Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Coin Hoarder
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sylvester

  1. Well we all know that Britain went decimal in 1971, and that after August 1971 the only pre-decimal coins to be encountered in active circulation were the sixpences, shillings and florins, mostly from 1947 onwards. These three denominations each met their end in 1980, 1990 and 1993 respectively. The question that has been puzzling me for years though is do any of you recall seeing anything other than post-1947 coins actively circulating at any point from September 1971 to June 1993? I remember all too well the abundance of George VI and Elizabeth florins even to the very end. I missed out on the sixpences being born after they had been withdrawn. I recall the odd Liz shillings but seldom so, and no George VI ones in the run up to 1990. I have an inkling that I may have encountered some silver George VI florins, but very few, I seem to recall a 1930s one once - sometime in the early 90s. I was also shown by the local post office owner a George V florin that had been used for payment, this would have been sometime around 1992, after the small coins had debuted. Can't recall ever seeing any other George V coins in circulation. Interested if anyone has similar unusual sightings that they remember.
  2. Looking at it from the present (oh how hindsight in the future may change this), but it seems to me that the Tories and Labour are finished - notwithstanding a major shift in policy from either of them. The whole mess reminds me of what happened to the Liberal Party of old at the turn of the Twentieth century over Home Rule in Ireland. Both parties are split, with politicians within each either falling pro or anti EU - This appears more marked in the Conservative party than in the Labour party. The biggest problem Labour has is in its heartlands. Its core voters are split between the Remainers in Scotland and the South, and the Leavers in the Midlands and North. The latest election results saw an almost complete wipeout in Yorkshire, particularly so in Barnsley as much a strong Labour heartland as if ever there was one, where Brexit Party cleared about 23,000 votes and Labour came second with 7,600. Pretty decisive me thinks. In all across the whole of Yorkshire and Humber the Brexit Party won every area with the notable exception of York which the Liberals took. So if Labour back the remain horse, then they have lost most of their voters in the northern areas (which the Liberals will do a better job at representing being less divided), if they back leave then they've lost their remain voters everywhere else. Either way I think the party is pretty much up a creek without a paddle. There's a quiet revolution going on that the media, mainstream politicians and champagne socialists et al. haven't quite figured out. The new forces of British politics are the resurgent Lib-Dems versus some kind of grouping around the embryonic Brexit Party (as Farage has said, six weeks old and it has swept the rest by the wayside, pretty remarkable really). The Tories and Labour offer no solutions and are too fractured to ever resolve the issue and whichever path they choose be it, remain, leave or as Labour have tried to straddle both, from the current viewpoint they're pretty much screwed. Have no illusions, the Brexit Party's victory was resounding. The remain dominated media are trying in vain to spin it that remain won, yeah by adding all the votes of the remain team together. I'm not sure how that is helpful, that's like saying the 2nd, 3rd and 4th runners in a race won because cumulatively they ran further than the quickest athlete.
  3. Well that was pretty much as I surmised! I had an inkling that there would be a significant drop off as the 70s progressed to the great price rises of 1980 and then pretty dormant until the early 90s when the larger coins were being phased out, the sudden last dash to get rid of old coins - probably spent by those that didn't realise that the pre-47s contained silver. I can't say I'm surprised about the lack of pre-20 coins, the mint were actively withdrawing these throughout the 1930s, much in the same way as the silver replacement program of the 1940s, when the half silver coins were being culled by banks and returned to the mint, (the exact same thing that is happening now with the pre-2011 5p and 10p coins in the cupronickel recall).
  4. Sylvester

    Another treasure unearthed

    I always have my fingers crossed when they discover hammered coin hoards that they are from the 1140s, but with gold present probably more 1300/1400s. Still maybe it'll drop the price of nobles for a while? 😁 Harold and William coins, that sounds interesting. Suppose it depends how many make it out to collectors though, probably no so many if they are rarer types and we are talking Harold here, so not exactly common.
  5. To be fair though, isn't that what most media outlets are doing these days? In fact in the run up to the referendum and ever since there has been a very obvious policy of what I like to think of as 'erosion', keep wearing away at people by telling them it is doomed and the voters were misguided and misinformed and if a referendum was to be held again then remain would have a clear victory (which is what they said the last time!). I have to ask, as a former student of history, where is the source or what is their motive? To what end does staying in the EU benefit them, it obviously does otherwise why would they spend so long trying to feather their beds? Contrarily to the media's portrayal though of it as going against sanity and the wishes of the people. I have to say when they do ask the person in the street in the leave vote areas, the message I keep hearing is that many still want to leave, and same pattern in the remain areas, they still want to remain. I'm not really sure anything has actually changed, only the media's policy of mind-altering keeps on going. It's all very 1984. My biggest gripe of all though, is that they fail to realise that many of us (regardless of which side you fall on) already had a clear and conceived viewpoint and knew which way we were going to vote long before the campaigning ever began.
  6. I was about to put this on eBay, just assuming it was a bog standard worn 1696 crown. So I photographed it, looking at the photos and the coins I thought oh it's a 1698, looked in the coin book and then though, wait hang on there ain't a 1698. So I've looked at this coin every which way, in natural light, artificial light and thought hard 'the last digit is a 6', but as worn as the coin is, it certainly looks more like an 8 - however, looking at 1698 halfcrowns the 8 is a different shape to what I have here, it looks like a 6 which turns at the top and comes back to make an 8. I can't find any evidence of any overdates for these 1696 crowns, which was my next logical thought. The edge date is OCTAVO as per 1696. The coin weighs 28.5g and is very worn. Silver ring when dropped and it travels down a magnetic silver slide as one would expect silver to. I though perhaps a forgery was the next logical conclusion.
  7. I know there were a lot of production errors during the William III series, particularly around the Great Recoinage of 1696-7. The lower denominations were very much affected, particularly at the branch mints. This is somewhat unusual a crown though, but not unheard of for example the GEI variant. Looks like that shilling you had also had some letter under the E of ET, unless it was a dig in the field, looks serifed though.
  8. Hmm possibly. I can see that as well. Presumably they accidentally placed the punch upside down and only realised once it was done, so corrected it, resulting in this.
  9. You know I had a similar question on here about a year ago about die numbers on Sovereigns. I think we came to the conclusion that there were a set of dies made for the year and numbers probably were reused every year. So die 3 in 1865 would be different to die 3 in 1866. Now I have no iron clad evidence that, that is correct, however, I think it unlikely to have been the same die 3 from 1863 to 1880. I would be happy to be proved wrong though. The only way to do that though would be to find a die flaw on one year and have the very same flaw on a subsequent year. The problem there though is that once dies reach the point of cracks and flaws they are pretty much life expired and would be discarded soon after I should imagine. Conversely, if one could find a die number used say in 1870 that always presented with a flaw, but in 1871 the flaw was absent then that surely would be eividence to suggest that they are different dies each year.
  10. Had a thought since I posted that. Could someone at the mint have punched the last 6 for the date too high and then corrected it by punching it lower, hence giving an 8 type figure, when in reality it is 6/6 (the first 6 being higher)? The Obverse:
  11. I've wondered this before but never got around to asking. Let's say there are two sovereigns, an 1868 and an 1869 and they both have the same die number, lets pick 21. Now as you are no doubt aware on sovereigns the die number is on the undated side of the coin. Are these two different No. 21 dies, or could it plausibly be one die that was used over two years?
  12. That's kind of what I thought too... But then you look at reported die numbers for sovereigns, eg. die number 1 was used in the following years: 1863, 1865, 1866, 1868, 1870, 1871, 1873 Two consecutive years maybe, but over 7 years? Isn't that stretching it a little? The silver coinage is of course a lot easier in that the die number and the dates are on the same sides and so it's clear that barring an overdate, they are in fact different dies. Maybe dies produced by the same die cutter though? Quality control for each of the mint's employees?
  13. Here's a question I like to ask every now and again on forums. It's been a long while since I last asked it on here. The rules are more flexible than you might think: 1. You must have either received the coin in change or must have spent it, (Swaps/buying the coin not allowed). 2. It can be a coin you found in change whilst on holiday in another country. 3. It can be a foreign coin that someone slipped into circulation unoffically (eg. a US cent as a 1p coin). 4. It can be a predecimal coin that has been slipped into circulation unofficially (eg. a halfpenny as a 2p coin) For me it would be a 1947 2/- piece back when they were circulating as everyday 10p coins. I have vague recollections of once spending a 1930s George VI 2/- but cannot confirm the date. The oldest coin I ever saw pulled out of a till in this country was a late 1920s to 1930s George V florin (this was in 1993 just before their ultimate demise), although since I neither spent it nor received it in change I can't claim it as my own. Surely some of the posters on here who were around before decimalisation can easily beat that.
  14. Anyone else amused by the U-Turn on the EU constitution referendum? I see T Blair's Fourth Reich is crumbling slowly. And well done to Mr Howard for really showing BLiar up!
  15. Sylvester

    New pound coin

    I don't doubt it. I was only offering possible suggestions, some perhaps more plausible than others. The placement may well be random and this hasn't been proven either way at the moment. If it isn't random though, then an explanition/reason must lie somewhere.
  16. Sylvester

    Top 5 iconic pre-decimal coins?

    Oh this is a hard question. I believe I have to give two lists for this. The first simply because these are iconic coins, in this instance by iconic I think 'famous', but with the status comes the price that puts them well out of my budget. 1) Una & the Lion £5 coin 2) Gothic Crown 1847 3) 1934 Wreath Crown 4) 1933 penny 5) 1937 Edward VIII brass threepence The second list of 'iconic' meaning designs that people should be aware of, or common coins everyone should have one of even if they are worn low grade specimens. I had to put 6 here, I just couldn't do it in 5. 1) Edward I penny (Is this not the most commonly recognised/encountered hammered coin?) 2) Edward VII florin (Originality) 3) Victoria Gothic florin (Sheer beauty) 4) Cartwheel twopence (Size and quirky denomination) 5) Victorian Bun head penny (An 'instituation' that made it to the very eve of decimalisation) 6) St. George & the Dragon sovereign, take your pick of monarch. (World famous design).
  17. Sylvester

    New pound coin

    I was looking through news reports trying to find evidence of this, to prove I hadn't mis-remembered it. When I stumbled upon this in the mirror: Check out the photo they used for the 2016 "trial coins", it's very clear that the milling on that one is on the left. http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/rare-1-coins-worth-250-10112175
  18. Sylvester

    New pound coin

    Got a pair of 2017s in the past day or two. I've checked approx 25 £1 coins, all but one have smooth to the left. I would have thought, as an earlier poster mentionned that the edges were random depending upon which way the blank landed in between the dies, like the old £1 coins. However, surely mathematical law of averages would suggest a more even 50/50 kind of distribution between plain to the left or to the right. But from preliminary reports here it seems very skewed in one direction, which suggests it's more intentional. Maybe you're onto something there, who knows? My first thoughts on the matter would be to ask, what type do the BU sets have? It has been known for the BU sets to have one die variety of coin and the circulation strikes to be of a different type. All very early days at the moment though. Just out of interest, are they all magnetic? I read somewhere that the centres are nickel plated steel. Although the mint have been known in the past to have differing compositions, thinking of 1998 or 1999 2p coins here (I forget which date), I suspect it unlikely that any have cupro-nickel centres, but with a massive mintage such as a recoinage strange things can happen and often don't always come to light until years afterwards. Especially thinking that the 2016s were supposedly for the vending machine industry to check their equipment and then were supposed to be handed back (according to some accounts I read in the news shortly after their introduction). Maybe the prototypes are the ones with the different edges? Dunno.
  19. Sylvester

    New pound coin

    Anyone seen any 2017 dated £1 coins yet? I've encounted only about half a dozen new £1 coins and they've all been 2016s. Haven't checked the micro lettering, I doubt if I'll be able to read it anyway!
  20. Thanks to Chris for pointing this on out to me. Well i seem to be devoid of 1992 20ps. Chris asked if there were two varieties known of the 1992 20ps thinking he'd read it somewhere. So i took a look at the ones i have, unfortunately the only ones i could find were dated 1989, 1993 and 1995. Comparing the 1989 to the 1993/5 examples the obverse portrait on the latter specimens is clearly different (how had i not noticed this?) the obverse is bigger on the later ones. The Queen's crown is much nearer the inside edge of the pentagon. The question is when did the portrait change? I have a feeling it might be 1992 and this would back up Chris' initial question. I'm going to have to go looking for some 1992 20ps.
  21. Sylvester

    EU referendum - in or out?

    If that petition (or the ardent remain MPs that are hoping to initiate a similar 2nd referendum drive within Parliament) come to any fruition then I'm afraid I've lost all faith in this country's democracy. The problem with the establishment and the EU in general in my opinion is that it has a very closed way of thinking, 'think correctly, as we do, or your views are erronous and thus not valid' and then they resort to dirty tactics such as throwing out labels of derision; 'racist', 'sexist' or 'homophobic' or whatever. The EU really comes across as an Orwellian superstate in the making, it's scary how they speak for you and try to change your mind and way of thinking, using every tool at their disposal, including linguistic changes. I feel an enormous sense of relief that Leave won, but also trepidation that somehow the remain camp will try to alter, delay, stall and try and win the 52% of voters around to their way of thinking over the next two, three or four years. The quicker the cessation is set in motion the happier I will feel. There is the all too real danger of letting the momentum slow over the next two years and stall and then a remain coup attempt to force another referendum or some technical vote to halt the process before completion. I also feel a little annoyed about the comments in the media about older voters ruining the younger generations future. In actual fact I would consider myself a younger voter and I certainly think it a move in the right direction not the ruining of my and subsequent generations futures. It was a strike for democracy, the right to vote for the MPs directly and not have them overruled by some foreign bureaucrat who you never could have voted for even if you had wanted to. I also feel that finally I have had the chance to vote on this issue, I wasn't born in 1975 when the last referendum was held, so it was finally nice to have my say on an issue that has been a core issue for me for the past twenty years.
  22. I really hope Corbyn wins the Labour Party leadership campaign. From my point of view the whole point of the Labour party was to be a socialist, working man's party. Labour ceased to have any relevance when they dropped the article in their manifesto that stated 'we are a socialist party', and that was sometime in about 1993/4. New Labour and all it stood for was practically New Tory in all but name. No one really wants two parties with the same political stance arguing over irrelevant nuances, this just makes politics stagnant, boring and disllusions the voters. The old addage 'they all urinate in the same pot' kind of holds true. I should make it clear that I am not a socialist and I've never voted Labour, but I think if they are to have any relevance in the future they have to be different to what the Conservatives are offering. If they can't actually have different policies then they are totally irrelevant as a political force, just like the Liberal Democrats have become.
  23. I actually really like the William IV series, the William IV portrait is also another (often overlooked) Wyon creation.
  24. It depends on the criteria I suppose. If you consider the differing overseas varieties (like Canada), or are taking all the commem portraits into consideration as well then probably. With regards to the UK regular issues only - The two monarchs now tie. Queen Victoria Regular issues Young Head 1838-1887 Gothic/Godless Head 1847-1887 Bun Head 1860-1895 Jubilee Head 1887-1893 Old Head 1893-1901 Elizabeth II Regular issues Gillick Head 1953-1970 Machin Head 1968-1984 Maklouf Head 1985-1997 Broadley Head 1998-2015 Clarke Head 2015-