1949threepence

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.

I wish I could help you, Paul, but I've absolutely no idea. Would it be possible for you to upload an image of the "coins" ?

Oddly enough I got a 1988 in my change the other day. Usually get one every few months or so. Always liked the one off design. Hadn't realised the 2008 mintage was so low. I've actually had a few of these over the last few months.

Yep, I meant the London Mint, my bad

Interestingly, the Royal Mint are offering £50 each for them, as they have received interest from "collectors". Took up a full page spread in the Express (and probably other papers too)

Just looked at e bay ~ there was a bidding war going on for what looked to be BU gem example, and the current bid was over £1k. Underneath was a buy it now one, for £250. I wonder just how many are in circulation.

I'm not convinced they do raise the price, personally, and if they do, the effect is marginal for experienced buyers. But from a coin vendor's point of view, it sounds kind of good to say that a coin is "slabbed". To the inexperienced buyer, it may place an entirely underserved cache of extra value on the coin.

I agree with you. I'm not a fan of slabbed coins, either. In fact most of my collection (and I don't do really old coins) are in Whitman folders. I collect for the pleasure of collection, not the profit, or potential profit. I like to hold an uncirculated coin from the turn of the 20th century, and wonder exactly where it was hiding all those years, whilst two world wars and the general upheaval of the last century was going on.

First try and sort each denomination out into year order. If there is more than one coin for any given year, try outsorting what looks to be the best one. I'm not sure what you know about grading and value of coins, but there is an excellent book advertised on this site. But if you want a link, try googling http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/coins.html. He gives some excellent advice. As others have said, do not attempt to clean coins. It is an art. Definitely avoid using brasso or silvo, as that will damage the coin beyond repair, and silverdip is not recommended either. Definitely the 1946 & 1949. Also 1950 & 1951 are quite scarce. If any of them have any original mint lustre still on them, they will definitely be worth something.

I know it's over 18 months since you originally posted this enquiry. But as I have a complete set of brass threepences, I checked out what you said. I have three 1937 examples. One as part of my collection, and two previous fillers, which I retained in a box. The one in my collection shows the B of "BR" level with the corner, as in the second example in your pic. Interestingly, of the two fillers, one is like your first example, and the other, actually has the B a little to the left of the corner angle. From 1949 to 1952, the BR is in a different place anyway, as the "Ind Imp" was dropped. But in the 1938 to 1948 inclusive, examples, the B starts directly adjacent to the corner.

Not sure, but as you say, there is a definite slant on the "2". Apart from "Die letter A, B or C to left of lighthouse", classed as extremely rare, there are no variants of the 1862 halfpenny listed (that I can see anyway). It may be just a one off error. Interesting.

OK thanks folks. That was really informative I never thought about the mintage for any given year, including some still dated the previous year.

Something that has always puzzled me slightly, and I've never yet been able to find a definitive answer. Why is the 1869 penny worth so much (£2,500 in unc, for example), yet its mintage of 2,580,480, is more than twice that of the 1868 penny (1,182, 720), yet the 1868 in unc is worth a mere £550. No doubt this will be elementary to most of you, and I aplogise in advance for sounding a bit thick.

Unfortunately, the coins are so worn, that they are pretty much worthless, I'm afraid to say. As has already been said, in fact.

Yep, that is so true. A testament to the fact that there are so many in circulation. The vast majority of the ones I have received are of very poor quality, commonly with a blurred strike, the obverse out of alignment with the reverse, the reverse design incorrect for the year shown and a wrong, incomplete or totally missing inscription. Obvious to the naked eye, but only to coin collectors, as the vast majority don't even look at £1 coins.

Just to say ~ absolutely great book. One which has been needed for some time