Peckris

As a word of caution I can't help recalling that when I visited the corinium museum in Cirencester as a child they sold tons of replica roman coins, so could it be you have somehow acquired one of these replicas rather than a genuine one. Of course it could be a genuine one, in which case just ignore me, but I think it's worth bearing in mind. Wow, I lived in Ciren for a few years as an adolescent, AND I dug on the Roman excavations they held in the 70s. When were you there? It's very unlikely to be a replica, being so worn. Replicas are generally in reasonably high grade otherwise no-one would want them.

Yes, that's about how long you'd have to keep it before it was worth anything The good news is that you can replace both the Dove of Peace £2 and the Churchill Crown for not much more than face value. Victoria was crowned in 1838 after coming to the throne in 1837, so your feeling is quite correct, and she was indeed 19 at the time.

Really? Blimey, I look forward to that! Peter's being saying that for a while now. I'm not aware that Rob has ever confirmed or denied it. I know it's not relevant to the OP but the late great Colin Cooke was working on the farthing replacement for CW Peck before his sad demise.

I'd be very surprised - there's absolutely no love lost between the Japanese and the Chinese. Even more so than between the English and the Sco Welsh.

I hear you Geordie! I have a drawer full of the damn things, just because I picked them up cheap at auction. But apart from some of the piedfort £2, the 1983 piedfort silver £1, the first ten years of silver £1 proofs, and the 1996 decimal anniversary silver set, you can keep the rest of the ruddy things.

Das verletzt meine Seiten zu lachen! Ich liebe google Ãœbersetzer! and back.. It does hurt my sides laughing! I love Google Translator! Huh. Disappointingly consistent (The translation back was using Babylon not Google - using Google got exactly the same English unsurprisingly)

I admire your laudible target and your optimism, but unless you are prepared to dig deep suspect the wheels will come off the bus. You will struggle finding a Harthacnut, Harold II or a William II for under a thousand, not to mention the minor inconvenience of an Edward the Martyr - One type, always popular, portrait coin, always expensive. And the major inconvenience of an Edward VIII which I recommend you start saving for now. Thanks Rob I did check out the prices intially and some did make me twice! But if it never gets finished I don't mind, the goal and the hunt is what matters for the collection at the moment, and not buying coins just to fill a gap! Some compromises may have to be made (such as dropping to VF for the bun heads, but I actually prefer the pre 1895 pennies in VF I think its due to the history and that they were handled probably!) everything post 1895 is as close to Unc as I can afford apart from some of the scarcer coins I will settle for VF or F if needs be. As for the Edward VIII if had that money to throw about I would have a complete collection of every penny, mint etc plus a mansion, 20 odd cars................... etc. But if I ever saved that amount there is no way in hell I could convince SWMBO to buy a single coin for that amount (or her description "a piece of metal!!!! ). It will definitely prove interesting when I start with the more expensive hammered coins! Your bun policy is romantic and laudable in its own way. However, do be aware that if you are prepared to tolerate a variety of grades in your collection there is great scope for affordable completion. For example, buns from 1887 to 1893 are readily available in EF or better - with lustre - for very reasonable prices. Especially 1890-92 for some reason. F or GF could be reserved for difficult dates like 1864, 1869, 1871, 1865/3, 1875H, and then you could hover around the VF mark (+/-) for everything else. In fact, most dates can be picked up at good prices in GVF and you could even go EF+ for the common varieties of 1860-61, and 1862-63.

Six penn'orth, surely? Do I win the prize for being the first to state the bleedin' obvious?

Nice. Silver 1944-1946 is quite common in high grades as it was hoarded after cupro-nickel replaced silver in 1947. Having said that, it's still nice to get a BU example like yours, and if you are a type collector that's a gap filled. Very nice shilling.

I have the pdf from another, very friendly source. Please send me your email-address via IM, so I can provide you the pdf. Done - and I've received your pdf, many thanks. A slight confusion, as I thought you were talking about my missing 'Ron Stafford 10 pence survey' pdf. But it's worked out even better, as I still have the Coin Monthly with the 10 pence survey in, but I've never before seen the halfcrown survey which you've sent. So a good result!

What date is it, just for the record (and is it E or S?)

Once again... it is very usefull and not harmfull to have as much literature as possible And I will purchase the catalogue of davies by chance as well. By the way... I do have the pdf of the 1982 stafford paper. In case there is any interest let me know via IM please. And hopefully I will get some more papers dealing with coin varieties soon. I'm certainly interested, as I made the scans and uploaded the pdf, but it's sadly now disappeared off my computer.

Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ? I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins .... According to Wikipedia: "Subtractive notation was rarely used in Ancient Rome but became popular in the 13th century." Yes, the Middle Ages was the period I had down. Though IIII was certainly IV when clocks became popular from the 17thC - so why clock makers preferred IIII is anyone's guess. There are a number of suggestions here as to why clockmakers may have preferred IIII. Interesting article -- I rather like the 'single mould' theory myself, giving the symbol I for use all through, the symbol V only in the second third, and the symbol X only in the last third.

Well... I do not own books written by Davis or Groom yet, but no doubt that I will purchase them as I have the chance and the money to do so. The accumulation of citations and literature about coins is as important as collecting the coins themselves. It is not a shame to have the same information published by different authors. They might have different details on a subject analyzed. Sorry... therefore i do not really understand your criticism... Criticism? No, I just mean that Davis (who was published around the same time as Ron's survey) is very thorough, and for 20thC there's nothing so far to beat Dave's book, which is very recent and contains varieties previously unpublished. So kudos to Ron but I doubt he has much that's new.

Not cleaned I think. It's a classic G6 UNC piece of silver.

Didn't they? That's interesting. So 9 would be VIIII then ? I didn't know that either, when did it come in, anyone know? William IV is IIII on his coins .... According to Wikipedia: "Subtractive notation was rarely used in Ancient Rome but became popular in the 13th century." Yes, the Middle Ages was the period I had down. Though IIII was certainly IV when clocks became popular from the 17thC - so why clock makers preferred IIII is anyone's guess.

You might find that all his halfcrown varieties are adequately covered by Davis and Groom respectively. Those that aren't, you'd have to question their viability as varieties.

It grades at Fair/Fine so I'd say £13 was probably about right. Quick Guide to Roman numerals: 19th Century dates all start MDCCC (M 1000 + D 500 + CCC 300) X = 10, so MDCCCX = 1810, MDCCCXX = 1820, MDCCCXXX = 1830 L = 50, so MDCCCXL = 1840, MDCCCL = 1850, MDCCCLX = 1860, MDCCCLXX = 1870, MDCCCLXXX = 1880 I II III = 1 2 3, so MDCCCLXXXI = 1881 (etc) IV V VI VII VIII = 4 5 6 7 8, so MDCCCLXXXIV = 1884 (etc) IX = 9, so MDCCCLXXXIX = 1889 (though there were no Gothic coins by then, so you won't see that one! But it gives an idea of how unwieldy Roman numerals could get) It's also worth mentioning that Romans didn't use the 'subtraction rule' (where V is 5 but 1 less is IV and 1 more is VI; same with IX X XI, XL L LX, XC C CX, etc), so their numbers would have been very long!)

Welcome to the forums atscaper

Sorry to be a cynic, but it looks too good to be true. Especially the fact it's on eBay - with a coin like that, why not sell through Baldwins or Spink?

Hopefully. You might want to pick it up before Peter pilfers it from the delivery office to replace one of his lost'uns. I've got enough Spinks (and Seabys) that I don't need a ladder to clean the upstairs windows. Bill Gates 'cleaning Windows' was definitely one of the better Apple screensavers

16thC? You'd have thought his wife would have asked for Elizabeth coins! But maybe her grasp on history isn't too great..

AFAIK there aren't many banknote collectors on here. Your example is of a very modern type and therefore of little historical interest, but the 'badly cut' nature would be of interest to a collector of such things, I'm sure. You'd be better finding a dedicated banknote forum, perhaps?

Thanks Steve, Well thats the bulk collection of pennies I had well and truly sorted now! No other varieties to be had, just one question, why the hell do I keep looking? :P Regards Why is the sun hot? Water wet? The Pope a Catholic? Do you not watch "The Borgias" Peck? There's another series? I remember one from the early 80s that turned up - via Frank Muir - on TV Hell in the 90s.

And equally can't spell - note "luster" for "lustre" Blimey, even at the quoted 'aUNC' his asking price is a tad on the high side! In some parts of the world -- that is the correct spelling Not in Dundee, it isn't