Rob

82 for me this year, though in mitigation, 29 of those were the Olympic 50p set because they had 26 new designers. There were also another 2 pieces of modern decimal c**p for the attributed designers section, so only about 50 in reality.

The 1967s will be worth scrap value as will be most others if not in pristine condition. The world is awash with 20th century material, so unless you have won the lottery, which by definition is unlikely, then most are likely to be worth pence and not pounds.

Me three... oh wait - 60s?! Umm... more like early naughties I was given a 2002 Unc set for a birthday present (in retrospect - 18th... hadn't realised that before - too busy enjoying the couple of bottles of vodka I also got I guess!) It was mentioned in passing 'ooo that might be worth something one day' which tweaked my imagination. Sadly, I dont think it will ever be worth much more than the £3.88 in contains, but the comment did push me to reveal the whole predecimal world! I was captivated by the artistry of the viccy silver in particular, as well as anything earlier than that. I subsequently had the opportunity to do 6months(!) work experience at DNW under the wing of Michael Sharp and PPM - during which I handled the Bamford Collection, most of the Mass Collection and the James Hall Collection... All I can say is WOW! The medals side was quite fun as well! As for now, I pretty much collect anything that takes my fancy, with a leaning towards oddities, mis-stikes and errors! Now Mr Cerbera, what was a person like you doing bidding £99 on the coin below in August 2006? Rather a change from 2002 unc sets, non? For some bizarre reason, only myself, the shill bidder (who bought it in the Baldwins sale with me as underbidder) and another forum member(?) who reads a lot but never posts, bid over £100 on it that day. This probably after I mentioned on the forum I was playing around with a shill bidder and would happily bid to just under what it sold for in Baldwins given his bid was above what I went to previously. Ex Hoblyn 196, Bousfield 414, Parsons 668, Peck, Noble 59 and Baldwins 44 lot 516 for the record and the subject of a typo error in Peck.

I haven't a clue how many were made other than the figures in Spink which say 1500 in gold, 3500 piedfort (double thickness) in silver and 40000 silver proofs including those in sets. 40000 cupro-nickel (not silver) proof sets were issued and you say 50000 specimens in a presentation folder. No figure is given for regular currency, but it will be more than the special issues. Not rare, but can probably be found on ebay listed as unique.

Thanks Rob, was this a private pattern, or one by the royal mint in anticipation of the move to a decimal currency? I can imagine the outrage of the likes of the Daily Mail if the RM were now to mint a coin bearing the word EURO or FRANC David It was an RM pattern by L C Wyon. Hocking lists two pieces in the RM museum collection (nos. 2300 & 2301). I suspect there may have been lip service only to decimalisation by this point in time as the lobbying for decimalisation was greater in the 1840s and 50s. There was definitely an attempt to create an international coinage however, as the RM also made a 1 Ducat/100 pence piece dated 1867 and a Double Florin/5 Francs International with both plain and milled edges in 1868 - these three pieces were in gold. These two designs are also Hobson's Choice pieces.

It is on my wants list as a Hobson's Choice piece and is not displeasing to my eyes. It is ESC1476 which Rayner gave as R3. They trickle through occasionally and I would guesstimate there are probably somewhere between 10 and 20 out there, which in Rayner-speak is R4. A lot of patterns are given as R3 or R2, but the numbers appearing down the years would suggest they are rarer than that.

I've got more than 10 available too. That doesn't mean to say the one you get will be mark free though. The one in the picture isn't, and the other side isn't shown. The picture may or may not be the coin you receive.

Peter, this may come as a surprise, but I too will have to acquire a Churchill crown to fill the Oscar Nemon slot in the attributed designers section of the collection. I'm still looking for one with minimal bagmarks though. I can't bring myself to pay nearly £1K for a satin proof, but will stretch to a fiver(!) for a bagmark free one. My appointment with a man in a white coat is at 2 o'clock.

It looks almost as if the coin was picked out of a very shallow solution almost the consistency of treacle and then left without any attempt to dry it off by hand. The interesting thing is that it only appears (or at least I have only seen it) on this particular type, suggesting a deviation from the normal method. Usually the bronzing is even on the Soho pieces with the possible exception of some early pieces. Taylor's bronzing by comparison was very patchy and so many of his products exhibit irregular tones across the flan.

Could be that was the contact point at the bottom of the vessel in which the coin was being toned. Possible, but it looks as if the coin is more bronzed at the ring which contradicts the assumptions I would make for contacting surfaces where I would expect less bronzing action to occur. A possibility is that it's due to contact with a concentrated area of bronzing chemical. It isn't due to contact with the vessel rim containing the chemical because the bronzing continues outside the ring. A useful starting point would be knowing how the process is physically carried out.

That's silly. The whole set of 29 costs less than £100 from the RM. I can't believe that he has sold 29 partial sets.

Yes

Yes there are quite probably a few VIP proofs (ultra rare) that surface once in a while. Someone here will quote chapter and verse on when the last one was up for sale. I guess that means me. VIP proofs are not excessively rare as a type, but individual dates vary in rarity. They do crop up in a few (proper) sales every year, in fact the last DNW sale had a 1947 2/6d. A ball park figure for one in good condition is £500-1000 for the Ag/Cu-Ni denominations and £300-£1K for the bronze. All denominations exist as VIP proofs.

Yes. I'll post this via photobucket to save having to refer to different threads. Below left is a 1956 currency obverse, centre is a 1953 proof obverse from the RM set in the red case and right is a 1958 VIP proof obverse. All uncleaned. Although a scan washes out some of the detail and tones, the differences are obvious.

It is a currency piece that has been polished. You may well be able to see your face in the fields which you could do if it was a proof, but you won't find any sane person willing to pay £500-1K for a coin which was worth a few pounds as an uncirculated shilling, but whose value headed south following the cleaning. The legend is blocked with a cloudy deposit which is probably metal polish residue. A VIP proof has the recesses within the legend as mirror like as the main parts of the fields. And if it is 1956, I would expect it to be frosted like the others. Age old advice, but if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Probably is if the discolouration on the D at the top is relevant. The lighter areas are where the top loop of the S would be.

Why not the loft, I thought that would be quite a good place !. Not safe from burglars of course, but if it's DRY (it doesn't matter about the temperature) it could be a good storage place. It does if you have tin coins. Tin being allotropic will change its crystalline structure below 13C. If the period spent below this temperature is sufficiently prolonged, you will end up with a small heap of powder. This is tin pest which seems to start from the inside and work its way out for some reason. It manifests itself as the blistering seen on some coins where the change of state has only partly completed. Below is an example where a few blisters have formed.

Easy Coinery. You return to the subject at twenty to two in the morning - like now. Patience isn't a problem either because the same questions are asked every couple of months or so, year in year out. We get quite used to it. If you hang around long enough and become fully conversant, chances are you will end up doing the same!! Peck - The earlier comment about not being able to tell easily, I was referring to a single coin without any reference present. Unless you are familiar with a type or what purports to be normal, then you are unlikely to be able to make an educated decision.

The penny hasn't quite dropped. The RM produced proof sets in 1826, 1831, 1839, 1853, 1887, 1893, 1902, 1911, 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951 and 1970, plus each year subsequent to this date for collectors. Single coins from these years that you may encounter are usually from broken up sets. They are struck from polished dies and blanks with the exception of the 1902 which had a matte finish - a silky non-mirror finish. The effigies may be brilliant and smooth or frosted. Early pieces are frosted, whilst the common years of the 20th century tend not to be. From the recoinage of 1816 onwards and many years in between the above, there were a handful of each denomination struck from specially prepared dies. These are anything from rare to excessively so. Rare in this instance refers to a maximum of a couple dozen pieces struck, with excessively rare being one or two known examples. Prior to 1816, proofs were generally struck at the beginning of each issue, but not all. The exception being 1746 when rather more proof crowns, halfcrowns, shillings and sixpences were struck. As Peck said, the 20th century silver may or may not be actually silver and will depend on the metal used for currency at the time. The proofs will be very reflective and brilliant as that is how they were made. They will not have been made from silver automatically, though some issues are now produced in both gold and silver. The mint will issue these in a presentation box with a certificate. Trust no one who says it is a silver issue when not accompanied by all the relevant documentation, and even then be wary as there is nothing to stop an unscrupulous person substituting a cupro-nickel example. On its own, you probably wouldn't be able to tell. I notice in your instance, the 1990 5p was produced in both silver and cupro-nickel, but both as part of sets. The former was a two coin set with the old and new sizes/designs. If you want a silver 1990 5p, I suggest you acquire an intact set in its original packaging. There are also a good number of off-metal strikes and patterns, particularly in the 19th century. Patterns are prospective designs that were not adopted. They tend to be expensive and not normally encountered. They may be struck in silver, or alternatively may be off-metal strikes in a number of other materials such as gold, silver, copper, bronze, tin, aluminium, nickel, Barton's metal etc. Off-metal strikes are those metals other than the normal currency pieces.

Up to the reign of William III you often find flawed Es where the middle bar looks as if it is an H. I think it the same in this instance because there is also a spur on the central bar and determining an underlying letter is problematical.

Time to drag this one out again. Scroll down to post number 8 in the link where you will see a scan of 3 shillings. shillings For those that haven't seen it before, the one on the left is a normal currency piece, the middle one is from a 1953 proof set and is brilliant (hence the fields show up dark due to minimal light dispersion) and the one on the right shows a VIP proof shilling with the cameo frosted effect arising from highly polished fields. Sorry, don't seem to be able to copy the image and paste it as a link without attaching the rest of the thread.

No coins for me this Christmas, but given it came early on a few occasions during December and is likely to do so again in the new year, I mustn't complain. Potentially far more valuable were the accrued brownie points from Mrs Rob's birthday present.

It's so badly worn and damaged that all one can say with any certainty is that it's an early milled copper farthing, which were produced from the 1670s to the 1770s. Worth its own weight in copper. Do you not think the bust is too close to the edge top and bottom for a farthing? Coupled with the weight which is at the top end of the range for farthings and with undoubted metal loss given the irregular flan, I thought a halfpenny might be a better option.

Probably a William III first(?) issue halfpenny with a reduced diameter from what is visible. The ties look to be the first issue type and the bust is too big relative to flan size for a farthing or halfpenny. Normal weight is anywhere from 8 and a bit grams to 10g.

First of all it is a halfpenny, not a penny. A forgery is possible given the normal weight range quoted in Peck is 141.3-152.2 grains which is 9.15 grams at the lower end. You'd never know from the detail though. Has the rim been filed down? Keep it as a curio because they are probably the commonest halfpenny of all and a nice example can be acquired very cheaply. Pennies are 34mm dia and 3mm thick, 1806 halfpennies are 29mm dia and 2 - 2.5mm thick.