1949threepence

I hadn't realised there had been any more additions to this thread. Some very interesting thoughts there, guys. I have to say the whole idea of batches of coins from a given year (dated that year) being held and then issued into general circulation up to several years later, sounds very plausible to me. In deed, I think it still goes on to some extent, as I have been handed uncirculated coins from say three years previously, at times. Not isolated examples, but say three totally uncirculated 2005 2p's given to you in your change in 2008, at Marks & Spencer, say. Moreover, the point about years in which no coins were minted ~ ie: none dated that year, threepences dated 1947 for example, never having any mintage shown, kind of negates, to some extent, the theory about previous years coins as yet unissued, being issued in and included in the following year's mintage figures (viz, the 1868 penny) or coins minted in a given year, bearing the previous year's date. Food for thought....

Well I've e mailed the Royal MInt via their contact us service, as follows:- I'll post the response on here (1 - 3 working days, they say)

Yes, that's exactly it, Chris. I've tried both types of edit, equally unsuccessfully. When I click the relevant button to confirm my text amendments, a "loading" symbol briefly appears, then nothing.

Am I right in saying that all the post 1992 "bronze" is magnet attractive, whereas pre 1992, not at all ? Somewhere around that year, anyway.

Apologies for the spelling errors in the previous post. Tried to edit, but it keeps blocking me

I wondered that as well. I was afraid they would be instantly recognisable, ans it seems that dear may be vindicated. Nonetheless, I'll still be purchasing a set, and let you all know what I think about their appearance as compared to an ordinary uncirculated soecimen, side by side.

I'm not sure that's entirely valid - if it's not a proof then by definition it's a currency (albeit 'specimen'). However, I would take the "highly polished" with a pinch of salt myself. I think that's the Royal Mint selling to complete lay people who would be more impressed with the phrase "highly polished" than "brilliant uncirculated". They wouldn't actually be polished or they couldn't sell any sets to genuine collectors. And don't forget that brand newly minted coins in change these days often have a highly mirrored finish, in contrast to the (to my mind superior) 'satin' finish you got in the late 60s. I think if you broke up a Baby set and stored the coins separately, no-one would be any the wiser in years to come. It's like the 1985 50p - no-one cares if it's from the set, or a genuine currency coin. They're all scarce. In that case, I'll buy one and let you know what I think On reflection, I'm sure you're right.

Just to put that into context, I've only ever received one 2002 Commonwealth Games £2 in my change, and they are of comparable mintage. If you buy the 2008 baby set from the Royal Mint you get the whole lot brand new. OK, thanks Gary, and here it is The only problem being is that they are not ordinary uncirculated coins. They're highly polished, which unfortunately kind of sets them apart. Although maybe not as much as a proof would.

Just to put that into context, I've only ever received one 2002 Commonwealth Games £2 in my change, and they are of comparable mintage.

I've seen all except the 50p.

Does he have illustrations, Gary? If so, can you see from them if 1805 is indeed the first obverse? (But in any case, the obverse 1 does have a "full neck" while the shallow protrait has a "hollow neck"). Also, does he state rarities? If he does I should estimate that 1805 will be the rarest, unless any of those low relief varieties is also truly rare. And you're right - Spink have listed those descriptors the wrong way round ! (At least in the 2005 book which is the latest I have). 'Nose to S' is the common shallow portrait (I of Georgivs to space), 'nose to SV' is the rare first obverse (I of Georgivs to bead full neck). Ignore your Spinks, folks ... Apart from a discription Davies doesn't give much more information. There are pictures but they are just close-ups of the areas he's interested in, eg. RGIVS showing bead alignment and IMP showing the tuft alignment. He also doesn't give rarities although he does give a 1982 values in mint condition. 1805 £85, 1806 £42, 1807 £75, 1808 £60 and 1809 £30. I guess you could infer comparitive rarity from this. Gary Thanks Gary, very interesting. I just wonder how many collectors are actually aware of these very subtle differences.

I wasn't previously aware of Saltzman, either. I noticed your photo of the two 1949's (sharp and rounded edge) on another thread. Thanks for that, Gary I think we're talking more about the outer edge, as opposed to the internal angles. As I said earlier, and like you, I'd never heard of a sharp cornered '49 until I read about, and saw, on here. I wonder what proportion of the 464,000 were sharp cornered. It makes sense that some would be when you think about it, as 1948 were all sharp cornered, as were 1950 to 52, and henceforth after that.

Nothing so far. I shall look out for one, with interest.

All four of my 1941's are type c. Both my 1949's are rounded edge (of course). I've never seen a sharp cornered '49, nor knew of their existence before reading this. So thanks.

Ah, understood. Thanks very much for the clarification, Peckris My EF 1921 is definitely of the second "nose to S" variety.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down! A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems. clicky Another thing that make 1921 tough is the five Davies types for this year, I still need the nose to VS which come up ocassionally but I'm looking for EF or better. I'm not aware of these different types & would be interested to know. By "nose to VS", do you mean one of these, currently for sale on e bay ?

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down! A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems. clicky

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down! A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems. clicky

Hi 1949threepence, Have you ever noticed any difference in the graining (milling) around the edge? I've got a late George V shilling (1935 I think) which I noticed has finer graining than the other couple I have of the same type. Sort of, yes. I've just looked at them all, prompted by what you said above, mint mark, and what I did notice was that some years appear to have a thinner width and coarser edge milling, than others. But I didn't notice any pattern or consistency. Unfortunately, I only have one example for each year with my shillings, as I went for broke on quality with each one. Therefore I have no fillers for comparison purposes.

Just my two pennuth (no pun intended). I never ever clean any coins, as the risk of either partial or complete ruination is too great. I have occasionally wiped obvious excess off coin surfaces, with a damp new duster. The only coin I ever tried to clean was an 1881H halfpenny, which I bought at an auction. It looked pretty much dark finish UNC, but had some weird gunk stuck between the lettering on the obverse. Unfortunately, cleaning in warm soapy water failed to remove the gunk, but did leave some mottle like staining on the rest of the coin. So I've steered well clear ever since, working on the assumption that you are very fortunate indeed to find coins of that ilk, in perfect condition. Many of them in nr UNC condition, may well have lain in the same spot for decades on end, before discovery, and have picked up whatever they were next to, be it grease, oil or other debris.

I've always liked this one-off 1988 reverse too and have always put them aside, and never knowingly spent one. I managed to amass quite a number in their early years and have a small bag of really bright ones, but of course over the years the ones in circulation have become really quite worn, but I still keep them to one side! About a month ago I picked one up in my change and was very surprised to find it was counterfeit. It is undetectable as a fake at a glance, and it even stands closer scrutiny. The legend around the edge is correct, but in the smaller typeface introduced in 1989 (although that legend (DECUS ET TUTAMEN) did not actually appear in that type style until 1991). I wish I'd saved a few early ones. Nearly all those 1980's and 1990's pound coins are very well worn now. Indeed, on some of the 1985 ones, the date is almost rubbed away completely.

Your bad what ? Just an expression, common on internet discussion boards these days, meaning, "my mistake" On the general topic, I imagine it will now be extremely difficult to find many of these in your change from now on, which is a shame. Pity the media got hold of this.

Yes, I've nearly finished my 1902 to 1936 shilling collection, and with the exception of some of the Edwardian ones, including the notoriously rare 1905, I've got the lot in either EF, UNC or BU. It's taken me several years and a fair bit of money. During that time I've noticed some interesting details. As you say those issued between 1920 and the pre ME 1926, have a lack of hair detail, which to the relatively ignorant might be mistaken for undue wear, and a mismatch in quality between obverse and reverse. Although in my collection, the one issued in 1920 actually has decent hair detail, one of the two 1920 types you refer to above. Another detail I noticed was that the lion's nose on the reverse, was much more subject to very quick wear in the pre 1920 .925 silver examples. It was the first place to suffer wear, whereas on the 1920 to first type 1927, the lion's nose was much more hard wearing. Even VF examples show less wear than GEF pre 1920 ones. Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage. Similarly the 1930, though the low mintage that year makes that one self evident. The ghosting was most obvious during the examples issued in WW1. Differences in value are apparent between weak and strong strikes.

Annoyingly, I had two yesterday, and spent them both. I'll have a look next time I get one & report findings.

There's certainly a significant width difference between 1992 10p's. You only have to hold some different examples in your hand, edge on, to see the disparity.