Rob

Why is 1933 a special year for rarities?

On a more practical note, if anyone is interested in hammered shillings or thinking of dabbling, then there are a few listed that are seriously difficult to get hold of. As grotty as the E5/2 looks, you will struggle to find one in any grade and it isn't expensive. I paid well in excess of book for mine a few years ago and have absolutely no regrets. Of the handful of decent examples I know of, none are in danger of being sold in a hurry. You are also unlikely to be over-run with B2/1's or D1/1's either.

Just for you I'll keep an eye on them to make sure they don't sell for a silly low price (to anyone else)

The first one looks fairly grotty where the first stop should be, but it looks like a trace of a stop after GRATIA and on the second one all three obverse stops are there albeit weak. Nothing to worry about as far as I can see. The question of stops always arouses a bit of controversy. The design obviously called for stops, but occasionally they are missed out and so to decide whether a coin genuinely exists in the no stops variety from a particular die I think it is first necessary to find one in mint state or close to so that you can eliminate wear to a stop that may have been very weak in the first place. Most of the claimed no stops coins are usually in fairly dire grade, so it is impossible to say they are genuinely no stops. This problem also exists to my mind for the dump halfpenny which has a die or two which have little more than a pimple in high grade where the mark seen could well be a stop guide, but the stop was never fully punched in. Equally, the absence of a stop could be due to die fill. In this instance, a low grade coin - say VF or below, doesn't show any feature resembling a stop. But that doesn't make it a no stops variety, just an indifferent example of a standard type with weakness.

You're probably paranoid. It's a woman assuming the name is correct. I've bought a few things off her in the past with no indication of any dodgy pieces, though many have been dipped. The one in the link doesn't appear to have been dipped though looking at the toning. And uncs aren't usually.

An automated replica and modern non-RM section might be useful for eBay to introduce so that anything which falls into this category automatically has its tree sorted. Honest people will list there and say it is a replica if they know about it, but some people list for example the modern mint output of ancient kings gold pieces in the hammered section which is unhelpful even if it is described as modern. It won't get rid of the person trying to pass off fakes as the real thing, but that is another issue which ebay has no incentive to address and won't discuss if you approach them as a private individual - presumably on the grounds of inundation. Any reduction in the number of pieces listed in the wrong section will be of value to both ebay and buyer alike.

I would. I think the hype surrounding the 1897 etc is similar to the undated 20p except that in this case it is carried out by relatively informed people. Part of the problem has to be the number of collectors specialising in the field. Pennies have always been popular. They are the largest physical denomination (of any numerical quantity) in the cheapest metal obtainable and will always have a strong following for that reason. Conversely, you don't find the same numbers collecting 5 guineas or crowns for the opposite financial reasons.

Random dots are just that and to most collectors should be irrelevant, stop variations are significant as they are integral to the original design. If a dot in the wrong place appears because a speck of metal fell off the die, then the gradual degradation of the die gives rise to an infinite number of varieties as it gets blocked/worn/damaged. In the context of a study where you are trying to establish the number of dies and their working lives it would be an integral part, so as a specific die within a group of otherwise identical ones it is of academic interest but not worth more than a modest premium at most. That said, if someone wants to pay me a sum of money for a coin that is vastly in excess of my personal valuation then I would have absolutely no qualms about taking the money. Two happy punters are better than one. I suspect that most of the recent interest in micro varieites arises because for many people it offers an extension to the collection which is otherwise nearly complete based on the original objectives. The number of people doing serious die studies is probably limited to little more than a handful. All of which is said without the statistical evidence to back it up, but I would suggest is not wide of the mark.

If I see a coin that has a feature I wish to see represented in the collection then I will get it irrespective of whether it is ancient, modern, cheap or expensive as long as it is affordable. As a result, I have a 2008 penny representing copper plated steel sitting quite happily between a bi-metallic Moore model halfpenny and a Victorian pattern decimal 1/2d as my cupro-nickel example. In the case of the first item the value of the coin ticket is considerably in excess of the value of the coin. Nothing is too mundane to consider.

It wouldn't add to its value. Double cut lettering occurs in virtually every denomination of every reign. It was either the result of a misplaced punch when the die was originally sunk, or due to a subsequent recutting of the die to extend its life when the detail had weakened after a period of use. In my opinion it isn't really an error in the conventional sense because there is no deviation from the required legend form. If the wrong letter had been punched in and whether corrected or not then this would be an error, but the slight misalignment is just that. The smaller the die, the worse the alignment as a rule of thumb with small silver and fractional farthings accentuating the problem.

5.37g.

Here's a picture of the reverse. There is a tiny point in the centre where the copper is showing through. In the hand it doesn't look or feel right either, though it is a decent copy as the fields have some reflectivity.

Here's one with the silvering intact

Full credit to the person who was able to establish they were halfcrowns.

Hi, Is anybody out there computer literate enough to explain why messages in my inbox appear with content readable for the most part, but when I receive notifications from Spink and a couple of others there is always a blank screen with the AVG message at the bottom. The size of file doesn't appear to be the reason as a 5k or 5M file both come up yet a recent Spink notice didn't but was only 224k. Any ideas?

Weight, surface detail, multiple examples with identical marks, incorrect die axis, edge quality, counterfeit references (of which there are many but people can't be bothered to read), quality of strike, sharpness of detail. Where are they ? Chris doesn't have this book, so here is a link to my site. This is an invaluable reference which covers counterfeits from all eras. It can never hope to cover every article written, but it's a very good start.

Weight, surface detail, multiple examples with identical marks, incorrect die axis, edge quality, counterfeit references (of which there are many but people can't be bothered to read), quality of strike, sharpness of detail.

Hi. In that condition it is only worth a pound or two. The best indication of the value obtainable would be to check ebay for a similar item.

Scarce is a slight understatement as there are thought to be 2 1933 pennies available to collectors. Coins with altered dates appear on a regular basis and there are also copies available, but as the last genuine 1933 penny to change hands in 2006 cost the new owner £45K, nobody is going to be fooled by a coin on offer at £125. A well executed altered date does have some value though because by definition there can never be more than one or two people able to own the proper thing and it is the key date for any penny collection.

No thanks. It's from the same die pair as mine, so I wouldn't want two. Phosphor bronze, platinum or zinc would be interesting as would a 1914 twelve groats or a 1913 octorino and eightpence. Or better still, any of these designs in the aforementioned metals.

I bought the iron example at DNW's sale last September, lot 3572, which was a piece virtually as struck and not listed in Linecar & Stone or ESC. The hammer price was £1400 (£1652 incl prem.). The lot before was ESC 401 with a plain edge which hammered at £820 (about £960 with prem.). The grade descriptions in the catalogue were identical, but I didn't look at the silver one to check if the grade was correct or not. Nor can I tell whether yours and the DNW piece are the same coin because of the different lighting conditions.

Credit where it's due, although I think I've bought very little from Cambridge Coins, I have generally thought their grading stood up to scrutiny. Run by a guy called Dave Allen who, as far as I know, is absolutely no relation! Well you're the undoubted expert on grading, Derek. I certainly wouldn't argue with your conclusions Dave and I are almost always in agreement on a coin's grade.

Probably because there was an illusion to finer work in the sale catalogue where it was bought initially as Morrieson in his 1921-2 article in the BNJ vol. 16 describes this obverse die (1643 F) as follows. F. Mint-mark plume. Finer bust than "E" having the edges of the lace collar well marked and with alternating pearls and jewels of(sic) the crown. Legend, CAROLVS:D:G:MAG:BR:FR:ET:HI:REX. This must be an early one as the C of CAROLVS has a chip out it like ojn those of 1642 and some of the early half-crowns of 1643 (Plate VII,99). Found with reverses 3 & 8. This coin has reverse 3, but fine work it aint.

It's a decent example of the type. Good fine (UK) is about right. I'd say it is worth £50 or even a bit more, but whether a Bulgarian would want to pay that much I wouldn't like to say. Most of the available examples are dire.

I didn't add anything because I was unable to formulate a reply in terms that he would relate to. I'm not convinced it was A W because the style was too disimilar. The only thing in common with the aforesaid was a sign of mental instability, something the world is not short of.