Peckris 2

Particularly useful as he divides the pages into horizontal strips so you can align any obverse with any reverse to see both together.

Basically, you've got one narrow date, and the rest are wide dates. I'll leave it to others to see if there are micro varieties among the latter.

Regal disapproval?

only one of those dated 1983 would be worth good money (that was the year nearly all 2p's were 'TWO PENCE')

I suspect it was classed as 'an important collection' - I did note that most items had sound provenance. It's the only explanation that makes sense, though I'm pretty surprised that Noonans hadn't done enough research and so come up with more realistic estimates.

this was way out of the ordinary. .. one item had estimate £200 - £260. As I liked it a lot I bid the high £260 (+1). .. it went for £4,200 ... and that was pretty much typical!

Did anyone here have a look at, or bid on, or even win!, any of the gorgeous Ancient Greek coins in this sale? I placed a 'highest estimate' bid on a few of the more modestly priced items, hoping I might get one of them. But after the first few lots I knew I wouldn't - everything went for at the very least 5 times estimate, but more often 10 times, and in one or two cases even more ... one lot was estimated £2k - £3k, but went for £40,000!!

1899 is *the* year for varying date widths - they occur from narrow to very wide

It looks clearly like a B to me - if you look at the other three Rs on the obverse there is a clear gap between the left down stroke and the curve of the R

Yes, that's not genuine though it doesn't look like a modern fake - possibly what the Americans call an "evasion", i.e. counterfeited in the 18th century?

yes of course. I was seeing the left hand of the lower 8 loop as being the 7 downstroke, when as you say it's actually on the right.

what's that protruding from the bottom of the 8? certainly not part of the 7.

can't actually see anything wrong with it - from the pictures.

yes, a very clear 1865/3 - nice one

On the other hand, £1 is a fair price for a reasonable repro.

I think it's often a feature in Victorian silver?

It's a good point. I have double florins and two JH crowns where the fields look highly reflective, but not polished, and the designs and legends aren’t (not cameo but definitely not very reflective like the fields). It does make you wonder how they have maintained that state.

From Goddards own site: How Silver Dip Works: 1. Chemical Reaction: As tarnished silver jewellery is immersed in a silver dip solution, a chemical reaction occurs. Thiourea or potassium thiocyanate in the solution reacts with the silver sulphide, which is broken down into one component, silver, and one component, sulphur. 2. Dissolving tarnish: The silver sulphide dissolves into the solution as the chemical reaction proceeds, leaving behind a transparent, untarnished silver sheet. During this process, the tarnishing process is reversed, revealing the shiny silver surface underneath. No mention of 'etching'?

That's the one feature I don't take seriously - the farthing legends are so small, and the serifs so pronounced, that effects like you're seeing on the H are almost inevitable. The bifurcation on the other hand is a very definite effect of something happening on the die.

I've just looked, and my example definitely has the bifurcation near the I so it's clearly the same die.

Interesting. The date on yours is almost identical to mine. However, the non-wonky underlying '1' (yes clearly double punched on yours) is not - or barely - evident on mine, whereas the doubled 8 is, so is the 'twin tailed' 6, and the width of the numerals. It would seem to be the same reverse die.

That's not 'dipping' in the commercial sense - I've not tried it myself but if it works then go for it.

If you did dip, I have a golden rule: 1. use Goddards, and a clean container 2. dip FOR ONLY 10 SECONDS 3. remove, rinse thoroughly, and dab dry with a clean towel If that doesn't cure the problem, or at least only partly, don't be tempted to dip again.

If even half of what's in Spare is true, then it's The Family - or rather the structure around them - that's terrible, not so much the Sussexes.

At least the toning is even - could be a lot worse.