-
-
On 5/6/2026 at 9:24 PM, Halfcrowned said:
I'm fairly new to coins, and the only reason I ask is because the size of this in hand is a bit bigger than my other half crowns of the period, which all seem to be around 32-33mm. It seems to sit at around 34-34.5mm. It weighs 15/16grams on my (cheap!) kitchen scales, is non magnetic, and has the correct side inscription - DECVS ET TVTAMEN ANNO REGNI DECIMO NONO.
Difficult one. The obverse looks good - VF I'd say - but I do have some problems with the reverse, which looks somewhat too detailed for a coin of this grade. Having said that, this type did have a wider/thicker/more protective rim on the reverse compared to the obverse, so it may be kosher. If it is, then you have a very nice coin.
-
On 5/9/2026 at 11:17 AM, absence of uniformity said:
Out of interest what is the reason one letter would be tilted back like this.
Is it simply repunched in which case where is the trace of the original letter?
Thanks.
.thumb.png.f0e2f9fa8316152ad420f1070ae230ee.png)
Yes, probably repunched. You can in fact see traces of something underlying - just above the I, between the red lines.
-
15 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:
Why should I constantly have to prove myself. You bought no value to this discussion instead you suggest im being dishonest.
Im really starting to find it rude. What is so hard to understand about asking a valid question? You have been quite supportive to my journey so far then suddenly you getting all weird.
I'd be very interested to learn the sources you used for the knowledge you've acquired? No accusations, I'm just genuinely interested!
-
On 5/7/2026 at 6:48 AM, ozjohn said:
While surfing YouTube I came across the post titled " Why They Stopped Making Silver Coins in 1964. The Real Reason They Hide". makes interesting viewing on how the US stole the silver from the people as did the UK earlier.
Not quite sure what you're saying? The Mint stopped using 92.5% silver from 1920 as the price of silver during WW1 had risen to the point where it exceeded the face value of the coins being struck. Yes, it came down again a few years later, but the Mint were never going to reverse their decision. The same thing happened after WW2 when silver was abandoned altogether but this time it never came down to make using it for coins cost-effective.
I'd treat YouTube videos with a large pinch of salt!
-
2
-
-
On 5/4/2026 at 9:40 PM, absence of uniformity said:
Here it's clear cut, the "uncirculated" coin does not show the flat/worn areas on the face highlighted by red cicles on the worn coin yet the the top curved part of the ear on the uncirculated coin is not a thin defined line. I know strike and die wear are factors on this year. But how can a worn coin have a more defined ear if the ear is not recessed? Given its hard to find a sharp struck 1915 with or without a broken tooth if the ear is finely defined IMO its a recessed ear. It really stands out to me.
It's not the thinness - it's the recessed area as you say. On the left coin you can clearly see a hollow surrounding the ear which is absent on the Unc example.
-
1
-
-
On 5/4/2026 at 2:49 PM, Avocet said:
If you think of the ear as an ellipse, the feature I find most readily identifiable is a crease running along the line of the shortest axis. Well-worn examples of a 1915 and a 1916 to illustrate:
Both of these pass the broken tooth test. Note that the tip of the ear remains distinct despite the considerable wear.
Those prove my point about it being easier to see on more worn examples - the ear on those is far better preserved than you'd expect looking at the obverse as a whole.
-
2
-
-
On 5/4/2026 at 8:00 PM, copper123 said:
I thought the ganga dynasty started with bob marley in Jamaca
You're thinking of skanga!
-
For me it grades AUNC with lustre. A nice coin at the right price (I wouldn't care to say what that would be!)
-
3 hours ago, secret santa said:
Help me please - what exactly stood out ?
I still can't see any significant differences in my own recessed and non-recessed coins.
It's a weird one - I remember when I was searching through bank bags as a schoolkid in the late 60s; now and again I'd see 1915 or 1916 pennies where the head just 'looked weird', especially around the ear. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I did notice each one when it appeared. It may be that the difference is more obvious on a more worn penny than on one that's EF or better? In other words, the ear is less worn than it should be and seems a bit more sunk than on normal examples.
-
1
-
-
-
-
10 hours ago, wlewisiii said:
That's a good point and probably the truth of the matter. I still wish the Double Florin had been more successful, too.
It wasn't totally abandoned - there was a DF pattern done in early George V so they must have toyed with introducing them again.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Paddy said:
I think it has always been accepted that the Double Florin was a further step in the attempt to decimalise the currency, so it seems even more crazy that they started re-issuing Crowns at the same time as the DF.
I suspect we will never know the reasoning.
If a florin was a tenth of a pound, and a DF was a fifth, then a crown was a quarter. Fits perfectly with a decimal system.
-
11 minutes ago, wlewisiii said:
Well, 1900 was currency. There was no 1901 crown.
Yeah, my bad - though the 1900 mintage was twice as high as the previous two years; theory: after Victoria died, they decided to use up the 1900 dies and carried on minting with them in 1901. That would indicate that if she hadn't died, there would have been currency crowns in 1901 and maybe 1902 if she'd gone on that long?
-
2
-
-
On 4/22/2026 at 7:59 PM, Sword said:
I agree that calling a prooflike coin a "variety" is just wrong. But I think NGC is using the term proof like simply to describe a circulating coin with unusually reflective fields and it is just a description of the appearance. The amount of "reflectivity" needed for the PL destination is of course subjective and depends on the opinion of the grader but then all grading by a TGP is subjective. Descriptors like PL also indicates that coins of the same "grade" can differ significantly in value and desirability despite the impression often given by TGPs to the contrary.
From NGC website:
"Most circulation issue coins have minimally reflective fields, even in Mint State (MS) grades. When a circulation issue coin’s fields exhibit a higher-than-normal degree of reflectivity, the coin is said to be “Prooflike” (or “PL”) because it is reminiscent of a Proof coin. If the fields are deeply mirrored, the coin is said to be “Deep Prooflike” (or “DPL”).
NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness."
Agreed, though there are exceptions like the New York 1960 crown which - though not a proof - has "shiny" fields and commands a premium over the normal ones.
And don't get me started on 'mirror' fields! I remember bidding for and winning a complete 1887 Unc silver currency set at Warwick which more than one dealer there dismissed as cleaned. As the mirroring was in the fields but not on the raised elements of the design and legend, it obviously hadn't been cleaned. Oh well, my gain...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Citizen H said:
many Thanks, I was surprised to find it and I did look it up, I didn't realise Edward VII only had the one Crown Coin, its been tempting to wash it.....for now I've managed to resist the temptation.... all the very best "H" 👍
It was the very last year that Crowns were issued for general currency. Arguably it too might only have been a commemorative, but you could argue either way as 1901 was definitely currency.
-
I'd agree - the reverse is no better than GF, but the obverse (under the tarnish) looks better; it's not easy to tell but I'd say AVF?
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Avocet said:
I started collecting in the last years of pre-decimal coinage, and with my dad put together a collection which gave us a lot of pleasure. I like to think that most of the good ones I found when I slipped behind the scenes at the Post Office where my mum used to work a couple of days a week; truthfully most of them probably came via my dad's Civil Service colleagues and friends! But I do vividly remember finding my 1950 threepence, completing the date run - not at all easy towards the end
I remember switching from bags of pennies and halfpennies from banks to looking through brass 3ds. There was a 1949 in the first bag I looked through!
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:
In a way I suppose its kind of compliment but maybe also a tad rude to suggest I'm being dishonest with these discoveries. If you are not putting in the legwork it doesn't mean other's aren't. With all due respect I invite you to invest a bit more time in looking for what you want. And maybe you will have some luck.
Fair enough. If you're putting in 11 hours a day 24/7 then you absolutely deserve the good luck you've had. I couldn't / wouldn't do it myself but hats off to you.
-
I would say that it's pretty clearly a clogged die. Has all the characteristics.
-
4 hours ago, jelida said:
You seem to be talking about this coin on two threads , it really only needs one. How about photos so it can be verified and included on the database, which will make it more attractive. It really is quite hard to believe that you have found all these great rarities in only a couple of weeks when hundreds of highly knowledgeable collectors are looking out for them - you haven’t just bought someones collection? Are you a collector or a dealer? Most of us on this forum know a fair bit about each other (including in many cases our actual names) as members of quite a small community. At the moment you are just a moniker.
Jerry
I had thought the same - one great rarity would be very lucky, two would be incredible, more than two seems ... odd?
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:
"The centre "A" bar is clear and solid. The coin I have clearly shows this. Nice to find one that has a MG number associated and from what I can see no other examples are known. When I look at the earlier prices for the F90 you can clearly see the early sales are higher value for worse condition coins. And as they have been discovered the prices drop off. Does this apply to this type?
Same location, same size, clear and solid, and same die pairing.
Yes, picture please
-
48 minutes ago, absence of uniformity said:
I know the 1915 is hard to find with a good strike uncirculated but in the image I have attached it shows a " Lustrous uncirculated" coin and the the ear looks partially flat at the top. The darker coin I have circled all the wear which is mostly flat areas not shown on the uncirculated coin and yet the ear appears to be untouched. How can most of the face show flat spots but the ear the highest point appears less worn than the uncirculated coin. Or is it a question of a weak strike on the uncirculated coin. That doesnt account for the wear on the darker coin and ear looking to be mostly intact with no flat area. I'm going to guess this darker coin is a recessed ear.
In my opinion the darker coin IS a recessed ear, the lustrous coin is a typical worn die strike - very common during WW1
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:
In another post on this forum I found the following information;
1903 open 3 37,300
1908 F164a 55,550
1909 F169 23,200
1911 Gouby X 188,000
1926 ME 107,750
1946 dot 384,200
In which book or source of information could I find these figures for all types if it even exists?
Thanks
Those are estimates at best. Not sure what they're based on? Gouby estimates that the 1946 is rarer than the 26ME. And for example, although the combined mintage of 1918/19 Hs and KNs is known, the figures for H vs KN are only estimates.
-
1
-
.png.b8d5d892c0585e7171c66a7406a129bd.png)
Thick flan?
in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Posted
That's exactly what I'm referring to.