1949threepence

Don't know whether the above is tongue in cheek or not, but I'm pretty certain it's not low tide

I always ask the seller to upload a picture of the missing side before the auction ends. If they don't, I lose interest very quickly. I'd never take a chance on a coin like that.

Just proves the importance of quality photos when buying coins over the internet. On e bay, for example, some are vastly superior to others. Taking a chance on a coin with a poor pic, is a bit "Russian Roulette". I have known them to look better in the hand than in the pic. Those tend to go for a lower price. At least you only wasted £3.00. Not going to break the bank.

Superb and rightly declared treasure trove. Just goes to show that you can occasionally hit the jackpot whilst metal detecting.

First 2009 5p received in change today.

I think it's a good idea, and more attractive to buyers than starting with a relatively high stated reserve price from which the bidding must then commence. Unannounced reserves always strike me as a bit sneaky. The bidding ends and it's then stated that the reserve price has not been met. Annoying.

Yes, ultimately it is the seller's responsibility to make good any loss. Although as I mentioned a few weeks ago, Royal Mail do push items of recorded delivery post through one's letter box, unsigned for, and without removing the tabs. This creates an open door for unscrupulous buyers to say they have not received the item, and get a full refund, in addition to also holding the item.

At the risk of becoming a bore, I'm returning to this subject. A 1903 shilling I bought recently, EF but rather dirty, seems to have an elongated "9" in the date, compared to others. First I've seen like this.

That is a superb coin, and a very clear overstrike, even on the pic. Neat item

Some superb 1860 and 1861 examples in the Crocker collection.

I agree with you. Whilst some subtle differences are apparent, are they obvious enough, or well known enough to command a premium over other "commoner" types ? The other problem is that on new variant discoveries, we don't really know how many there actually are. We might know that some seem less common than others, but the true extent of the type identified, remains largely unknown. I would say that the less quantifiable and/or obvious, the less the interest, and therefore the less the premium.

Yep, and he wants £500 for it as a "buy it now" or best offer ~ see it here I'm not sure it's worth it.

One thing I did mean to mention is that the second 9 in 1909 shillings, appears to be bigger than the first (on all of them). Although I'm not sure if this is an optical illusion, and I don't have a measuring instrument small and precise enough to judge quantitavely.

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!) Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well. Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1. Gary I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die. The 1907 to 1910 ones, all seem to be type 2a.

I've seen quite a few well circulated 1953 pennies on e bay. There were just over a million minted, so there is no reason to suppose they didn't circulate in a similar manner to say, the 1951 threepence, or the 1952 sixpence, which are of similar mintage. My understanding is all 1953 pennies were issued in sealed PVC folders with the other coins of that year so in that sense they are different. Doesn't mean they couldn't be cut open and spent though. Ah right, so there were none released for general circulation as such. Those that found their way out, must have been from sets cracked open. I bet there were quite a few of those, as Peck suggests. Didn't realise that. Thanks RR

I've seen quite a few well circulated 1953 pennies on e bay. There were just over a million minted, so there is no reason to suppose they didn't circulate in a similar manner to say, the 1951 threepence, or the 1952 sixpence, which are of similar mintage.

It's the new design from 2008. They're all like that I'm sorry to say. Not a fault with your coin.

Somebody might correct me ifm wrong, but I don't think ther double florin has ever officially been demonetised. It was only ever produced between 1887 and 1890, as part of an early attempt at decimalisation, and as such would have been worth 20p in 1971. B

With what looks like the Star of David on it, I'd have said it was Israeli. But as Israel wasn't founded until 1948, and the coin is dated 1885, that is not possible. Even so, it might be Middle Eastern in origin.

A diary of coinfairs can be found here

Interesting & informative link, josie. Thank you

I've received one like that. Buried under mounds of sellotape. It was like breaking into Fort Knox just to get at it. Let alone survey the damage.

I can never understand the value of advertisers spamming private forums. They're never going to sell anything to the members. All they do is annoy them.

Leave them the way they are !!! To be honest, you are best not to clean them. Cleaning coins is an art, and after one or two negative experiences, it's not something I would ever undertake again. Cleaning can easily damage coins, and thus reduce their intrinsic worth. In addition, never ever polish coins. You will immediately render them almost totally worthless.

It's almost certainly a proof set, as they appeared in red boxes. One is shown advertised here Obviously, it will be worth something, but the tarnishing you refer to may detract from its value. If you could upload an image, we might be able to give you a more defnite idea of its value.