1949threepence

Not an e bay laugh, but actually a genuine bargain for a starter collector, or one without too much spare cash link here

Here's the e bay link Price has dropped by £1k, I'm sure.

The aircraft was only travelling at about 100 to 120 knots approaching the airfield to land when it struck a farm windbreak in thick fog and crashed on return from its 96th operational sortie. This time to Hamburg and back in April 1945. The coins were found in the 1980s and were all found in the top few inches of soil in a wood. Largely in leaf mould. As can be seen from my previous post the later coins are almost uncirculated. We assume that the dings happened in the crash. So 40 years in the ground in a mostly sheltered environment with just a few pheasant droppings to add to the mix. Regards Kris Thanks for the detail clarification, Kris. The deterioration apparent on the 1920's (and earlier) silver, is undoubtedly down to previous wear, and not to exposure or other reasons.

I saw that coin a few days ago. The vendor asked £3995, and requested an offer. Even without an H I wouldn't pay 4 figures for such a badly worn coin. Can't see any trace of an H, but who knows. I'm not convinced there were ever any London mint pennies that year. There may have been die issues at the Heaton mint, however.

Sometime last year there was a thread posted somewhere on the forum. about a World War II fighter plane which had crashed in 1945, here in England. When the wreckage was sifted through (and I can't for the life of me remember what year that was), change was discovered in the pockets of one of the unfortunate RAF men. It was photographed, and I remember thinking that although it was only 1945, silver from just the 1920's, already appeared well worn for its age. So it is no surprise that very little pre 1930 silver was still in circulation by the 1960's. Even more so for pre 1920 92% silver coinage, especially in combination with the hoarding referred to by Peck.

Glad you said that, as I thought I was being a bit thick and reading Court's article incorrectly. Mine is definitely Freeman 165, reverse C combined with Obverse 2. Fantastic article, which I've printed off.

It would have been worth the relatively low cost just to see whether it was a die number, or just a blob. One of those things you need to see in hand to be reasonably sure.

The time limit came and went, but nobody bit lol !!! Wonder why not? A VIP Churchill crown is worth £10k without the Satin Finish... imagine what that was worth ....and it was from "a pet and smoke free home", apparently....

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen. Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it. There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states : • 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium • 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes • 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that. ....and of that informal system, only the first ever has attention drawn to it. Unless it's a totally impartial assessment, of course ..... Hahaha - yes true, though I HAVE seen weak strikes described (usually by a dealer who wants us to know that his Fine-looking coin is actually EF) Ah, the converse situation.....yes, indeed. I should have remembered that. You're right of course

The time limit came and went, but nobody bit lol !!!

Davies list both types, 1751 & 1752 You're right - I'm not yet used to Davies - his placing Obverse 3 BEFORE 2 in the listing is a bit counter-intuitive! Be that as it may - the obverse shown on CoinsGB seems to be the shallow design, therefore Obverse 3, therefore not the rare mule. I think you will find it is the rare mule. Just noticed that it's my coin. Well the Auctiva image seems to show the "I" of BRITT pointing directly at a tooth. That would hopefully make it the rare mule.

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen. Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it. There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states : • 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium • 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes • 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that. ....and of that informal system, only the first ever has attention drawn to it. Unless it's a totally impartial assessment, of course .....

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen. Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it.

Very minor issues. In the hand I've no doubt it looks nigh on perfect.

Blowing up pics of the coin always show up every imperfection, and even the slightest flaws, virtually invisible to the naked eye, are writ large. On a related level, I've said before that some sellers of coins don't always do themselves any favours with their photos, in which normal size pics are shown in a bad light (literally), or blurry, and the blow ups look dreadful. In hand the same coin looks, or can potentially look, very attractive. Lustre is interesting. I've got a couple of buns in which the vast majority of the lustre seems to have gone, yet the coin has that unmistakeable sheen of UNC when turned in the light. It appears that atmospheric or other factors have eliminated the actual lustre, although the coin remains uncirculated in all other respects.

Thanks David, on two counts. Firstly for the extra download of Peck's article, and secondly, for the 1918KN pics. Clearly very little difference, and equally split. Not that significant. My own example is of the closer variety. The bird's foot flaw is obviously a rarer and more interesting feature.

If I'd realised that, I'd have taken screenshots of the lot. I wanted to look at it again as well. Maybe Peck will be kind enough to upload again

You can see an example on my site. Ref the milled edge Pennies The Royal Mint themselves have stated, after electro-microscopic examination, that all examples are post production alterations. OK, thanks for that, John.

A fascinating read. Thanks Peck. Honing in on my own current speciality, there are one or two things there, which I was totally unaware of. Like the 1862 penny, with small figures in date, and the 1918KN ~ KN together, or K N spaced slightly apart. I also note that the author makes reference to the London mint 1882 penny, and a milled edge 1899 penny. I seem to remember that many have (since) cast doubt on the milled edge penny being a Royal Mint production. Noted that Freeman and Gouby got a mention !!!

post deleted

Nor me. I'm just trying to envisage how, precisely, it would operate. Logically, one might assume an increase in the number of grading points for each level, from 10 to 100. So instead of say MS63, you might have a further refinement to perhaps MS637 or 638. If that is the case, then surely it would stretch subjectivity to its absolute outer limits. I'm not convinced that any one person is actually capable of quantifying an essentially subjective assessment to such a level of accuracy. Maybe a panel of 10 + scorers, looking at the same item, and then scoring the coin with an average of their marks might be an option ?

For purely British coins, so would I.

Totally agree. In cases like the rare 1905 halfcrown, where fakes exist, CGS comes into its own.

£7000 hammer, but lot 275 was made up of the penny plus a proof set 1/4d - 2/6d and so no price is available for the penny as a stand alone item. OK, thanks Rob. I suppose it would be possible to roughly estimate by gauging what the proof set would have gone for on its own.

I suppose they lend an independent authenticity to grade, and a slabbing service if you like slabbing. But I personally wouldn't use them. Firstly because the grading is purely subjective and can vary from person to person, and day to day in the same person. I feel just as capable of arriving at an accurate grading. Secondly, I don't like slabbing.