Peckris

Me: "Have I failed to mistake you for someone who actually gives a damn?" CGS: "No"

I'm always in two minds about this one. It's such a micro variety that normally I wouldn't care. But on the other hand it's so rare, that if I was able to find one that hadn't been noticed, I would pounce!

Which is the "top" one - the one on the left, or the one on the right?

Yeah, and £25 seems to cheap for this error. CCGB gives the price as £450 but it doesn't say when or where it went for that. Why don't you email the forum owner as he's also the author of CCGB Yeah, but the post before yours says it was in CCGB "pre-Perkins'. Original post states its in CCGB 2011, so as i said, email the forum owner. What's the point? It was in CCGB pre-Perkins. There's every chance he doesn't know.

I'm telling on you!

Yeah, and £25 seems to cheap for this error. CCGB gives the price as £450 but it doesn't say when or where it went for that. Why don't you email the forum owner as he's also the author of CCGB Yeah, but the post before yours says it was in CCGB "pre-Perkins'.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker! Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic. My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know! My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..] It's not a very good pic to be honest, and it looks totally different in hand. The lustre is very different to normal ~ almost akin to having been polished, although not literally polished. I don't think it is a proof but I have wondered from time to time. The pic is from the Colin Cooke site dating from when I bought it, about July 2011 iirc, for £150 Holds up hands to shield eyes from all that Windows ugliness Nice penny though.

If it really looks like that, it's quite a mésalignement drastique. A photo would be great when your camera is working again (camera -> computer USB cable?)

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker! Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic. My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know! My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..]

I'm not sure about the toning but I'm very happy with the price!! :D The price is sheer BUNC ! I'm not sure about "The requested content cannot be loaded - please try again later" though.

A coin graded MS-63 has mint luster that may be slightly impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines maybe visible without magnification. Several detracting scuff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is about average, but overall the coin is rather attractive. Copper pieces may be darkened or dull. Color should be designated. Obviously, to NGC way of thinking, "mark" = "scratch", and as verdigris isn't even mentioned in the definition, we won't either!

It's subtle - but look at the rim, perfect and even, and the teeth and linear circle, ditto. It also has that 'chocolate brown' appearance that bronzed proofs so often have (and will have been there from the start, i.e. never lustred). The detail is crisp, though some currency UNCs will also be. I agree entirely with Peck's assessment. It's very similar to my own 1868 proof, which is in copper. I'd like the bronze one too, but the asking price is a bit steep... more like the price for something slabbed at PF65! Here's mine: Beautiful.

Yes. And how are the mighty fallen : sold for well over £9k by Colin Cooke in 2008, and only £4k in the London auction..

I hope CGS set a precedent for that, but I doubt if the American TPGs will take a blind bit of notice

That's why I moved quickly The seller deals more in antiques than coins, so quite conservative prices (just need to wait for it to arrive and look like its picture )

It's subtle - but look at the rim, perfect and even, and the teeth and linear circle, ditto. It also has that 'chocolate brown' appearance that bronzed proofs so often have (and will have been there from the start, i.e. never lustred). The detail is crisp, though some currency UNCs will also be.

I agree. While I don't have that date I would not be interested given the lack of quality. Which is why I was amazed at the price, a low-mid grade AND unattractive ... but as people have said, it only takes 2 keen bidders! - and having just checked, there were only 2 bidders from £60 up It's an ill wind... a link from that one led to someone selling a 1707 sixpence, all but VF, for a mere £78 and free postage - so I snapped it up

"You have the right to remain badly corroded, but any value you may have once had will be taken right down and used against you, as from earth you came and unto earth you shall return - rust to rust, gashes to gashes..."

Sounds lovely! I've had coins that are artificially bright and may well have been cleaned at some point, and banged them into my mahogany medals cabinet (like for coins but with no cut outs) - they can tone back quite quickly in there. For example my GEF 1844 halfcrown had some lovely gold toning on the reverse, but the obverse - especially the bust - looked unnaturally bright. Putting it in that cabinet has imparted some nice red toning to the obverse. AT? Not sure really, but I don't regret what I did.

More to the point, is the obverse / reverse die combination correct for London?

Or, when you get two determined bidders, they will hit a crazy price that won't be repeated for a long time...

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre. It could be that because many 1950 pennies circulated in the Caribbean for a while, the sea air got to them and gave them a tone quite quickly?

Only a small proportion of 1935s seem to have been treated but virtually the whole of 1934. 1934s are notoriously difficult to find in high grade, I suspect because the people who used to put a nice shiny penny away every year, just couldn't find one for 1934 and gave up in despair. The tone of these pennies is usually somewhat lighter and, in my opinion, not quite as attractive as the 1944-46 batch. The alternative explanation as to why the coins were mint toned was simply to prevent hoarding i.e. stopping the likes of you and me collecting the things. Don't forget this was in the middle of the great depression and any wastage of the circulating currency was a drain on the state, which it could ill afford. Judging by the dearth of high grade 1934s, it probably achieved its objective. But why only these two years? Why no halfpennies? Farthings? But why pennies? Surely that argument would apply more to small silver like silver threepences and sixpences? It also seems odd that they would seek to prevent hoarding of a low-mintage year like 1934 and then more or less give up during a high-mintage year like 1935. I wonder if it may be more to do with general experimentation on the bronze coinage, and pennies seemed to be the natural target for this - after all, there were the Lavrillier patterns of 1933, only the year before. It certainly warrants more research, that's for sure. Here's a 1934 on which the toning is even more obvious.

Indeed!

I do remember clear that I purchased the Prussian 20 Mark piece (the German equivalent to the Sovereign) for 75 Euro. And I clearly remember the price drop in the early 80ties. There is no free market, the Hunt brothers manipulated the prices for Bullion in the late 70ties/early 80ties. And the prices for bullion were manipulated afterwards as well (in the other direction as well). I am 40 years old now and I am sure that you are older and more experienced than I am. But still I believe that you can beat inflation by purchasing bullion. You have to continously buy that stuff for years/decades in order to equalise peaks and troughs (in that particular case most of them are market manipulations anyway)... Yes - it's possible to come out ahead of inflation if you invest FOR THE LONG TERM. That's with shares, anyway. Coins have been undervalued in relation to their 70s values if you take inflation into account, so maybe the market still has some room to grow. Eventually it will slow and maybe even stop, as it always seems to have in the past.