Peckris

And the rarer it is, the more... ...no, I must stop!

Just a guess, but every generation will have thought them very beautiful coins, so they probably got passed around and shown off a great deal.

It should say Ar or Arg for silver. I think it stands for Agent 999, who joined a hell of a lot later than James Bond The OP is correct. Ag (argentum) is the recognised symbol for the chemical element silver. I know that, but AFAIK the coin world has never used the chemical symbol for silver? Spink, for example, uses AR for silver. I'd never noticed that, probably because I don't generally collect silver coins! Better that AR incorrectly refers to silver than the chemically correct symbol for argon. You might find your investment disappears into thin air.

It's an interesting looking piece. Looks like it was buried in a high grade from what little I can see. The king's bust looks silver to me, but is that just the flash? Take a much larger picture, reduce its resolution to below 150k and re-post here, if you feel like it. It probably isn't worth much, but it could be an interesting curio.

How long have they been giving us a whole half second to click on their category banner on the right? At first I thought it was just my display flickering until I saw the headings were changing.

I concur. You have used a 5 where an s would have been more appropriate. This is a very helpful forum. Too fuc4ing right it is!!

Nice work!

It should say Ar or Arg for silver. I think it stands for Agent 999, who joined a hell of a lot later than James Bond The OP is correct. Ag (argentum) is the recognised symbol for the chemical element silver. I know that, but AFAIK the coin world has never used the chemical symbol for silver? Spink, for example, uses AR for silver.

It should say Ar or Arg for silver. I think it stands for Agent 999, who joined a hell of a lot later than James Bond

It MAY come down to the reasons why each was produced.(That's pure guesswork of course). But IF the 1839 was produced in the sure knowledge that a regular currency was following on, then you could argue for its non-pattern status, whereas if the 1805 was produced to 'test the water' so to speak, it may be justfiably viewed as a pattern. After all, the Vicky copper pennies were the same size, composition and identical reverses to those of the previous reign, but the 1805 was a new type that had never been seen before. But I agree, it's a hair splitting exercise and for collecting purposes there's no good reason to include the one and not the other.

Peckris has a Homer Simpson moment... "beer, mmmmmmmmmmmm"

Have a look here : http://www.delcampe.net/items?catLists%5B%5D=2886&language=E It seems that the legend "prueba trial essai probe" is common throughout Europe for such pieces. "Trial probe" is probably the literal translation of "Prueba essai" (what language? Italian? Esperanto?), but "prueba / probe" is probably intended to mean "proof". If you like the concept, it's a handsome piece and worth having, but don't pay too much for it. An entire set for Britain was listed at €79.

Providing one is honest about them, they are well worth a place in the collection as a "gap filler"

That looks to be post mint damage created by squeezing one coin against another so that it creates an impression of one on another Worth keeping as a curio, definitely.

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! Bear in mind that a few years ago, people were willing to pay a few hundred for a superbly done silver proof repro of a Gothic Crown. Maybe that is the future - affordable repros for those who can't afford originals? Better by far than fakes IMO. I wasn't aware that people were willing to pay such money for a repro. For me, the main attraction of coin collecting is the feeling of owning some history. I like admiring 19 century unc currency coins thinking how lucky they have been. A repro has little more attraction than a photo of a real coin as far as I am conerned! Modern fakes are of course revolting but contemporary fakes can potentially be interesting (not that I collect them). Just one question - how much would you run to for an expertly done 1933 penny? eBay seems to prove they fetch well into three figures.

Nice penny One day (sigh) one day This time next year... ...we'll be milly on airs, Rodney! You don't have any old pocket watches in your attic, by any chance?

Nice penny One day (sigh) one day This time next year...

Yes, I see all instances you mentioned.

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! Bear in mind that a few years ago, people were willing to pay a few hundred for a superbly done silver proof repro of a Gothic Crown. Maybe that is the future - affordable repros for those who can't afford originals? Better by far than fakes IMO.

Very true. And then you would discover that dipping CANNOT add metal!

This has great potential, with a good clean Yeah, that's REALLY going to help!

Ah, but that's where they were trying to eradicate a LOWER '1' - having an extra serif there would be mighty inconvenient. But a normal '2' over a normal '1' - they would both bottom out with a horizontal, right? So basically the 2 would cover up the 1 at that point.

Actually I only ever see two pages of topics in each forum, but as I'm on here just about every day, it doesn't really matter! Anyway, Welcome to the forums MRD. Let's hope for a good series (can't believe one of my compatriots is already falling for the "Aussies are rubbish" propaganda - weren't we all saying that in 1989??)

Ah, never used that method before Declan - I always tell by size No seriously, if it's only a picture I can usually tell from the portrait : the twopence has more head in proportion to bust than the penny.

I just WISH I could still use a camera in the fiddly way required to photograph coins. Unfortunately, the picture above is an original scan (modest size), brightened and then enlarged greatly in Photoshop. Not a recipe for a 'phwoar'!! I just wish you could see the coin as it really is I'm sure it's a great coin... but it's a twopence? Yes - you mean the OP coin isn't? I can usually tell, but that one's a bit worn!