VickySilver

I have an 1936 that looks a bit similar to your earlier 1921 coin that evidently had some cancellation stamp to it. Is that a hint of copper at 8 o'clock on the obverse rim of the 1967? I don't think it would be the end of the world to judiciously lightly scratch the edge of either or both to test for underlying metal (usu parallel to the edge of the coin, NOT crosswise to the edge). Based on the photos, IMO the first may be a counterfeit & the second may be real. The first in worn condition much more problematic for at least some of the reasons already stated above. For argument sake, assuming GENUINE which is a reach, the values of the second would be less than 50 quid IMO for the second and a bit less for the first.

Please at least weigh the coins. Occasionally even the copper alloy can oxidize to rather different appearance. I have quite a few of the off metal penny strikes and 1967 is a relatively common date for them. The 1921 not so much. Where are you located? You can PM me pictures if you like.

Well, you have a point there - we actually want the more INFERIOR coin! But IMO not a lot different than proof versus currency of other coins and same date. The true currency bits for the 1840-48 are much scarcer in my experience.

As far as valuations, IMO, they don't do a lot of research and unless it is a more renowned rarity (and even on occasion with those), the values are changed seemingly at whim. I note with careful comparison that they are influenced, as would even be natural to some extent, by other sources - even Krause. Still IMO they are also of value and I tend to get one about every other year...

Hmmm, definately has a Pobjoy Mint look about it and IMO I prefer the Churchill depicted on the infamous 1965 crown!

Wow, how the mighty have fallen. Their SNC was absolutely stellar in the 1990s through early 2000's. I have so many coins from then that have not showed up since, at least as far as quality and rarity. They are essentially IMO just an also-ran in this day.

OK, there is no absolute rule but generally speaking (and it takes the eye of hopefully an expert) one can tell. The non-Maundy dies are IMO not usually produced with quite as great a care and the strike not usually as good - check, for example the denticles and their strike & regularity as well as Vick's hair detail, etc. It obviously is very hard to prove the case of an isolated 3d all by itself but my suggestion is calling the piece of Maundy and then seeing if possible to "prove" the currency case. I have at least a little experience in this and would be glad to provide opinion of pictures realising that "coin in hand " is the best way to go. I think Steve is a very good choice if you have the chance to venture to faire London towne... To elaborate and bore: early strikes I have seen to be demonstrating better detail but still a bit of sloppiness as per above. Interestingly, as a sidepoint Maundies of the period up to the early '50s can be found with many legend errors in lettering & overstrikes with no doubt at least a few not being recorded...

Add: this holds true for some of the Ed 7 issues as well...

Yes, the proof is when the finish of the other set mates (1d, 2d, and 4d) are examined the satin surfaces are demonstrated. It really is the quality of the strike and not the surface when it comes to Maundy in my experience. I am quite sure if you were to ask Steve Hill at Baldiwn as one example that he would agree. In fact I have long ago had this conversation with him; and colin Cooke himself for that matter.

I second that. The coin itself does however look to be a scrapper even if the reverse not shown..

Ugly bit at that as well. Congratulations, of sorts, but get over it. I know I sometimes will have two of something and then agonise over which to hold and which to sell & sometimes think I may have made the wrong decision. But trying to hoard them all a bit nuts. There is a guy over in the states who has tried to hoard all (maybe 11) sacagawea/US 25c piece mules at 45 k USD per!

IMO the 47/6 (sometimes 47/8 which appears different to me) is the choice overdate in better states of preservation. I think there is one on the PCGS foreign population report that looks UNDERGRADED if photos can be judged. The rest not so exciting. I had one overdate that I thought initially was not the more valuable non-overdate (1845/53) and would have been happy with that.

I have only the blurry image on the Spink site of this coin. Does not look like the matte that came in the set of '53 or the '51 matte penny for that matter. Better picture would be nice.

OK, cooking for son at the moment, but I believe there have been pictures posted on either this forum or the PCGS. Obviously it is not just the sheen appearance but the quality of the strike that will count. Also there is the "ON" (Oscar Neiman - sp?) variant with his initials below the bust on rev. I agree about the posting of pictures - a bit tedious but that would certainly help. If of aid you may PM me as well.

Oh, have a go. I had just started a half sov collection some years ago when a pattern 1839 in silver showed up & got it for not a lot - nary a specimen has shown in the years since and beautiful to boot (OK, as you might guess I also like Victorian silver! LOL). I have noticed that on occasion, demand is not always as high as you might expect and the price not as dear as one might predict. If you lose out, well, it is a bronze bit anyway. Right?

Yikes, great post. That is a very deceiving bit of photography. Out of my price range is the 1851 proof florin for sale in the upcoming Heritage NYINC sale - one picture shows some very distracting hits/marks/etc. on the obverse. The other (in slab) is the same coin but different appearance like this OP coin. Sorry not able to linkify.

Absolutely!

And yet (to pitch into the bag marks vs. wear debate), more key detail of the original strike is generally seen when it is bag marks. An example would be the ever-vulnerable cheek of George V on the Wreath Crown. Friction shows at the cheekbone or mustache and is the bane of most coins and is indicative of wear. A bag mark or two IMO not as distracting as wear in these key areas. Even specimen/proof coins are vulnerable in this area (or for that matter the orb atop the crown on the reverse) - this is a real separater if I might use the term and is quite a bit more bothersome than a mild abrasion from a bag mark in the field. Obviously extreme examples can be pulled out and shown demonstrating extremes from either side.

I suspect this "mule" is somewhat more common that has been appreciated and that if more proof sets were examined, possibly the VIPs, that there would be more "discoveries"....I remember them showing up in Spink lists(SNC) in the good ole days as well.

Yes, all true. This is my area - I must say that most "currency" pieces of the rare dates are refugees from Maundy sets ( ie 1841, 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, etc.). Maundy coins DO NOT NECESSARILY have prooflike surfaces as has been PROVEN. Some are so-called "satin surfaces". The biggest giveaway, to me at least, is the quality of strike and details of denticles, etc. Incidentally, I have seen some significant lettering errors in Maundies of the 1848-1853 period, so have a look!

I have a question: What is "mint state"? I am sure many readers here have seen how coins are struck, either through video, photos or other means. If a coin is struck and then slides down a chute of types and is bagged with other coins, at what point does it cease being mint state? Is mint state not the status of a coin when it leaves the mint? I say this because wear appears a bit different, at least to my eyes, than bagging marks. What do others think? I pose this because of Paulus' comment about coins up to mint state 62 or 63. IMO, there are many coins that are mint state with excellent lustre and only mild bag marks that I have seen and would still call mint state. Obviously there are many other related topics and questions...

GEF, not the best strike & obverse less attractive than sometimes seen. On coins like these, I do like to check the rims and edges - and these look fairly sharp without damage/dings, etc. On a 70 scale, I'd go 55-58 unless seen in hand. Have to forget the 100 point scale as the markers and all seem to be in more flux than the 70 pt. system. Anyway, that reverse looks good to my eye.

Rather devolving the response I should say. I would say if you do not know the appearance connoted by the nomenclature that it would be ignorance to lump it all together. We are talking about mint state or near calibre of coins. This is not to say that in hand appraisal is not the best but if you bother to study you will see there is some consistency to what Red Brown is and that it applies to higher graded coins - not just any polished bit of cr--. Sometimes call it making that one does not appreciate a straw dummy and beat on that rather than taking the real thing on, I should say. The variance is far greater when it comes to what even members of this board call GEF or aEF or other such Honestly MR, where do you go with mocking responses such as that anyway?

True, but colour is quite variably reproduced. One example was the now almost-famous Spink New York sale of Pennies wherein many suffered from rather poor underrepresentation in the pictures - much to the delight of bidders who did participate!

I think the Reverse strike quite pleasantly firm with the mentioned lion's nose not only well struck up but not worn or damaged or showing hits. The field is relatively clean. To me the limiting factor if I was to bid on this is the obverse - even though the ear is great, the hair complete if soft, the beard and mustache not quite as well struck as can sometimes be seen. There is a bit of worrisome ?? something on E7's neck, almost as if struck from a rusty die. The obverse toning is not as nice as one might wish. Still I would buy this coin in a minute if the selling price were less than EF. Paulus, what are the detractors that you see pulling it down?