scott

thats the thing, its not lustre, its just the metal colour thoughts on this one? and here is a 1919 farthing

had a few bargains myself. EF 1926 penny for under £2.50? anyway this is my BIGGEST bargain found this in the 10p tin at me dealers, about 500k mintage, on a french sight similar grade coin of this type is going for 120-150 euro got this in a bulk buy (about 200 coins for £20 (which also had high grade australian penny worth about half the total price) 1939 rhodesia 3D 200k mintage, worth about £50

i thought that, but the wear means it would be that colour right from the off, also dont see why penny area hasn't been treated

i have the england one

i havn't seen 2009 50p+ so no idea

and this one seems to be a crossover from the black 1895-10 coins

i got some interesting ones from pre 1920 streakyness

I keep back some £2. have 1 commonwealth games both kinds of olympic 2008 (2 of the rarer one) and a 2008 no dot between DEF and Elizabeth so far i keep back other things too found a double struck obverse 2001 5p the other day, adds to my 2001 10p and 1992 10p with the same error 1992 small head 20p's one is aEF

this toning?

some gorgeous natural toning

sulpher makes silver completly black. with silver age seems to have the best toning.

so whats 1862 Halfpenny date penny? the dates are the same size arn't they?

yea can find a fair few repunches and broken lettering in the copper series

I would take the 1882 no H 1877 narrow and 1879 narrow in whatever i could get them at tbh not exacly going to come up very often as fair as greaing, isn't fair the lowest grade where everything is readable?

and the victorian farthings have differant H location, even H over H i think on one if you didnt cout the things in the exergue would rule out every overdate :/ speaking of date spacing

looks like lustre to me

6-7 known for narrow 1877? i would say that surly they would have similar mintage to th 1879 narrow (which i dunno anything about how many of those are "known")

it seems we have a problem with what makes these, some things are bizzrare some things are obvious, so i have split them into 3 categorys depending on how easy they are to spot. i have some pictures in each. type 1 - the obvious this of course is the easy to spot varierty where the coin looks "differant" without comparison to others needed, most of the earlier stuff would be in here (roses plumes those sort of things) and possibly the 1895 2mm being at the border of this to type 2, this category would also fit for SOME early bunheads especially the narrow date varietys, mules would also go here. type 2 - the trained eye. this is the main category, this is where we have slight changes to coins that you may miss without comparison (tides, 1895-96 shilling roses, most bunheads, date sizes, pointings to teeth) these are generaly established varietys but some seem to have been ignored and should really be listed, this is where decimal coin varietys go (the dot allignemnts and 1992 20p head sizes) this is where most of the varietys we have, sadly most of these are undervalued due to unlistings in most books, the 1858 small date fartihng being the best example. if you had the large rose shilling you can see the differance in rose size, while listed in CCGB in some major books this isnt listed which leaves some obvious varietys indervalued. this is the category type 3 - the dyes this is the most controversial, we have some obvious varietys that are listed that are surly only die errors (filled colon dots, etc) a few of the 1700-1800 coppers have listed "dotless" which is filled dyes, and the RFG and 2 pronged trident could be similar, yet we get filled colon dots elsewhere and its not a variety. what about this? there is an obvious diferance between this and 1845 reverses in the fact that its FID. the DEF: exists but there is no sign of a dot to make it a colon on FID, there are FID. reverses in the farthing series (in fact 1839 2 prong trident has it, and 1840 has DEF.) so is this worn dye? this coin is unlisted from what i can see, yet it has characteristics of varietys of other listed farthings. type 3 is the one we need to clarify properly its hard to keep track of this category, due to certain varietys being listed yet similar ones being classified as errors

the americans pay far more for a simple doubling thats more or less invisible to the naked eye. the smaller/narrow dates are obviously differant and therefore listed correctly as varietys, its when we get the tiny differance we call errors and repunches it gets complicated, 2 differant sized dates to me are varietys (1858 farthing small and large dates, the 1877 and 1879 narrow dates look totaly differant and obvious). honestly i have a collection of US cents, and there are about 15-20+ varietys which are mostly repuches of mintmarks :/, if you do this with 1860 and 1861 pennys you would have HUNDREDS of varietys as there are differant placements of the numbers themselves to consider. and probably each die number would be listed in the silver series. we currently say that 1895-1901 date spacing is worth more if its extra wide or narrow, considering the fact there are differant spacing, we dont list every single location of the numerals of a variety as the americans do, we just generalise. we have our established varietys yet some are very hard to value properly due to lack of listings for them. (1895/96 LARGE/SMALL ROSE shillings, 1858 small date farthings are very undervalued for thier rarity) if you have 2 coins side by side and there is a NOTICABLE differance (like the above 2) then yes its a variety

talking of minor varietys if we were american each and every single die would count as a variety if they had a slight differance (to the point the differant 7's on 1897 and 1907 would count) and some varietys i see listed are mere filled dyes sometimes.

yea i have an 1895 2mm but worn, i dont get the origins for this issue, why is it differant? and why do the 1897's higher tide exist, and on the picture i saw little differance

i want to know what the 2 1895's are about cant see much differance between it and low tide tbh

i got an 1879 lol

i'm guessing 1874-6 were because of the H versions what confuses me is the existance of the 77's and 79's i have the 1879 version as for the slender 3i could see very little differance tbh. i'm looking at my 1897's i'm sure one has a shorter 7 then the other. but its very hard to tell as we a re talking at most half a border tooth differance, so still checking.

didnt one of those sell for £3100? interesting though, i wonder what the origins are on those narrow dates.