Rob

The 1770 looks more natural on the CoinsGB forum and doesn't look AT here either. The ones that don't look natural are the fractional and to a lesser extent the 1799 1/2d and 1806 1/4d. Both of which look as if the blue filter has been turned up too much. If the red around the edge of the 1/2d is original colour as it appears, then the whole coin is too blue. The 1806 penny looks good.

I go along with that because I don't like AT either. The only coins you would expect to see multicoloured hues such as those on the fractional are on proofs or prooflike coins, and then only in the field when held against the light at the right angle.

That looks close to uncirculated with a better strike on the reverse than normally seen. The first issue shillings are rarely encountered with a fully struck up lion's nose. It isn't perfect, but nearly there.

It would be interesting to know under what circumstances the Mint donated the P2371 to the BM. If it was intentionally struck, then you would expect it to be properly formed, after all the Mint had produced a series of Nickel pieces (1/-, 6d & 3d) in the 1920s which were all finely struck, so in the not very distant past they had experience of working with this metal at this thickness. My nickel 1/- is 1.90mm thick at the rim, though the small denominations will obviously be thinner and within the thickness of your piece. I don't have a book with the details of who was Master of the Mint in 1937, but Johnson arrived in 1922 and so it is quite possible that the first Nickel strikes were initiated by him. If he was still there in 1937, then were would be no excuse for getting it wrong. If it was an unintentional strike that the mint removed from the currency 3d bin during quality control and subsequently gave to the BM, then it would not necessarily be a good strike. However, if the latter applies I would not expect Peck to have included it.

Obviously you would need to compare with a known genuine piece, but I would expect the genuine article to be fully struck ie. with a full rim. Yours is missing part of the rim, so this suggests to me a strike on the wrong type of blank. It isn't struck off centre to the extent that you have a lot of coin outside the rim to compensate for the missing rim which you would expect if the thickness is correct. The deviation of weights around the mean is quite high, so the similarity in weight could be coincidental. There was a thread on here about a Cu-Ni farthing recently. At the time I weighed a couple of dozen bronze pieces and there was a distribution range of about 10% around the mean. On the plus side, very few currency pieces were struck in nickel, so it could be a P2371.

I'm still hoping in my heart of hearts that it can be attributed to be a Peck 2171 and take its rightful place in my 3d collection. I think I need to see the piece listed by Peck, I assume it's in the British Museum. If so how do I get to see it, just walk in or would something like that not be on display. To anyone out there with a copy of Peck, if it's not to cheaky to ask, would it be possible to have a scan of the 3d pages, it can only be 2-3 pages. Thanks Gary Send me your email address & they are on their way. The P2371 in the BM was a gift from the Royal Mint.

You're missing a few. There are VIP proofs for most years other than when sets were produced and there are also edge varieties for 1941 and 1948 where the corners can be either sharp or rounded. There are also a few Edward VIII pieces if you are feeling particularly flush.

Try collecting them 2 at a time. Colin Cooke was doing 2 1689's for the price of 1 when the farthing collection was sold. 2 farthings = one halfpenny and so can be collected as such- see lot 662. I was going to attach an image, but it doesn't seem possible any more? I thought about it! In the end I decided I needed a currency example more - so I bought lot 664. So you got 662! Much cooler than my coin - you have your own Peck footnote. Lucky for both of us - we bought at the lower end of the estimate. Did Colin list who he bought the coin from? A good job you wanted a currency example because I was only interested in it as a halfpenny. Colin bought it from Peter Viola in 2004. The history I have on it so far is Spink 16 lot 824 sold for £410 and SNC 2/92 no.269 listed at £1500 - which I suspect it didn't sell for given it is nearly x4 the price a decade earlier. Nothing after that until PV. I don't know when the 'Bn' reference in Peck was noted. It came with a Spink ticket written by Mark Rasmussen and PV's ticket. Without question it's the most I have paid or am ever likely to pay for a Chas II halfpenny in poor!

Try collecting them 2 at a time. Colin Cooke was doing 2 1689's for the price of 1 when the farthing collection was sold. 2 farthings = one halfpenny and so can be collected as such- see lot 662. I was going to attach an image, but it doesn't seem possible any more?

There's nothing they can do about the originals in private hands and many of them will still be around. My wife is German and her parents had one (passed down from one of their parents) as it was virtually compulsory to have one in the 1930's but not to dispose of them in 1945 and so unless the owner felt particularly nervous about keeping it there was no incentive to throw it away. (How many books do we acquire but never dispose of?). It's quite interesting insofar as the text is gothic, but I never got around to reading the book.

They look alright for design and don't seem to show any signs of plating - picture notwithstanding. The weight is not very helpful because a quick weighing of 50 random KG6 farthings gave a couple of outliers at both extremes weighing 2.64g & 2.66g at the low end and 2.94g & 2.95g at the high end whilst the majority were in the 2.80-2.85 range. The two 1949s in the sample both weighed 2.88g. The variation in weights is therefore greater than the difference in densities between Cu-Ni, Bronze or Ni, so no conclusion can be drawn. You could check to see if they are pure nickel or a plated ferrous base as this would be magnetic, but this property is lost once it is alloyed with a certain %age of other metals. I can't remember what this percentage is, but think it is around the 10% level (?) and so your normal Cu-Ni coinage is not magnetic. Not very helpful I know, but you really need to see them in the hand.

The Norweb piece was lot 1908 and sold for £280 hammer. Whilst it is possible that any number could have been produced, the fact that this person has two makes me suspicious given it should be due to the random accidental inclusion of the wrong blanks. To have two errors like this owned by one person is like winning the lottery - twice.

The higher digits aren't significant varieties although Davies listed the 8 higher in date for 1818 which is probably why it is listed in Spink. In this case the 8 is considerably more misaligned than yours being about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a character higher. The 2 on the left coin looks bigger(?) in the picture. HI Rob , yes the 2 is slightly bigger which makes it slightly higher i think these are my 1818 coins which i think one of is the higher 8, what do you think The right hand 1818 is a higher 8. Davies 85 if you want to know the variety number. There is an example illustrated in the DNW archive, lot 330 7/10/2003.

The higher digits aren't significant varieties although Davies listed the 8 higher in date for 1818 which is probably why it is listed in Spink. In this case the 8 is considerably more misaligned than yours being about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a character higher. The 2 on the left coin looks bigger(?) in the picture.

That's the lithographic reprint of the 1964 edition.

The most complete description with some background info appears to be in Linecar & Stone - English Proof and Pattern Crown-Size Pieces p.54

This AT is seriously p'ing me off. As a naturally toned piece it would be worth a couple hundred maybe. As an AT piece make it £39.95

Based on some of the other things on offer and their grades or description I suspect the former. This was discussed previously in this thread on pages 8-10. Dubious lolights include the 1886 "proof" shilling offered for £2150 - doesn't look like a proof to me. The rims are not those of a proof but he still paid £700 for it on ebay. The seller would not have let a proof shilling go for this price when they are fetching over £2K hammer.There is a "gilt proof twopence" which to me looks like a penny. The trident points to the second N on a 2d and not to the right of the second as in this case. If it is a proof it is a poor example of a Peck 1130, but could equally be a gilded currency piece Peck 1133 given the state of it. The image isn't good enough to positively identify the variety. The grade of FDC is also somewhat inappropriate here. There are others which are equally dodgy, so suggest it is a lack of knowledge coming to the fore.

A dangerous sentiment. You could wind up with another Stalin or even President Blair We've already got Comrade Brown with his 5 and 10 year plans.

The original 1839 die was deemed to be worn out and so a later date obverse die was changed to 1839 to satisfy the need for the 1839 proof sets which were produced later than 1839 and according to demand until superseded by the 1853 sets. The use of a modified 1843 halfpenny die is already documented, but an overstruck 1841 die has not previously been recorded.

It isn't a problem as the hammer price ($775) is listed on the website as are premiums payable. The total cost was about $920 including postage. My maximum was higher than the hammer and it takes two people to reach this price, so I appreciate it could possibly sell for more. Firstly, it has been removed from the slab which will put a significant number of Americans off. The slab grade of PF63 is not very high so will also put off those who collect by numbers. It would only really appeal to knowledgeable collectors which is probably a good thing. It is unlikely to be slabbed as 1839/41 because the variety isn't in Peck or Spink. Having an inverted die axis will increase its value as these are decidedly uncommon and interestingly the die axis is not recorded on the slab insert, a listed variety that could easily be identified by anyone with an IQ of 80. Hussulo's point about grading companies not guaranteeing the variety on the slab, but guaranteeing the coin is genuine will probably come into play here. It is a perfect oxymoron. They have with a cursory glance attributed it as 1839 which it isn't and if studied carefully is obviously not a straight 1839. If they had identified it as 1839/41 would they then have slabbed it as a seemingly improbable overstrike? Or would it be rejected as an altered date by someone other than the mint given it isn't recorded in the "official" books?

Not as bad as this ebay listing was.... <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018" target="_blank">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018</a> Great coin Rob. It's a super find. BCC I saw that listing too and even from the bad pictures thought it can't be a small (narrow) date. Which brings me onto a post I had on another forum in were I was shocked to hear that NGC do not guaranty the authenticity of the slabbed coins claimed variety, only that the coin is genuine. As you know the difference in a coins variety can be big difference in value. So if you bought this coin and it was genuine but not a small (narrow) date variety NGC would not give you the book value of the small (narrow) date coin. Moral of the story I guess is if buying a slabbed coin don't accept what variety it is stated to be on the plastic but do your homework on varieties before buying. I'm not surprised they don't guarantee the variety and only that it is genuine given the number of incorrect attributions. It all suggests that they value the number of dollars coming into the business rather than their reputation for accuracy. Most respected business acquire their reputation for doing what they do well. This is more a case of "we slab coins, so any coins can be slabbed. Just don't take as gospel what we say. We're only in it for the money and any accurate attributions are entirely coincidental and unintentional".

I still can't believe they missed an overdate that clear when preparing the auction. Congrats on a great find, nothing quite like the buzz of bagging a bargain. I aslo echo Art's comments, it is a beauty of a coin!!! It's not perfect. There are imperfections to the hair detail as a result of being a recut used currency die. I'm also not convinced it was that much of a bargain after premiums and shipping costs, although quite reasonable for an unambiguous unrecorded variety. They may or may not have noticed it when drawing up the catalogue. However, it would probably be frowned upon to list it as an 1839/41 when the "experts" have positively identified it as an 1839. Don't forget that Peck didn't list either the 1839/41 or 1839/43 and so ipso facto they cannot exist. That's another incorrect attribution folks, bought to you (almost) exclusively courtesy of NGC.

An 1839 bronzed proof halfpenny which has been made from an 1841 obverse die after the 1839 die was deemed to no longer be fit for purpose. The use of an 1843 die for the same reason is already known, but this appears to be the first time one of these has been reported. ex Goldberg sale last September lot 446. the die axis is inverted (cf. P1523*)

Still no images available to guests unless they register and log in.