Rob

Proofs...ummm...they have always been out of my reach...or what do I actually prefer?...an Unc currency or FDC proof? I will stick to what I know until I have Robs millions....and then it would probably be hammered gold and sorting out the best in the world copper 1672-1724 currency of course If only. Though if I did have millions, I'd be into proofs, patterns and currency, hammered and milled of all types big time. Or to put it another way, if I liked it I'd buy it even if I had a nice one already. Current funds don't always run to a type example, let alone one in top grade.

If you're going into proofs and patterns then welcome aboard. Sometimes it feels a bit lonely as virtually the only collector of these items on this forum. Come on all you admirers of said items - fill your boots instead of just window shopping, there is enough material out there to go around.

That's more like it. Even I could get enthusiastic about a penny with that depth of strike given I need a KN for the collection. The regular offerings are depressing. I've just thrown a handful of KNs that were better than the current ebay s***e. Having said that, it's still got a few marks at the bottom of the obverse and a funny stain on the head.

The other problem with it is that coins of Derby, Nottingham and Tamworth are usually inscribed REX SAXONUM (King of the Saxons) as opposed to REX TO BRIT (King of All Britain) because the area was under strong Danish influence and the acceptance of Aethelstan wasn't whole-hearted. There is no way with Edward the Elder having conquered Northumbria in 917 AD that his successor would then strike coins reverting to the viking style of reverse with all its connotations.

Something not right here. The obverse read AEDELSTAN REX TO BRI which is similar to the Circumscription Cross issue of Aethelstan (924-939) though it usually reads BRIT. The reverse is a Viking imitation coinage style for St.Peter's Coinage of York, but the sword is pointing in the wrong direction. Dave Greenhalgh does a copy of a St.Peter penny where the sword is facing the same way as yours, but there are detail differences. A mule of the coins of opposing forces in battle is highly contrived. Don't forget Aethelstan routed the Irish of viking descent and Scots et al at the battle of Brunanburh. I don't know where it comes from, but it doesn't make sense and has to be a modern concoction. Aethelstan was king of Wessex, but the York coinage was struck a decade or two earlier. The obverse legend reads King of all the Britons, which is assumed to be following the defeat of the northern forces in the middle of his reign. The actual date of the battle is uncertain. This is more than a decade later than the period in which St.Peters coinage imitations were produced.

The grade isn't affected becasue there is no more wear after stamping the initials than there was before. There are a few collectors of countermarks or business stamps, but your normal currency collector wouldn't want one with the stamp unless really rare. So a reduced resale value would apply in the case of something as common as this.

Usefulness has never had a unit cost. You either need it or you don't.

Not sure about that. Whilst there are apparently accurate mintage records available for every other year and denomination, we only ever read that as far as 1954 is concerned, there is "only one known". Not even sure why that was produced or where it is now ~ can somebody enlighten ? Same applies to the 1952, of course. I don't think the location is a problem for these rare coins as discussed in a thread a year or so back. The numbers produced and reasons for doing so are a little more problematical however. I'd also like to see a better image of the foil impression for example which fills the screen and is taken perpendicular to the coin face as images exist of the accepted unique item, so it would allow corroboration. The only reason people take angled views noramlly is to eliminate flash reflection, but you can easily cover the flash with thin paper to eliminate this.

I saw a 1954 last year which had to be a changed date or something else iffy about it, but I have to confess I couldn't see anything wrong with it and nor could the person (a dealer) who showed it to me. It could easily have been genuine. How do we know that is taken from the known coin other than to accept the vendor's word? Can we be certain the 'only genuine' 1954 is actually so? Actually, when it comes to tin foil impressions of coins, Lindt do a very nice SFr5 amongst other things. Yummy.

It only happens on book bids. If you bid in the room the auctioneer is in control and so either knocks it down to you there and then or you pass. If you bid live on line the same applies.

Reverse

It's only happened to me a couple of times, but when it does it's a very good feeling - I can feel an anecdote coming on. The coin below was lot 253 in St.James's 3 where Mark Teller bought it for ~£4K including premium. I wanted it, but not at that price because nobody pays that much for a York shilling under normal circumstances and so was outbid at the sale. 2 or 3 years later it resurfaced in a Goldberg sale. In the interim the pound had depreciated against the dollar, so for the eventual buyer in the St. James's sale to recoup their outlay in dollars it would have been necessary to go to about $8K. This was even sillier than the £4K of two years previous, so I put in a bid within the estimate of $4000-4500 which was effectively at the same level as I was prepared to go to in St. James's and crossed my fingers. I followed the sale on line and got a bit depressed when I found I had been outbid, but only by one increment. I assumed it had a reserve, but had no idea at what level it was set because obviously nobody else had bid. I waited for my other winnings to be invoiced but imagine the euphoria when I discovered that I was being invoiced for something I wanted but thought had escaped. Happy days indeed as it has wall to wall original dusty lustre and the whole coin glistens in the light. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does you get a hell of a buzz. Obverse

Happy days when it happens on the odd occasion.

Any of the above is possible. Tardis anyone to resolve it once and for all?

Despite his claim to the contrary, it's not the real thing. It's missing the final E in genuine.

Ditto that. Both have clearly been cleaned. The obverses look considerably worse than the reverses would suggest in both cases which seems a little odd. I hate to think how much someone is going to pay for either of them.

Today's releases are driven by the marketing department, or so it appears. Sets are produced for the beginning of the year so that they can make inflated prices for their packaged products. The currency ones are released to the banks as they ask for new supplies. There are far more coins in circulation than you might assume would be required, but so many are sat in piggy banks or the like that the mint has to keep on producing them. Look at the number of 1p's officially in circulation, which is far more than are required for normal commerce. I don't think that scenario would have been relevant in 1926 when currency would have been released as required purely on commercial grounds and agree with the idea that most if not all were sent to a small area of the country.

Let's throw another possibility into the mix. The ME was clearly intended to be the way forward in 1925 because the 1925 ME halfpenny was produced. What if the 1926 ME penny was the first to be struck with this date, but the die broke early on and so the balance of the order was made up using old obverse dies? This would leave an unquantifiable (but potentially very small) number struck unless the Mint Records could shed some light on the subject. Again there's no evidence, but with all options open it has to be considered.

You've got to crop the image. Somewhere on your paint program or whatever will be a dotted box icon or something similar. Usually you hold the mouse button down and drag the mouse so that the cursor draws a box around the coin. Do it so that the coin virtually fills the area within the box and save it. Then upload the new image.

Clearly I'm too late to make such an observation and in any case I don't have enough digits to count the mistakes. I suspect that his name isn't John Kendall. Random letters put together in a haphazard fashion, will on occasion form sensible words.

Now you've got me COMPLETELY baffled! Database fields only have the validation rules you give them, and the default is usually "Put something in here - but if you don't want to it's ok with me". Like an inflatable d... No no! NOT going there!! I didn't set up the access database for my collection, my offspring did. Unfortunately he's no longer at home, so I live with what I've got. He said it was something to do with sorting the data, but as I don't understand it anyway because my computer programming skills are non-existent, I just do as I was told.

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one. I don't know if the 1st effigy dies were used up before the ME was used or not, as it is equally possible they were used concurrently if the mint was using more than one machine. In fact there would be a very good reason for running them side by side as this would allow the die characteristics to be properly evaluated. No newly introduced design would have been previously subjected to a test to destruction if that involved striking 50-100000 or so coins. That is why I was hoping somebody might have the mint records for this period on the off chance that it might shed light on the dates when 1926 pennies were struck and when the ME dies were introduced. Whatever date this happened, the pennies weren't struck until the second half of the year with either obverse design as per my previous post regarding the articles in the SNC, although modified effigy dies must have been produced in 1925 as the halfpenny is known with this date, but again presumably not until the end of the year as its existence wasn't recorded by Garside until the August 1926 article. Even if the precise dates are not available, it should be possible to make an educated guess of the limits based on the striking rate of the equipment in use at the time and total output. At the moment we are all hypothesising without firm evidence, so could do with a bit of research. Any members of the BNS in the London area could take time out to visit the Library in the Warburg Institute for example as they have probably got a copy of the Mint records for 1925, 1926 & 1927.

Shouldn't that be thong.

Prsumably the starting price is a reflection (sorry) of the labour time required to get it to that state. An hour and a bit at minimum wage rates is about right.

Looks machined to me.