Peckris

You got there in the end - remember to scan or photograph at the highest resolution possible, then crop (and if necessary rotate) the image so just the coin shows. Free software - e.g. Apple's Preview supplied as standard with Macs, or Microsoft's Paint (if still supplied with Windows) - will do that kind of basic stuff.

No, he was a film reviewer on the BBC who used to present the "Film --" series.

Pictures missing

How would you tell? It's a proof, full stop.

A toothed reverse on a 1953 penny is very rare, and is the only way to distinguish a VIP coin from a normal proof. The other coins in the set may well be "VIP" too but there is probably no way to distinguish them from normal proofs. As Rob says, the only sure way to know a VIP is if it's a coin not issued as a 'normal proof' (i.e. dates after 1953).

The last few years' currency coins were all struck dated 1967. The first 10p and 5p coins were dated 1968, then annually thereafter. The first 50p was 1969 (massive issue) and a much smaller issue in 1970. The bronze decimals only became legal tender in 1971 (massive issues). The Mint struck the 1970 proofs from ?1972 onwards. They must have agonised over the date to use. 1967? Too many currency coins with that date. 1968 or 1969? Possible, but they eventually settled on 1970, being the last year before decimalisation. They are the only proofs of the post-1953 predecimal coins (if you discount the various very rare VIP proofs).

Proof sets were OFFICIALLY frosted from 1980/81 onwards. Before then, the subject is very hazy : some coins in some sets between 1937 and 1970 may have some frosting (generally lighter than official frosting) while some won't have any. Your two sets are genuine proofs, but are quite hard to distinguish from the non-proof BU specimen sets sold from 1982 onwards. That mirror finish can even be seen on some decimal currency coins of the 70s.

My guess is that it's a counter that's been sawn in half. The obverse looks convincing, but not quite right? The rim is thick and the teeth are long. Mind you, there's nothing to say it isn't a uniface pattern, though why that date? Here's a Google image of the genuine article to compare side by side.

I don't know if this was part of the same catalogue? I got it simply because I like the design and it's a good reproduction of a pattern piece.

Mine is definitely UNC but with rather dark and subdued lustre. I wouldn't want one with part lustre?

If Upinsmoke doesn't take that, I'll have it!

I'd grade it VF at least, but not much more. The shield is complete and Britannia's upper is a notorious weak strike on that 1913-26 reverse; also, the 1926ME is a mule and the reverse is probably left-over 1922s recut.

I wouldn't say £65 was too much for an all-but-Unc 52 6d. But it's worth paying for those elusive gaps anyway - I paid getting on for £40 (the most I've spent on the series) for a BU 1948 brass 3d, as the lack of a good one was annoying me for years.

Ye gods. It's about a quarter grade better than mine.

The colon after GRA: was the clincher for me when I was learning.

Great 1952 there. I remember a lot at Warwick of Unc 6ds 1937-1967 including the 1952. There didn't appear to be much interest strangely, and I picked up the whole shebang for £47. How much was yours if you don't mind me asking?

Agreed. He identified mine as a pattern (on the left below - note the position of the '7' and the first 8 struck over a higher 8). A very small variation but typical of the year, which is probably why so many have gone undetected.

£1250?? It's a small tad better than mine.. from what I can actually see. I class mine as VF and bought it from Colin Cooke for less than £50 (mind you, that was about 20 years ago!)

I believe that HAS been darkened? Seen extensively in the obverse legend and less obviously in the reverse teeth.

Unfortunately that's part of their DNA.

Ah, it's one of the modern Chinese MGs! I don't class them as 'real' MGs...

A couple of quite extraordinary eBay results there : someone paid £5.99 for a 1971 1p? I've a fortune in my attic, then. And a circulated 1983 2p error only made £25 despite the wear? I'd bet that if more people had spotted that, it would have gone for a lot more.

True! In the meantime I'd found probably 3 1946 ONE' flaws, with virtually no excitement whatever - yet Gouby rates them rarer than the 26ME.. (Mind you, they weren't listed anywhere except Peck as a footnote; certainly not in Seaby's.)