Peckris

You mean 'reverse', not 'obverse', right? That question is one that we agonised over a year or two ago. We never did come to a conclusion, but you're right - how does a reverse that was used in 1927 (though some might argue that the 1927 reverse was a modified version of it) first appear in 1922? There were no pennies 1923-25 of course, and the mintage in 1926 was quite low, but even so, it's a bit of a mystery. One possibility is that the first experiments on a new reverse were in 1922, and weren't intended for circulation. There were no pennies needed for a few years, and almost immediately after that, a new issue of nearly all denominations in 1927-28.

The rim itself is also a dead giveaway - it's broad on the rare one, where the rim on the normal 1922 is the usual narrow one you see on all GV penny reverses from 1913 to 1926. Tracy's is the normal width. But always worth looking out and checking here!

There are some, it's true, though only a minority compared to those in high grade. But the point is, the mintage of those 2 crowns was out of all proportion to wreath crowns - 3/4 and 1/2 a million respectively. And there would have been a fair amount of publicity too - in 1935 for the Jubilee, and in 1937 for the new reign. They wouldn't have cost more than face probably, whereas you would have had to pay a premium for a wreath, and you weren't going to make a loss by spending it. I still stand by the claim that few people would ever have seen a wreath crown. And that those worn specimens in the CGS sale didn't look as if they'd suffered circulation wear, but more by constant rubbing or buffing up. We can't know for certain of course, but that was my gut feeling.

If you mean "1922 with 1927 reverse", those are MEGA rare. The chances of spotting one online and no-one else spotting it, is about as likely as Dave turning out for the England football team

Fashion. Ayephones being a 'must have' accessory, all the embedded faults are therefore 'must have faults'. Get yourself a cheap mobile for a tenner and enjoy a hassle free life. Few people need to do much more than phone or text as the screens are too small to be very practical for surfing the web.I'm back, having flattened the battery! You are of course right Rob I'm caught though! Paulus, sadly no option to disconnect the battery with the o-so-amazing iPhone, you've got to suffer until the bitter flat-battery end! Get yourself a basic pay-as-you-go bog standard phone, then spend your savings on an iPad Mini

NOT an open 3 - and it would be the finest known if it was!! So relax..

Nice to have, if you're a completist!

Do you still have the link?

Looking at the roughness of the remaining circle, I'd say it has to be post-production.

All coins are High priced to ANY buyer Peter. Those Rainbow Morgans are silly money for a coin that has a Little bit of colour and were minted in millions. A proof with less than a 1000 mintage compared to a business strike mintage is in my eyes quite cheap at $3000 Be very careful indeed. A lot of those Morgans are so 'prooflike' you'd easily be fooled. I have one you'd swear was a proof (frosted design, mirror fields), but it's not.

And it's the ONLY practical method of paying if you're disabled.

Wow, you're good! I was going to make an 'educated guess' and say it looked to be a medieval Continental coin, possibly connected with the Knights Templar / Crusades.

The image on the left is about two grades better (obverse) and more than a grade better (reverse). This would easily account for the changes you've noticed. For comparison, check the following on the obverse : hair detail, especially the sideburncheekbonesearneckhow far the legend stands 'proud' from the fieldThe left hand coin is so much clearer in every respect, and despite the green muck in the legend, has much less wear than the other example.

My own thoughts are that you have two fairly worn coins there. Despite the gronk on the top one, I would say that it is actually less worn overall than the bottom, and therefore the date numerals haven't flattened so much. Also, if the bottom one was struck with a wearing die, you'd see a similar effect of less crisp details. But others here may differ?

These are sound points, but the question remains : what shop would even have recognised them, let alone taken them? And if they did, what customer would have taken them as change?

Yes - if you're serious about bronze pennies, you could in fact rely just on Gouby which is basically Freeman updated. But if you thought that you might expand into halfpennies and/or farthings, you should get Freeman as well. Groom is excellent post-1901, and CCBG is useful as a guide to the comparative rarity of many varieties as it gives prices for them.

So can you explain the features that lead you to that Stuart? Because it's all new (and confusing) to me! Surely currency 3ds would far outnumber Maundy ones? One of my bugbears, this. Yes, they would, even the scarce dates. And considering they are absolutely identical apart from finish, why the h*ll are currency specimens worth so much more?????

Eh? I just browsed the September catalogue online and there isn't a single wreath crown in there, that I can see? Lots 2061 to 2081? Strange - I had to browse by lot number to see those. They aren't in the overall Catalogue. Anyway - I'm disregarding the 1927's. Something very odd must have happened for someone to buy a proof set then spend the centrepiece for face value only. Having said that, the 1927's are numerically by far the biggest mintage. Even so, how many shopkeepers would have known what they were? Items 2065 and 2069 do not have what I would class as 'regular circulation wear'. They look as though they have been rubbed many many times, and they have that kind of artificial overall wear that you don't see from general circulation. Mind you, it's no more than a feeling, but they just don't look right as circulated coins. There were more high grade crowns than low grade in the first 10 lots.

That's a good spot, and very unusual for post-Edward VII pennies. There is a variety of 1945 penny "9 double struck", though it never seems to come up for sale. It's also hard to see, much harder than your 1946.

Eh? I just browsed the September catalogue online and there isn't a single wreath crown in there, that I can see?

The only real clue lies in the 1935 specimen crown issue I suppose. The proof quota having been reached the Royal Mint boxed "specimen strike" crown s to satisfy the demand. Taking that to it's logical conclusion coupled with the fact that all of the wreath crowns had strange mintage figures it is reasonable to assume that they were struck to order? A very reasonable assumption, especially when you look at how the mintage tailed off for the final 2 years of their production.

I think the ultra low mintage provides the answer to that - they wouldn't have gone to all that trouble and expense (paying designers, plus the cost of production) to mint so few for circulation. I did read somewhere (can't remember where exactly, now) that they were produced as 'Christmas gifts'. That being the case, I imagine they could well have been sold for higher than face value? One assumes that proof sets were always sold at a premium, so there was ample precedent for a profit from coins. I also read that the 1787 silver was issued to 'customers of the Bank', which is why so many survive in high grade, just like wreath crowns.

Indeed. That's why "the few" were minted in the first place. And such a beautiful coin too, rarely seen except by collectors.