Peckris

'Private' on image hosting sites means that observers who scour the 'latest postings' on the site will not see yours, and nor will they gain access to your albums without a password. However, once you use a 'sharing' URL for an image, as people do here for example, that gives people who use that forum, read-only access to the image in question. Otherwise, it's still private to the world at large.

I'm not sure that there are many, this is the most well known catalogue for that era but I expect you already know of it! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stanley-Gibbons-Britain-Specialised-Catalogues/dp/0852598165/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366580592&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Collectors%27+Stamps%3A+Queen+Victoria+and+Edward+VII+1837-1910+by+R.J.+Marles Stanley Gibbons comes up on that link, with the keywords you've quoted crossed through, as if it's 'unknown' on eBay? Yet interestingly, RJ Marles was the guy behind the original Check Your Change and Collectors Coins series - i.e., the owner of Rotographic before Chris took over. He obviously had fingers in more than one pie! I wonder how many other collector areas he published for? Toys? Books? Diecast models? Dolls? Plates?

Not quite sure what you mean but there were two distinct reverses used on pennies during the period 1874-9 known as 'narrow' and 'wide' dates. This is simply a shorthand for a whole host of differences including the 'narrow date' penny having a tall thin lighthouse, whereas the 'wide' version had a short fat lighthouse; Britannia looks quite emaciated in the narrow date etc. Without going into too much detail, the 'narrow date' is rare for 1879, ludicrously rare for 1877 and non-existent for 1878. Generally speaking, most designs will show variations in date width, as the last and sometimes the last but one digit are punched in on already prepared dies but in this case, the whole reverse is rather different. Your best chance of seeing an example of each is 1875, where both types are fairly common.

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator. That's interesting - when I was a schoolboy collector, I noticed the 'recessed ear' examples (without yet knowing that's what they were called), but only recently learned of the broken tooth feature. They were quite distinctive, but perhaps more so when fairly worn? Maybe they are harder to spot when EF - UNC.

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices. This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself. If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not? I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation.

You're quite right, Gary: 1915 top, 1916 below.... So how did one die make so many coins? Alternative theory : The 1915 attempt to deliberately 'mark' the die was only partly successful, and Mint employees had a hard job spotting them. So in 1916 they made a better effort at it. The point is, 1) are there any intermediate stages? and 2) Declan's question - how did one die get used on so many coins? It also goes without saying that there WAS a definite and deliberate change to the obverse die, which resulted in a much better reverse strike on those pennies, as Steve's pictures show. Having the broken tooth present on ALL those obverse dies on not anywhere else, seems stretching coincidence a bit too far.

It's actually a halfcrown, but did it really come from a river? That's amazing.

which also suggests a single die variety..? Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die? On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable? That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one) Numbers: 1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do 1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then. It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate. Wouldn't it be more logical to 'add' a mark to the dies to identify them, like a hairline or something, which would appear raised on the coin? Breaking a tooth would actually mean blocking the tooth on the die wouldn't it? I of course have not actually looked to see how the broken tooth appears on these coins, but will tomorrow! We call it a 'broken' tooth, but it's actually more like a half tooth, and something that could be done quite deliberately I would have thought, as it would be undetectable to ordinary users, while collectors of the time didn't even bother with much of anything after 1816. But even they did, few would have looked closely at a new currency issue, as 20th Century coins just weren't of any interest at all pre-WW2.

which also suggests a single die variety..? Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die? On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

Yer i like them but they are going to be my only ones for now as i dont have a clue about roman coins, i just thought i could'nt go wrong for 99p each. Very good value! Surprisingly they would only value between £10 - £20 each, but it's still exceptional what you paid

Thanks its one of my best i think, prob paid alittle to much for it at £24 but im happy to own it. I'm away without the bible to guide me, but I'd feel pretty happy shelling out £24 for ANY top-grade E7 (poor old farthing excluded...though even they must come close in my mind, if you really want the Uncs!)! I like it, nice addition! Ye thinking about £24 pound is not to bad for that coin what grade do you think so i can check in the coinsgb book for a value There's no detectable wear apart from a very slight rubbing on Britannia's thigh. It hasn't got full lustre so I'd venture a grade of AUNC. £24 is good value even for a 1902.

I think Freeman mentions them, just doesn't give them a number - a bit like Pecks treatment of the Bird's Foot. Only AnorakMan can save us now... I don't know. As Declan says, there's a reference in Freeman, but it's been a talking point in the magazines and among collectors for decades, so I'm not sure what counts as "official". DaveG may have been the first to point out the 'broken tooth' that accompanies it though?

I was just once asked to do one. £1200 at 2000 values, including a few pieces of gold, and a few nice silver pieces (1903 florin GEF e.g.). An awful lot of scrap silver, Vicky crowns and halfcrowns mostly. It took me two hours and I asked for and got, an 1834 halfcrown F+ as payment. The few nice pieces made it worth doing, as bulking up the scrap was a bit soul-destroying.

Those look fairly standard 4th Century small bronzes (AE3 / AE4 ?) - I think the first is Constantine, and the second one (it's a bit blurred) could be Constantius. They aren't rare, but the two you have are in a nice state of preservation, and a great bit of history to have.

Nice example

Name your price! Here's my 1964 sixpence... That well-known variety "I in GRATIA missing" (still trying to get it accepted as a variety - I live in hope)

I think I was more chuffed they had actually listened to me, than annoyed that they had made an error Does anyone know off the top of their head what our DG added to the Freeman and Davies catalogue? Just out of interest, Steve, do you also draw the line at the F numbers, or do you fish out the extra Gouby's and Groom's? 1959 1/S 1944 1d 1918 farthings 1915/16 recessed ears 1912 halfpennies 1911 6d 1911 1d 1911 halfpennies 1911 farthings 1906 1/- 1904 1/- 1903 1/- off the top of my head (kinda). Sorry if I missed any, Dave! Declan's actually wrong about the 1915/16 recessed ear varieties - they have been known about, noted and collected as long as I have been, which is more years than I care to admit!

Grading Coins, Davies, ESC & Groom if you are looking at silver/CuNi only. Do you think ESC has anything to add to Davies in the 20thC? I haven't been won over by the micro-stuff (yet), but always take a quick scan through Groom to make sure I'm not giving any micro-rarities away, as we all know there are collectors out there looking for them! No, nothing, but if you collect anything before 1816 there isn't an alternative. I presume Groom is a book? Can somebody please let me know the full title as i liked to have as much reference material as possible. I think i must have spent £300 to £400 on books and magazines in the last twelve months. If you had a wish list of books that are a must to own, what would they be? Dave Groom is member of this forum (DaveG) and published two useful books on the 20th Century varieties in silver (etc) and bronze. If you PM him I'm sure he will supply you with copies at a very reasonable fee. As for wish list, it all depends where your interest lies. Gouby, Freeman, Peck, Davies, ESC .. these are all "must"s if you want to specialise in the particular area they cover. Then there's tokens, hammered, ancient - each has their specialist publication, but you don't need them all. Being new to coin collecting i like to read as much as possible so that i can soak up as much information as possible. I will buy these books. Thanks John They will set you back a bit ... a lot ... so my advice would be to consult your nearest big city library, which usually has a reference copy of Peck, and often of Freeman and ESC too. Then when you've narrowed down your specialty you could splash out on the relevant tome.

If it's in Spinks then you should be ok, but Spink don't always feature micro-varieties - my guess is that if it's not in Spink, you might be out of luck as far as insurance goes.

You can take a picture of them with your iPad's camera, then follow the upload guidelines that are a 'Sticky' topic in the Beginners forum.

See YOU Jimmy

Wow, this begs SO many questions! 3. Do publications create variety hunters on their own? Yes, this is kind of what I'm driving at, but more succinctly put by you, do publications create the variety hunter? If they do then, for the 20thC, there would only be a number less than the number of books Dave has sold, at least for the extra varieties he has identified, presumeably? I guess micro-variety could be defined as anything that sets it aside from its primary classification though, as you say, it's a very wooly boundary? From a collecting point of view, I'm thinking a variety collector would feed from a book, say Davies, and then expand on that further with the extra Groom's, and if a further catalogue arrives with even greater reduction, then I'm sure someone will collect them too, as a completist? Something I've noticed, which is quite bizarre, is that an unrecorded variety attracts considerably less attention than a catalogued one, even though you might speculate that the unrecorded is potentially rarer! You think? I wonder. 'Notoriety' (i.e. publication) breeds a reputation, based on which collectors emerge, hungry for that variety. Whereas the unrecorded variety is - almost by definition - not so well known and therefore there would be fewer collectors for it.

I have never dissolved a single coin in acid, so I have no personal empirical experience to give you a supremely irrefutable proof. However, I've seen enough alleged acid-damaged coins to now feel competent to express the opinion that IF all those separate and independent acid-damaged coins actually WERE damaged by acid (the lack of empirical proof notwithstanding), then yours falls into the same category. Verum esse ipsum factum.

They don't crop up very often, and then only in grades from Fair up to GF. If you found a Fair example for £50 you'd be doing well, but try to avoid paying much over £99. As for F or better examples, those go for far more - you're looking at a couple of hundred minimum, maybe £300 or thereabouts. Bottom line - they go for what someone is prepared to pay.

Grading Coins, Davies, ESC & Groom if you are looking at silver/CuNi only. Do you think ESC has anything to add to Davies in the 20thC? I haven't been won over by the micro-stuff (yet), but always take a quick scan through Groom to make sure I'm not giving any micro-rarities away, as we all know there are collectors out there looking for them! No, nothing, but if you collect anything before 1816 there isn't an alternative. I presume Groom is a book? Can somebody please let me know the full title as i liked to have as much reference material as possible. I think i must have spent £300 to £400 on books and magazines in the last twelve months. If you had a wish list of books that are a must to own, what would they be? Dave Groom is member of this forum (DaveG) and published two useful books on the 20th Century varieties in silver (etc) and bronze. If you PM him I'm sure he will supply you with copies at a very reasonable fee. As for wish list, it all depends where your interest lies. Gouby, Freeman, Peck, Davies, ESC .. these are all "must"s if you want to specialise in the particular area they cover. Then there's tokens, hammered, ancient - each has their specialist publication, but you don't need them all.