1949threepence

Certainly did, and thanks very much

Was intrigued by the Freeman 189 (3 + B) penny, which is noted by him as R19. Found this really interesting article positing various theories about it. So probably F20 - unique

Not ones that show up with any great regularity, no. Sounds a good book.

Nasty. She should have just found something to cover the flames with rather than rush it to the bathroom. Mind she's only a kid, and you don't always think straight in that sort of situation anyway.

At least the buyer hasn't lost any significant money.

This is the coin that @Paddy drew our attention to a week or two back. He was selling it on e bay, and I was the only bidder. Just received today. It may be a common date, but this is no common representation of it. UNC, a truly superb strike, great hair detail, totally flawless and with immaculate toning. I initially though that the obverse was EF, but in hand, I'm half inclined to think that what appears at first glance to be wear at the highest points is in fact residual lustre. But either way, it's still a truly outstanding specimen, and amazing value at only £19.95. Thanks Paddy from a very satisfied customer (apologies, again, I've got that colour variation)

Yes, I would agree Chris, with mine being similar to Ian's example. But I don't think there is any dispute about all 1934's actually being subject to the mint toning process. Just some coins reflect it more markedly than others.

...and here is a pic of a MT 1934 for comparison:-

Right, here it is then:-

No, but you never said it was mint toned, nor did I know that such an issue existed. Yes, if mint toned, I'd be very interested to see the 1932. If you send to me, I will upload onto here.

Yes I know. That's precisely the distinction I was looking for Pete. Couldn't see it, and makes me wonder if they actually exist at all, even as an extremely rare item. I've already got a 1932, thanks.

Just as a footnote, I have searched in all the usual places - collections, advanced search for 1935 pennies on e bay, LCA etc, and cannot see one instance where the specimen might confidently be described as mint darkened, or toned. Therefore, if anybody does see one in the future, or indeed, possesses one, I'd be most interested to see it. Thanks.

Surprising enough that Peck would have made such an error in the first place, let alone that someone as diligent and detail observant as Freeman, would have compounded that initial mistake. Especially given his interest in bronze coinage at that point.

So essentially the message is that in reality, whilst there maybe a few mint darkened 1935 specimens, they are very few and far between. But at the same time Freeman was correct in saying that all 1934 pennies were mint darkened. Dave Groom? Any rate, thanks Gents. That's cleared up a bit of a mystery.

Thanks Pete - was curious as there isn't a massive amount of information available on the matter. Whilst the 1944 - 46 are well documented for MT, there seems to be only Freeman's word for 1934 and 1935. 1934 I can definitely believe as the UNC ones I've seen don't look as though they are brightly lustred.

Just wondering - I know all 1934 pennies were, but I'm a little uncertain about what ballpark percentage might have been so treated in 1935. At page 17 of Freeman's "The Bronze coinage of Great Britain", he states "The dark finish given to pennies from 1944-46 before issue, was achieved, in a similar way, by the use of hypo, as was that on pennies of 1934, and some of 1935. Whereas at page 75, point No 30, he states "All pennies of 1934 and most of 1935, were artificially toned. It's clear that my 1934 penny has been artificially toned, but I don't think this 1935 one has. Could I seek opinions? Thanks.

Couldn't agree more. There was one on here recently which looked like copper or bronze. Just looks odd.

I think the worn penny with the "WW1 bullet" through it, may have been mentioned before. Any rate I came across it while browsing George V pennies, and messaged the seller, and received the reply shown below. link to item Yes mate, it is what it is, and that bullet certainly didn't get there on the field of battle. New message from: daniejorda60 (30) Im know ww1 expert i just sometging i brought to sell on im not lying in my description it is what it is. But i appreciate you taking your time out to message me rhis this information appreciate it bud. If you can tell me anything else that would be great!! Best wishes Dan Jordan Reply Make an offer Your previous message It may be a WW1 bullet, but it certainly wasn't put there in WW1. That coin has about 50 odd years of wear on it.

Being perfectly honest, I think it's just a blodge of some sort, near where a die letter would be. This happens a lot, and I've often pondered over worn coins wondering if this is a die number, or that is an overstrike etc.

Indeed. Same with the florins, and to a lesser extent the shillings.

You just wonder where these things start.

It sounds like you've got some form of spyware on your device.

Another one - "for me" "Tell you what, for me, Gary, that was a clear penalty. He took the guy at knee height....... "

Well, you know, I never thought of that. Know what I mean?

I don't know about the foreign coins, but as far as the British ones are concerned, I can't see any that might be worth collecting. Too worn. However, there is a lot of silver bullion in and amongst that lot, which would fetch some money.