Gary D

I couldn't decide if this is the correct place for this question but as it does involve a British coin here goes. I've just purchased an expensive coin from the USA. The seller has asked the question" do I want it insured for the full amount at his expense" Well I guess under insuring it could save my some import duty (15% VAT $300). So my question is, who's problem is it in the unlikely event that the coin should go missing, apart from me loosing the coin of course. Gary

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!) Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well. Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1. Gary I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die.

the "1933" has gone for £500!!! I bet the buyer go a shock when he bid the reserve. 10-49 feedback, I hope they knew what they were doing. I think the second bidder had it about right £102

Recently I've receive on two occassions coin just sellotaped to a peice of cardboard. Appropiate comments and feedbback was left.

Its not split horizontally as such, its split down the centre so in effect, I have two separate coins. Like this you mean? I like that error Rob, very interesting. I'm starting to put together a nice little collect of 3d errors. I think brass 3d's are gradually becoming a specialty within my larger collection. I'll have to photo what I have and post up sometime just for curiosities sake. Gary

Its not split horizontally as such, its split down the centre so in effect, I have two separate coins. Like this you mean? Thats it exactly. Curious as to why and value. Thanks It's caused by a flaw in the sheet that was used to punch the blanks from. The sheet was likely folded during the rolling process or even contained a bubble which was elongated by the rolling. Either way you end up with a sandwich and if the blank it punched wholely from this area the coin can part at the seam. I have a 1967 that shows a partial split. As to value, in the UK curiosity only. In the USA get both halfs slabbed together by one of the major TPGs and the coin will still have curiosity value, but the piece of plastic could be worth a tidy sum. Gary

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!) Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well. Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1. Gary

Still better than having the 'you weren't in' card pushed through the door with no attemp to see if anyone's in.

I'm not sure this would stand up legally? It would be the equivalent of saying that all X's jewellery is "a single item" and therefore the lost engagement ring isn't covered as the combined jewellery value exceeds the single item limit? I'm afraid it works just like that. If you are under insured although the item being claimed for is within the limit you will only get a proportion of the value

All the insurance companies I've dealt with in the past insist on whole of property insurance, so you can't for example just cover the living room and a bedroom contents. Therefore, if you insured the general household contents but didn't declare the 'valuables' then they would consider it as underinsured if it came to a claim and you provided a list of missing items to the police. I think this would cause a problem when the claim was entered. For anyone in this position it is probably worth checking with your insurer. To only insure a few specific high value items is also a bit of a grey area as the same would probably apply. You can rest assured that a burglar is unlikely to spend hours sifting through the trays in order to weed out the most desirable items and leave the crap, so a total loss is more likely. The whole collection being treated as a single item has its advantages, as you then don't need to flood the postal system with revised insurance details every time you make a major purchase assuming the overall level of cover is adequate. I spoke to my contents insurer about having my collection seperatly covered and informed them that its value far exceeded their valuables limit. The fact that it was covered elsewhere was not considered a problem.

You insure for their current value not what they cost. Just think of all the Hs KNs MEs etc picked from change, 1d each. The receipt just proves you own the coin.

I wonder if they do female organism yet.

It was suggested that I keep an inventory off-site and was required to list everything seperately with a value of £1000+ Gary

Yet the other R's seem OK. What's the significance of the R in Edwardvs, that doesn't occur in the rest ? Why does this mark it as a fraud ? Perhap just wrongly jumping to conclusions but all of the known fakes I've seen have this broken R

The people I've just gone with would charge about £42 for £7000 cover

I think that's the point Gary is making. Not all pictures give you the option - when you right click there are only about two options available, neither of them Save As. I know something is wrong when I can't click and drag the picture onto my desktop, which in Safari I can do with any normal pictures. Interesting - you're judging on the colour? In other respects it looks pretty good to me. If you look very closely at the R in EDWARDVS where the down stroke meets the loop there is a break in the loop. Both the fakes I own and have seen have this break.

Nice coin you have there Gary. Interesting that with both our coins the reverse is a lot weaker than the observe.

I've just changed mine to Stamp Insurance Service who us Sterling. Previously I was with Lloyds who again used Sterling. The main difference was that Lloyds and many others try and rap it all up with your house contens insurance under a specified item. I wanted the freedom of having the collection completely seperate from the house insurance although the total premium is very similar. Gary

Another fake halfcrown for sale Link

I do hope that your book includes the 1946 die flaw O N E ' penny? I managed to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, but I'm still working on the less-convinced Chris Perkins to get it put in CCGB ! I also bought a 1966 penny a few years back that has an 'extra wave' crashing against the lighthouse, while at the same time I managed to get a 1915 'recessed ear' penny in high grade. I'm told there are two 1937 reverses, but as they both look exactly the same at first glance, and are both very common, I find them totally unsexy As are all the minuscule variations on Elizabeth II ship halfpenny reverses. ("Oooh there's a tiny difference in the size of the ship, but you should be able to spot the difference - one has 1958 on the reverse, the other has 1959" ) There are two 1937 reverses and two observes. I have three combinations in both currency and proof. Still looking for the forth.

I've just had it valued to add to my insurance and it came back as EF rev and GEF obv, insurance value £1400, I payed about £800 of the bay just over a year ago. Gary

Yes I don't know why he only put it up for a short time as he emailed me to tell me he had done it. I've notice that with the new style picture gallery that you often can't save from a right click. Sometimes it works and others it's not an available option. Couldn't be bothered to do a screen grab, wish I had now. Gary

Many pre 1953 coins didn't have the queens head on them. One that does spring to mind it he 1953 crown.

I have a 1940 penny that tones a silvery colour, I wonder what would cause that?

Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many members have a F169. For that matter a 164A and 192A as well