1949threepence

Let's see them all side by side:-

Yes, there does appear to be a difference. If you look at the base of the nose, the one on the left appears to stick out further than the one on the right. Is it an optical illusion of some sort ? Well, I've uploaded another image of a random 1937 George VI half sovereign, for comparison. It appears to bear out what I said.

at the end of the day, nobody really knows what it is. All we can do is speculate. But if it is a variant, then it is an unrecognised and therefore previously unknown type. IMO £300 is still too much. You'd probably do better talking up the "1" variant factor, and going for a buy it now at £49.99, with a "best offer" option.

Russ you neeed to find that 1864 and let us have a look at it, soonest

Hey, again, you're right. I should have done my research. There's one shown amongst the pics here Worth quite a bit too, as can be seen in this further link

You're right. The difference is palpable. The "I" in FID has a regular, symmetrical shape, almost akin to a bone, whereas the figure in REGINA is a definite figure "1" in appearance. In fact the more I look at it, the more I'm becoming a convert to the "I" being replaced with a "1" scenario. Be that deliberately, or due to error. ahhh, I clicked on your pre edited reply, but quoted the above.

I must admit, Russ, I thought die numbers above the date, only occurred on Victoria shillings between 1867 and 1879. I know they occur on florins, but in a different place. Never heard of them occurring on pennies.

I'm inclined to agree with 400 ~ that it's a random flaw of some sort. Maybe a die error. But, and it's a big but. That really does look like a "1". Pretty much identical to the "1's" in the date. So who knows, maybe there was a problem with the "I" on a particular batch, and they replaced it with a "1" hoping no-one would notice.

Thanks for the heads up, Colin. Tell you what, if I had time, I'd definitely take up metal detecting. Not that most detectors will ever find anything like what that guy in (was it Staffordshire ?) found last year. That said, I can't help feeling a little sorry for the people who post those green corroded efforts on e bay, hoping to make a few quid.......some of them even say "dug up" lol

Hi there & welcome, It looks vaguely Victorian. A scanned digital camera image of both sides would be incredibly useful. When you say it turned up in your change, presumably, being 27mm in diameter, it was masquerading as a halfpenny ? I appreciate it's a long time ago, though. What ? 1960 in fact

What a catalogue of howlers Not content with the cringemaking spelling error, he then proceeds to describe the coins as "mint" ( 2 of them might not be far off, but as for the rest........ ) Then best of all he suddenly thinks farthings didn't finish in 1956 after all..... Dear oh dear

I too have just received the book, Dave. Thank you very much indeed. Very, very pleased with it

Although it's worth zip, still fascinating to try and figure out what it is. Won't be Duke of Wellington - too late for that. My guess is some kind of cheap medal to commemorate something Gladstone did early in his second(?) term. Irish land reform fits the bill, but maybe not in Yorkshire... Well the item is dated 1881, a year which co-incided with one of Gladstone's terms as both PM and Chancellor. So the "stone" that anfieldmods can make out, might be the end of the name "Gladstone". I was sort of thinking along the same lines as Leviathan, in that it might be some sort of military medal. Maybe related to the first Boer war, as he indicates ?

As others have said, it is definitely there, but just faint. Actually it is clearer if you look at the pic from underneath, as it were.

You might find this link useful. It's a diary of coin fairs, including those which take place in London.

that declanwmagee is a bit pricey though, and he needs to get his head round cameras rather than scanning... Well, despite your reservations, we on here won't hear a word against him.....

Hi Dave, I've also, just a few minutes ago, pay palled you £9.99 for the silver book. Cheers oops.....just added an extra £3.00 for postage....

Yes, put me down for a copy as well, Dave. Cheers. Amongst other e bay sellers I've found to be very good, I'd list:- bitsandbob1204 (as previously mentioned) theflyer66 (aka Lloyd Roberts) gazonker (aka David Bauer) curlietailz (aka Sue Smith) 2258albert (aka Albert Evans, who usually does "buy it nows" at under book price) gary1970coins (aka Gary McGoldrick) declanwmagee All the above I would thoroughly recommend as excellent e bayers

Well I can't really add to Peck's excellent comprehensive post on this subject, except to say that when I was in the midst of assembling my date run shilling collection from 1902 to 1936 (now complete, apart from 1905), I found 1921 the most difficult to get hold of in UNC condition ~ and that was just the commoner type Eventually, I bid £31 for an UNC (with light dirty spots), on what was clearly an off night for other e bay bidders, and my £31 did not meet the seller's reserve. I asked the seller (julie sutton) what the reserve price was, as I might be willing to meet it, but in the end, she let me have it for £31. Very pleased I was with it, too.

OK, I'm a man of my word, and I have indeed checked some of the replicas on US e bay. I agree they do look very convincing to a person who has no knowledge of the coins concerned ~ and I must admit that I don't, as all the ones I looked at were foreign. In the absence of a yardstick to compare to, I'm sadly unable to offer a further meaningful opinion. There might be some British coins on there, but unfortunately they are not sub divided out, and I haven't got time to trawl through 77 pages worth.

Well if that's an EF, I'm a Dutchman !!! Maybe VF at the very outside ~ and just look at the amount of wear on the three lions. You can hardly see one of them. Interesting, but no denomination, and certainly not a recognised type. Strictly of interest to a narrow specialist market, I'd say.

Definitely genuine, the reverse being better than the obverse. Also, it has that appearance of wear to one of the numbers in the date, that is so typical of those coins, even on high grade examples.

This weekend, when I've got a bit of spare time, I'll do just that, and report back here with a comment or two.

Even before I saw the word "copy", I knew that was a fake. It screams at you from every level. Can't even say exactly why in a logical fashion. There's just something about it that says modern metal. It probably sounds stupid, but I just knew straight off.

I've been sitting looking at the pic for about 10 minutes, and as much as I would like to agree with you, I keep arriving back at the same conclusion, FP: that it's genuine. The coin is well worn, and the dots are probably among the first things to vanish with wear. Moreover, unless you are indicating that it's a contemporary forgery, I can't see why any modern forger, would want to strike a coin and wear it down artificially. What would be the point ? If it's silver they might as well just sell it for bullion value. I understand the need for vigilance, and I applaud you for making this a relevant issue on here. I really do. We do need to have our eyes wide open for scams. But on this occasion, I honestly think the coin is an authentic well worn piece of its time.