1949threepence

Another one This time an 1858 penny.

Indeed. It's not a true optical illusion or deliberate trick photography. It's us reading the picture wrongly. Usually when you re-examine, there's some other context detail you've overlooked. Such as there's one less tooth between the previous letter and the one you're looking at, than on the real thing. You have to check, double check and triple check. The 1909 one is difficult, as depending on how you look at it, the base of the one can be over a tooth or over a gap. Although on the real deal, there seems to be a marginally larger space between teeth, and the base of the one is literally smack over the tooth. I would say with that one, unless it's absolutely obvious at first glance under magnification, then it isn't a 169. The hollow neck is really difficult though, IMO.

I was thinking of those George V pennies, typically between 1911 and 1921, which are often weakly struck, with deficiencies in the breastplate and/or KIng's hair. There's a number of BU examples with those poorly struck areas, but also some of often slightly lesser grade with a great strike. Technically the grade is unaffected, but the eye appeal is in the lesser grade fully struck up versions.

Well, an emotional TM as she announced her resignation this morning, but a new PM, whoever that maybe, changes nothing. The parliamentary arithmetic will still be the same, and the EU have said they won't re-open the deal for re-negotiation. Surely the sensible default position for any new PM is to assume that in the absence of parliamentary agreement for accepting the deal, we leave down the WTO route on 31st October, and leave the ball solidly in the court of parliament to come up with any number of indicative votes they choose - for which the no's will most likely still have it.......their call. If it's Johnson - and it's more probable than not it will be - there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of a further referendum

It's an interesting question - does the strength/weakness of the strike influence the overall grade? I always thought it did, but I might not be entirely right. According to a tutorial by Heritage auctions, the strike quality doesn't affect the grade but might affect the numerical hierarchy of the grade. link to article Mind, that's only one opinion. As for the coin in the photo, I'd go for about EF both sides. But it isn't a brilliant pic to be honest.

You can also be totally fooled by the photo, which can distort the true appearance. A few weeks ago I bought what I thought - was indeed convinced - from the photo, was a 1908, 164A. Only very cheap, fortunately. But when in hand and through a loupe, I could quite clearly see that it was a mere 164. Definitely the same coin as other indicators matched.

Does anyone else send themselves boggle eyed trying to tell the difference, and arriving at different conclusions when looking at the same coin at separate times, or is it just me?

Yes, precisely. If so treated, it would surely have to be recent. I really can't imagine that anybody would have done so back in the late 1930's, or even soon after the '44 - '46 period, on a well preserved 1937 penny. Nothing about it adds up.

Where do you throw them, Peter? Open the back door and chuck 'em up the garden?

Just plain odd. Doesn't make any rational sense why they'd be excluded.

Absolutely. I suppose they have to keep minting them, despite the billions already out there, because as fast as they're minted, they end up languishing in a pot or vase somewhere, and not paid into a bank account again in decades.

Also, are the bright spots above the King's eye and on his cheek, bits where the hypo has been "knocked off"? Why would anyone want to hypo the coin, post mint? What would be the point? We will never know.

Take a look at this one Chris. If it was 1944, 1945 or 1946, you'd say the toning was apt for the year.

Delighted that David got another one a month later, and remembered that I wanted such a specimen. You could leave a request with some dealers and they'd forget all about it. Kudos to Dave. So here it finally is. It's GEF with lustre. There is a carbon spot on the obverse, but overall it's clearly far superior to the GF specimen I've got now.

I personally believe that eye appeal carries more weight than pure grade. A good strike, even toning, issue free specimen in EF will more easily sell than a technically UNC example carrying a poor strike, patchy toning and a carbon spot.

Not good. Hopefully nobody will fall for it.

Don't know who's making them, but they're getting better at it. However, there are still flaws. I can see at a glance it's a fake, especially the obverse, which just doesn't look right. Also there's no LCW under the shield, which there would be on Obverse 6, reverse D with a wide date (F29). The F33 reverse G has no LCW but a narrower date.

Just come across this "reproduction" 1861 penny. Curious to know what variety the copiers had modelled it on, I took a closer look, and it appear to be a copy of a F29. Predictable enough. Anyway, another possible addition to your fakes site, Richard. link to

In Reading rather than London, but this numismatic bookshop might be worth a try at some point. http://www.douglassaville.com/

and so is the 1944 bright finish specimen in Gary's collection.

Absolutely. We've seen that "light" mint toning on the 1934 as well. They vary from dark to light.

I'd bet that the odd ones which did turn up in change post 1980 were most likely found in old drawers, pockets etc, and just added to be spent by individuals completely unaware of any further intrinsic interest or value (not that one on its own would be of much use anyway)

Indeed, there is that. But then your first one looks as though there are some edge knocks as well, albeit not as glaring. At the end of the day it's a personal judgement call.

Marginally more detail on your new one, Paddy. Most noticeable around. Britannia's head and helmet IMO.

A really good specimen that left you in absolutely no doubt.