1949threepence

It sounds incredible. Why would a 1953 sixpence be in the mix when 1981 1p's were being struck ? I can't quite get my head round it

I'm getting the old "page cannot be displayed" message as well. Hope it comes back as I was thinking of ordering a virtually unc 1903 shilling from Cambridge Coins. Seems a bit odd, really. The site previously gave no hint that anything was up.

Pennies seem to be turning up fairly regularly, but I've not seen any other 2009 denominations. But I did get a 1986 Commonwealth Games £2 in change today, showed very little wear and had green smears both sides, these came off with quick dip in acetone. Cant remember the last time I saw a nickel brass as opposed to the bimetallics in circulation. You occasionally used to get a 1986 Commonwealth Games £2, up to about the early to mid 90's. I think the last time I was handed one in my change, was about Summer 1994. You were lucky to get one now. I never received a 1989 £2, but I have received one of the low mintage 2002 Commonwealth games £2 ~ and only one in 6 to 7 years.

You may also be interested in this link, especially the entry for 1974 !!! That is an advert in a newspaper by a retailer, so doesn't necessarily reflect the date of issue. It is the first time the advertiser had offered the product. Fair point, Rob. But I'm simply following up possible clues. This was not the easiest question to find a definitive answer to.

Since a sobering experience with a virtually UNC but dirty 1881H halfpenny (which I may have mentioned in another thread), I have never ever cleaned another coin. Nor would I buy one that I thought had been cleaned. I can nearly always tell when they have been cleaned as well, and it is very easy to distinguish cleaning from lustre, even on a photo. I'd rather have a coin with a few dirty marks or a stain, than a cleaned and consequently, slightly unnatural looking coin.

Well I wouldn't trust anything that had its origins in China

You may also be interested in this link, especially the entry for 1974 !!! I like investigating hard to uncover facts, and this is really piecing together a difficult and obscure timeline, of events from the pre-internet era, some decades ago, which would not have attracted much attention at the time, and hence tend to get subsequently buried.

Try this Enough research. I'll shut up now

I have found some vague information about the 1970 set. It is on Tony Clayton's site I suspect that precise information is going to be difficult to come by. You could e mail the Royal Mint, but don't hold your breath waiting for a reply. They still haven't contacted me about that enquiry regarding 2008 baby sets, that I made about 6 weeks ago.

Ignore previous post ~ you'd already sussed that out, and I hadn't read yours properly.

I had an idea and decided to look at the leaflet in my 1970 lsd set. Often such things have a production date on them, like 11/70 or some such. Whilst this brown concertina type leaflet doesn't have any such inscription, it does say that "the threepence was demonetised from 31st August 1971" ~ not will be, but from. Thus implying that the production took place after this date, at the very least. It also says, "like the threepence the penny was demonetised from 31st August 1971".

I'm not sure about the 1970 lsd set, but I'm sure I read somewhere years ago, that 1971 was issued from 1973 onwards, and 1972 to 1976, was issued in 1976 itself. I read this in about 1991. Not sure what it was in now, and my memory may be faulty. But I know that 1976 came into it somewhere.

I think if I bought a really valuable coin for big money over the internet, I'd be inclined to travel to wherever it was, and collect in person. Certainly if the address was in the UK.

The "bird's foot flaw" presumably being the odd partially filled indent below the King's ear on your second example ? I've never seen the trident flaw until now. Does it only occur on KN's maybe due to some die fault at the King's Norton factory ?

Very neat idea. I had heard of them but never took the time to look at their website before. Thanks, Sylvester.

Interesting, but I have my doubts that it will be worth very much more than face value, except as a curiosity. It's not an error as such ~ simply an accident with the metal. For reference I have a 2006 2p with a bubble on it.

OK, thanks guys. I've actually made a complaint direct to Royal Mail via their website. None of the pull off tabs have been removed from the main orange sticker, and I have quoted the tracking number. As the sticker should be on the board against which the recipient signs, this will be absolute hard proof that the procedure was not correctly adhered to. Hopefully they will give me some sort of explanation. As sure as eggs are eggs, there is no way they can wriggle out of it.

The people I've just gone with would charge about £42 for £7000 cover That's pretty reasonable for peace of mind, and only represents 0.6% of the total value, per annum. I shall have to look into it. Do they need an inventory/photographs, Gary ?

I'm always buying coins from both e bay, and dealers. I don't sell at all. There has never been an occasion yet when I've actually failed to receive an item that I've ordered. However, recently, I've noticed that Royal Mail are increasingly leaving recorded delivery packages in my porch, without making any attempt whatever to get them signed for. This is despite the fact that the recorded delivery orange sticker actually says, "signed for" on it. Undelivered recorded items are supposed to be taken back to the Post Office and a card left, so the recipient can go down to the Post Office with ID, and sign for them later ~ as I'm sure you all know. I shall be opting for the insured Special Delivery where at all possible from now on, despite the extra cost. I think e bay require all items over £50 to be sent this way anyway. Anybody else experienced this problem ?

My coins aren't insured separately at all, and their value on paper approaches about £7k. My normal household insurance covers "valuables" (as coin collections are classified), up to £2000 only. I'm going to have to think about separate insurance. I don't want to store them in a bank vault, as I look to look at them now and again. Although I can understand Dave's motivation in doing so. Either that or find some suitable hiding place, where thieves are unlikely to look.

Yet the other R's seem OK. What's the significance of the R in Edwardvs, that doesn't occur in the rest ? Why does this mark it as a fraud ?

Nice one, Gary. GVF, with some traces of lustre ? Very nice coin. How did you come by it, and what did it cost, if that's not an impertinent question ? (forgive me if you've already answered this in another thread)

Hi Richard, If he was talking about 2008 specifically, he may be referring to a limited run of 20 pence pieces, which although they featured the Queen's head, had no date on them. Maybe something was lost in the translation. Many of these 20p's, thought to number anywhere between about 120,000 and 250,000, have changed hands for ridiculously high amounts of money. I cannot think of any coins which actually lack an image of the Queen's head on them.

Welcome David ~ good to see you. As Peckris says there are a number of penny fans and collectors on here, including me and him. The magic of coins is that your interest can be rekindled after as long as even 40 years, and that collection you put aside all those years ago, will be exactly the same as you last saw them in 1969, or whenever.

No bids for it yet, I notice. Judging by the condition, which isn't too worn, I'd say it had to be either 1928 or 1929. I wonder if it is a genuine anomaly, or if the last digit has been gouged off somehow ? Trouble is you probably wouldn't be able to tell until the coin was in your hand, and it isn't worth the risk. It's suspicious that he added a picture of the obverse for a short time, then removed it again. If you right click and "save picture as", which should be available on IE7, for example, you can place it in your "my pictures" folder, and then upload as an attachment to here, as I have done with the one above, which should give you a mild chuckle if you also look at this link where it is described as "almost mint" lol I've not seen any where this is denied. Maybe it restricts the options on extra pics, for whatever reason.