1949threepence

Fully agree with all the above replies. The coin looks totally genuine to me.

Although not worth much, these commemorative medallions are always interesting to look at. Strange to think they were produced almost as a fleeting novelty over 100 years ago, and are of course, still around to this day, for us to gaze over.

The Royal Mint give this, which is pitifully short, but does give a superficial insight.

That's a very fair observation, Colin. It could certainly explain why more than one would suddenly appear from exactly the same outlet in a short space of time, when natural odds would suggest a one in ten year event at best.

Question ~ this "streaking" on coins, as discussed and shown above. Is that the same thing as what they call "marbling" ?

Ladies?? OY!!! Is that a typo for 'laddies', or do you need a brain transplant?? From the 25p tray of a dealer at the Midlands Coin Fair (unsorted :-) ): • 1888 sixpence GEF • 1951 brass 3d, Unc with strong lustre From a Warwick&Warwick auction lot of pennies from 1860 to 1967 • 1919H with the usual flat hair (worn die) but in all other respects GEF or better, rich chocolate patina - £20 From a New York dealer : • 1903 halfcrown F+/AVF, lustre - £26 From circulation : • 1926ME penny, GF - £0.005 Some good bargains there, Peck. 995 posts ~ you do realise that with 5 more posts you'll be a "Forum God"

I've had quite a few Trevithick locomotives Well done

Biggest bargain was a 1919 shilling in BU condition, which I got for £4.99 late last year when e bay had broken down, and nobody else was bidding because they couldn't access the site. I was able to because I had created a shortcut on my desktop to the coin, ready to bid. Was still able to access via the shortcut. Evidently nobody else could, ha ha

Bit of a mystery then. Of course, they will have been issued for B/UNC and proof sets. Just as a matter of interest, what £2 Commonwealth games flag do you have, Scott ?

Forgive me being pedantic 1949! but don't you mean a "die blemish"? If there was a genuine die error in the modern era it would be remarkable and valuable, as witness the 1983 2 NEW PENCE error. (Though strictly speaking, even that is not a die error, but a mule - I'm finding it hard to come up with an example of a die error in modern times). Yeah.......I suppose. I'm not really sure what you would call mine either, and I'm very open to persuasion on this one. It appears like a little bubble in the upper field of the reverse. Die "blemish", as you suggest, maybe ?

Ive never seen either of the 2008 olympic varieties. So you were lucky to get them. Does anybody know if any 2009 £2 were issued for circulation ? I don't think I've seen any so far.

I was astounded to get them both within a short space of time and from the same source I suppose that at the end of the day, there are plenty of different designs to choose from, amongst modern coinage

Looking at the £2 coins in circulation, there seems to be adequate variety, and sufficient instances of low mintage, to make this a worthwhile and rewarding sideline. It also affords an opportunity to collect from change, which I personally have never really been able to do, or at any rate, there never seemed any particular point in doing it. What started me off was receiving two Commonwealth games £2 coins (English flag, EF & Welsh flag UNC) over the last few weeks. Ironically enough both from the same place, our staff canteen. Anybody else done or considering doing this ? £2 coin mintage figures here

Just a simple die error. I've got a 2006 2p which has got a raised blob in the field of the coin. I think it must have originally been a bubble in the molten metal which never flattened out.

I believe this is an example of natural bronze toning. I'm really pleased with this coin:-

Thing is, some coins tone beautifully over (as Red says) time, whereas others always look a mess. Not sure what the magic formula is, but I don't think it's dipping in chemicals.

Outbid. Too rich for me. No way. I'm skint for the rest of this month anyway, as far as coins are concerned.

There's no attempt at grading, in coin books, with exceptionally rare coins. Just a line saying "very rare" where the grades should be.

Just as a quick addendum to the above, when azda showed us the 1875 coin below,at post No 65, on the rare bun penny thread, a few days ago, there was something about it which suggested, instinctively, that it was the real McCoy. Yet that looks damn near perfect. Maybe just not quite as mirror like flawless as the 1878.

It's one of those you have to see in the hand before you can finally pass judgement.....and even then..... Yes ~ I mean how often do you see a bun penny, even in UNC, where the lustre is mint perfect. The coin would have had to be hermetically sealed for well over a century, surely ? It's re-lustre-ing a coin ~ click here I've no idea how it's done, though. But I do have a coin which I think has been re-lustred. A silver one.

That's the trouble. It looks almost too good to be true

Interesting that Gouby doesn't actually seem to have an otherwise very high regard for variant date spacings. Gouby & date spacings

Thanks Tom. I'm inclining to the POV that it's genuine lustre, as there appears to be almost no wear whatever. Of particular note is the shield, which looks well nigh perfect. Yet those produced between the latter part of 1861 and 1881, had a slightly convex shield which wore very readily. Just wish I had the money this month to make a realistic bid for it. (unless, of course, it's a fake. Where's Falmer Palmer when you need him ?)

The light seems to bounce off it in a way it doesn't normally do with ordinary lustre. Any thoughts guys ? If genuine lustre, it's brilliant. 1878 penny

Is that a verified 1882 London Mint? (I.e. the obverse and reverse types are correct, as far as you can determine?) I have to disagree with your assessment of popularity. The London 1882 is a long-established and greatly sought-after rarity. As far as I know it is VERY rare (yours is the only one I've seen in the wild). Although it can be faked, it's a more distinct variety - i.e. a complete absence of the H mint mark - than simply the spacing of the date numerals. I'm prepared to bet it appears in more catalogues, going back a lot further. Yes, it meets the criteria necessary to be the NO H variety... See the image of the tuft of hair behind Victoria's head.... See information regarding determining the correct attribution of this variety on Tony Clayton's website...Link to Pertinent page on Tony Clayton's Website The 1882 penny without mintmark is particularly rare (and not in Peck), but watch for worn coins where the mintmark has been worn away. A variety with the bar missing from the H is known. The following is a description of how to tell a genuine 1882 no H from an 1882H penny, as kindly related by the Penny specialist Bernie: The identifiable features of the genuine non "H" 1882 penny are a flat shield on the reverse, NOT convex. Victoria has an apparent hooked nose, caused by a weak die strike in the area of the eyeball. The "R" and the "I" in "BRITT" should not be joined; a very small space should be visible with a magnifier. There is a tuft of hair protruding from the back of the neck, left of the ribbon knot. This tuft of hair is always visible on very worn specimens. The "H" variety can be clarified by examining the space encapsulated by the inner ribbon, as if the uppermost section forms a point in this triangulated section, then it is the common variety. The rare non "H" does not terminate in a point because of the tuft of hair mentioned above. I should add that there are two types of obverse and reverse for 1882H pennies, and that the 1882 No H penny has the less common types - having these characteristics does not ensure that it is a No H, but having the characteristics of the other types confirms that there was an H even if worn away. As a additional note, Spink has a specimen of this variety in it's next auction... Lot # 402 The bit I have emboldened, is a very useful piece of info. Thanks for posting it.