1949threepence

If you bought expecting a proof, then I think you've been had. It's not even attractive, and the obverse looks as though someone's been at it with a brillo pad. Better luck next time.

I lifted the image from facebook - with your permission I'll copy and paste the reply above you gave above, into that thread. Very interesting reading.

Excellent article by the editor, in the June 2020 edition of "Coin News" about this issue. It appears that the anti cash brigade are attempting to accelerate its demise by using the excuse of cash being a potentially unhealthy carrier of Covid 19. Although most people and stores are still accepting cash because they would lose a certain percentage of trade if they didn't, and at the moment they need every penny they can get (no pun intended). As the florist who was interviewed last night said "if I had a £50 bouquet and someone offered me a £50 note, of course I'm going to accept it".

Yes, it is good and would definitely fool some. A little work on convexing the shield and improving the lighthouse detail would probably have it fooling many more.

A fake 1871 penny being touted as the real thing - link In a box of things his Mum gave him, apparently........

Believe it or not, the post was actually intended to be serious. But now you mention it I can see the obvious innuendos.

Indeed. It would be more usual to stick it somewhere and forget about it, rather than getting it out religiously each week, for a good polishing. It's not like it's an ornament on the mantelpiece.

oooohhh titter ye not missus

Well for those who would be offended by glimpsing a Mail article, I'll just say that it was a repeat of the usual. So no great loss. But it still goes to show that the coin continues to attract media attention.

I thought the same, Jon. They're routinely changing hands for a lot more.

Another Mail article about the Kew Gardens 50p - they're now worth £85 according to Phil Mussel of Coin News - wow !!! link

Thanks Ian - I've received them and had a quick glance. Will have a more detailed look later and report back.

seconded - very interesting reading.

That's a really interesting discussion, Ian, with some familiar names. ETA: the last post from MG, if I've read it correctly, appears to suggest that it might in fact be a 9/8, rather than an 8/9 - which actually makes more sense. Maybe the RM's intention was to make the coin read as an 1859, but because the 9 was weakly punched and the 8 covered a greater area, the 9 was in effect negated - the date still effectively appearing as an 1858.

Actually that would work. Maybe it is a 9.

Yes, I think the 8/2 is problematic as well, although I hasten to add I've not yet read the numismatic circular in which MG espouses the theory. The idea of 8/2 may be flawed because, as you say, no 2's had been used since 1827. Bramah, at pages 104 - 105, does mention the fact that according to the 1852 parliamentary return of the Mint that year, 236,424 pennies were struck, but none were ever seen. The Mint authorities "can only conjecture that they were all brought in again to be melted, but were they ever issued?" (Montagu). Or were they all struck from the previous year's dies. That sounds the more realistic scenario, since, as Bramah rightly speculates, even if only a very limited number of 1852's got out into circulation, at least a few would have turned up and been retained by collectors. As per 1952 and 1954, with one each. Although it is possible that if they were dated 1852, every single one was accounted for and melted. Conversely, the figure three would have been readily available, and in different sizes as per the ones used in 1853. We know that overstrikes of 8/7, and 8/6 also occurred, so by logical extension, it makes sense that 8/3 was also used - all using dies from the 1850's. Not presuming to be so arrogant as to say I'm right, far from it. At the end of the day Gouby has many orders of magnitude more numismatic knowledge and experience than I have (or ever will), but it doesn't do any harm to play Devil's advocate and start asking awkward questions now and again. Finally, what the heck is a Bramah 25c? Sounds like an over something, over something else !!

Absolutely, and I'd cite the endless number of times last year I spent trying to decide whether a penny was a F164A, for example, or a 169. Colon to tooth, but only from some angles.

This bird knows how to........

Optical illusion. Happens a lot with coin pics, unfortunately

Good bargain - feather in your cap, and with those kind of bargains you can build up a good nest egg. But it must have been a bit of a flap when the crows beaked in - bleedin' stone me ! Could drive you cuckoo. Would have been interesting to have had a bird's eye view though.

Double struck 8? ETA: posted before I read Ian's post on the same subject !

I must admit, it's not hitting me in the eye. Is it possible to have a closer up view of the date? Possibly a Gouby D as explained by I

Thanks Ian.

Thanks Ian - yes that Gouby D is very definite. No idea how common they are, but as Bramah missed them, probably less common than the other two. I haven't seen one yet, but no shortage of examples of the other two. If you are able to send the eight 1858/7's examples, I'd very much appreciate it. But obviously if you run into technical issues, it's not a problem.