Peckris

Yes. One of the people mentioned above was the person I was referring to (allegedly..) in my post a couple of weeks ago. I won't say who, for fear of legal repercussions on Chris, so Don't Jump To conclusions.

Wasn't he a weightlifter?

Interesting, enough to make me change my mind. They certainly look as though they are the same as the Nicholson examples, but if push comes to shove, I'd tend to agree with Peck and say this particular variety is probably down to die wear/damage.

It's a very nice example, so if that doesn't work you might be immune to the attractions of Roman! It's an early Empire sestertius, and those are usually in higher demand than the silver denarius (probably because they were 'working currency' and it's harder to find them in decent condition). For me the problem is one of understanding the series. The number of emperors is bewildering, as is the number of mints and designs, even for a single emperor. Then there's the denominations and the metal used, and it all becomes a big melting pot of uncertainty. Add in the possibilities for fakes and for me it's a minefield I don't think my poor brain can handle. Nice progressive English coinage, one king/queen after the other, nicely dated or dateable plus a range of denominations that I can understand works for me. Somewhere I 've got a bag of raw Roman finds that I have tried to attribute after cleaning, but which I gave up on as my old head became completely befuddled by it all. This is one area where Spinks are very good - their catalogue is ideal for a Roman type collector, as they only list the most common and typical types for each emperor, in each denomination. Plus they list the emperors in date order. I think the hardest thing is to actually determine which ruler is which from the coin itself, but once you've done that, the possibilities for building up a good type collection of Roman is virtually limitless.

It's a very nice example, so if that doesn't work you might be immune to the attractions of Roman! It's an early Empire sestertius, and those are usually in higher demand than the silver denarius (probably because they were 'working currency' and it's harder to find them in decent condition).

Yes, I bought (only once!) from a certain "big time" Coin News advertiser. Both items seemed absolute bargains - a 1797 twopence EF, and an 1854 penny GEF. The first was VF (I already had one AVF) and the second was NEF at best. The prices charged were probably fair for the actual coins, but they weren't the advertised grades!

Ridiculous. It's a lovely coin for type collectors, but the 1754 is pretty common having been continuously minted way past that date (same with 1758 shillings).

Damn, you beat me to it JPK - I just saw that it's Trajan! It doesn't look like an obvious repro, they are usually a bit better grade and usually have an incuse stamp to show the manufacturer. But it's not beyond possibility.

Very interesting - I definitely see the 5 in the first example, so that's a new variety? That first one I would definitely say was GF though the second barely makes Fine in my opinion.

"I've got a worse coin than you, na na ni na na" "Haven't. Mine's worse, so there!" "Huh, soon make mine worse than yours. Spit in your eye." "Your mom makes sh*t apple pie" "Does not." "Does so."

Yeah, I was too. The reply offered seems a tad 'smart alec'.

Free - map of Italy (or it COULD be S. America) lovingly engraved on this penny (it was more evident before the coin was scoured clean...) Free - map of Italy (or it COULD be S. America) lovingly engraved on this penny (it was more evident before the coin was scoured clean...) If where ware were wear,we're wondering where wear would be worn to good condition. Thamnk you Peter Piper

Free - map of Italy (or it COULD be S. America) lovingly engraved on this penny (it was more evident before the coin was scoured clean...)

Because if all that's different is the 'finish' (which could be completely undetectable by the time the coin's EF) then it's not really a die pairing - all details are exactly the same, i.e. design. In any case, how do you know it's the die not the blank that's been polished? E.g. 1961 halfcrowns. And if the coin has not been stored properly, the 'polish' could have disappeared, or conversely the owner could have imparted a light polish to the unpolished side. It will probably all boil down to a matter of opinion, but I'm with Rob, it's not a mule by any traditional meaning of the word.

I would personally say "no". Finish is a nebulous kind of thing to make a determinant. After all, would you describe as a 'mule' a coin that had full lustre on one side, but none on the other, even if you COULD prove that's how it left the Mint? I think 'specimen', 'proof', 'polished die', 'proof-like', 'early strike', are far too vague terms for something as specific as a mule. Put it this way, have you ever seen a coin that's a proof on one side but not the other?

I've not heard of that one, why is it a mule? Nor me - I have the 'polished die' variety from the World Trade Fair, but I'd not heard of any other varieties.

Davies quote two reverse varieties for the 1935 crown but I've only ever seen the one type. I just consulted Davies - from his illustrations this looks one of the most trivial micro-varieties ever IF that pointing is the only difference. I can't believe that the average completist would be that interested?

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there? Just spotted O'NE on eBay - item number 261617055626 I so want one.... It's there all right. What's worrying is that there are two others seemingly as well : one just offboard the O (between 4 and 5 oclock), and another to the left of Britannia's forearm, down towards her wrist. That would make me stop and think.

It's interesting, when you study the use of the shield on coins throughout history, engravers seem to have had a free hand - there is such a variety of design, it's almost as if they were told "there is no ACTUAL shield, so it's up to you how you depict it, providing it carries the royal coat of arms".

I think it's down to individual decision and taste. I've become a type collector but I still have my date run of brass 3ds - I recently spent the most I've ever spent on a brass 3d (£39) on a BU 1948; my NEF 1949 cost far less ... in the 1990s, and my NBU 1951 cost me 20p, though that was an unusual circumstance! But it's quite 'ok' to mix and match - for example I have one UNC Edward VII halfcrown (1910), but I also have a VF 1903 and a GVG 1905. I don't think there's any fixed rule about it. I'd like a high grade KN penny, but not both; and I suspect I'll never ever be able to justify buying a 1922-reverse-1927 penny. On the whole though, I'd rather go for a BU common coin these days, than concentrate on a rarity. That's the 'type collector' in me.

I do remember those American Civil War cards! There was a bit of a fuss about them as I remember - rather a lot featured soldiers with blood pouring from open wounds. PG-rated stuff by today's standards. Wasn't there also a 'War Of The Worlds' series equally as "scary"? Did the Civil War packets also include repro and/or fantasy banknotes of the period too? I collected the Batman, Captain Scarlet, Tarzan, footballers too. Also; the cards which came with tea such as 'Trees of Britain', 'Kings and Queens' etc. Yeah, you're right - I'd forgotten all about those! They were pretty small as I remember (probably folded once to fit into the wrapper?) and could not be confused with any kind of genuine banknote. I seem to remember we wanted the high-value notes, which were of course much less common than the low-value ones.

1935 crowns would have been widely available via banks and post offices as part of the Jubilee celebrations, ditto 1951, ditto 1953, ditto 1965. I'm not sure how 1902 crowns were distributed, I imagine it was probably due to something like 'public subscription'? Strictly speaking, none of these should be described as 'circulation strikes' because, though they were legal tender and no doubt a proportion were spent, that was not the intention behind their production but to mark some (usually) royal occasion; in other words, they were commemoration pieces.

I do remember those American Civil War cards! There was a bit of a fuss about them as I remember - rather a lot featured soldiers with blood pouring from open wounds. PG-rated stuff by today's standards. Wasn't there also a 'War Of The Worlds' series equally as "scary"?

7 is a magical number...

CCGB rates it about £1.5k in VF which yours isn't, but better than Fine I'd say. Probably about £1k to the right buyer.