Peckris

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there? I'd not heard it described as a deliberate mark? Freeman says it "occurs as a result of damage to the the die". If it was deliberate then, to me, it's collectible but, as Rob says, if its an unintended die flaw, it's not. The other school of thought (sorry, can't quote chapter and verse here) says that the dot is too perfect and round to be accidental. Considering all the activity surrounding the bronze coinage in that year (treating farthings to a dark finish, and all the 'high tide' varieties), it may well be that the Mint decided on a die identification mark. It's only a theory, but you must admit that the dot looks far too even to be a die flaw? Surely, if it was intentional, the mark would have been placed in a more subtle location, perhaps around Britannia? The dot does seem regular though, which suggests the use (accidental or otherwise) of a punch. Alternatively, I was trying to imagine whether the it could be part of a die repair, perhaps a recessed pin, but this seems unlikely. That would still be human agency, even if accidental. Somehow we seem to generally prefer marks which have been caused by people, rather than misstrikes.

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there? I'd not heard it described as a deliberate mark? Freeman says it "occurs as a result of damage to the the die". If it was deliberate then, to me, it's collectible but, as Rob says, if its an unintended die flaw, it's not. The other school of thought (sorry, can't quote chapter and verse here) says that the dot is too perfect and round to be accidental. Considering all the activity surrounding the bronze coinage in that year (treating farthings to a dark finish, and all the 'high tide' varieties), it may well be that the Mint decided on a die identification mark. It's only a theory, but you must admit that the dot looks far too even to be a die flaw?

Might be your best option, there are US collectors A revolution, napoleonic wars, franco-prussian war, WW1, WW2 - hard times - most will have ended in the melting pot, as I said above there are lots of coins where no or very few examples are known, new discoveries frequently appear in CGB's Numismatic bulletin Mint records in france are often unreliable, so all mintages should be taken with the proverbial pinch of salt Droulers gives far more useful info than Gadoury in my opinion, but horses for courses French collectors are different, die varieties are nowhere near as popular as here in the UK Vive la différence!

As a newbie, you ought to be aware that we have a professional pessimist in our midst, who will rubbish every coin you own and value it at 99p But we wouldn't trade him and his stories of Mrs Peter and daughters, for the world

You had an UNC 1903 HALFCROWN which you UPGRADED ??????????

Considering that the 'dot' is supposed to have been a deliberate mark rather than a die flaw, the "lighter thinner" variant must be a gradual infilling of the die, i.e. in an older state. I'm afraid I can't see the third dot at all (with the die crack) - how do you know it is there?

No, but it might give your insurers a headache

I'd buy Findus burgers but they give me the trots.

You'd be singing a different song if they were Arbroath shirts Dave

I use wooden cocktail sticks to dig them out. Mine sits in a square 2x2 cutout somewhere. I haven't seen it for quite a while. The only 'coin' I own which doesn't fit in a cutout is one of those macabre, iron Lusitania commemorative medals. We must all have one of those somewhere! One occasion when a square hole beats a round one! My Peter Nicholls has a small hole drilled in the centre of the tight fitting holes so you can push something like a cocktail stick up from underneath to lift the coin out. True, but I seem to remember the hole is so tiny a cocktail stick wouldn't even fit. And somehow, when I go visiting my collection I never seem to remember to take one with me!

I agree with you David. Baldwins have a full lustre example in their Winter Fixed Price list for a hefty £1,750. Mine has a the remnants of lustre: Beautiful - that's the best I've seen. I dare not ask how much you paid! I paid £420 about 3 years ago. I know that a significantly better one would be over £1k now. I just checked Baldwin's website and note that their 1897 High Tide is no longer listed, which suggests it sold for around the £1,750 asking! That would have to have lots of lustre IMO. Anyway, I really like the toning on yours.

Yes, absolutely. It was the tendency towards overpricing the modern coins which, in retrospect, seems a bit odd. But, like so many things of any given era, it was probably totally the right thing at the time, or seemed so. What is obvious is that huge quantities of circulated coins were being taken out of circulation and offered by dealers at enhanced prices. Another noticeable trend was the one of offering for sale, tubes or mint bags of uncirculated modern coins. I wonder if psychologically, the effect of seeing uncirculated items which were theroretically still available from circulating coins, but in practice almost impossible to find, lent them the cache they needed, pre decimalisation, to cause an unrealistic explosion in prices. Just a thought. I did notice a BU 1918KN which was being offered at £150 (just over £2000 today), and indeed, £2000 might well be what it would change hands for now. Possibly more. Those issues of Coin Monthly are just packed with ads from dealers offering quantities (sometimes quite large!) of 1960s coins in BU for a premium over face - the premium increasing year on year as you went back. Noticeably it dried up once you got back to the 1950s, with a few exceptions like 1959 sixpences, 1957/1959E shillings, 1958/1959 halfpennies, stuff like that. There must be two of those ads for every one offering 'proper' coins. It is certainly the people who 'invested' in such things, or in buying up low grade 'key dates', who got burned the worst.

Sometimes I can upgrade and have no regrets, but I will look at the coin it replaces and think "Hey, I still like it" and then it goes into what Declan calls a B collection (though it's not organised as such!). I remember when I got my first BU Eddy penny in the 70s (yeah yeah 1902) it replaced one that was dark in colour and AEF. But somehow, the older one begged to be kept, and being dark with a little rubbing wear to highlight the hair details, it was easier to see the hair details than on the BU specimen. Weird I know, but there you go.

Mine fits as snug as it can be into a cut out in a tray in one of Peter Nicholls' mahogany cabinets ... which is fine until you want to see the other side, then it's an absolute B to get out of its little "prison".

I agree with you David. Baldwins have a full lustre example in their Winter Fixed Price list for a hefty £1,750. Mine has a the remnants of lustre: Beautiful - that's the best I've seen. I dare not ask how much you paid!

Yeah. Never mind buying coins to slab and sell in the US ... we should be building a time machine, going back and buying up everything at 1960's prices! But nothing post-1936 Maybe we should think about selling some items at 1969 prices !!! I can't believe some of the prices back then. For instance, in November 1969, "Earl of Tooting" were asking £60-0-0 for an UNC 1925 shilling, and £25-0-0 a piece for uncirculated 1930 & 1934 shillings. Manor Antiques wanted £8-0-0 for a BU 1958 threepence, "City Coins" were asking £24-0-0 for a GVF 1949 threepence. "Joan E Allen & Company" were asking £48-0-0 for a BU1932 penny. Given that the average weekly wage back then was £26-0-0 it's no wonder the average punter would have been priced out of many good purchases. I know - the ultimate silliness in my book was from a 1970 price guide, where a BU 1932 penny was valued at £50, while a BU 1797 twopence was valued at a mere £35! Two weeks' wages for the 1932!! £50 then adjusted for inflation, would be £683.50 now ~ for a BU 1932 penny !!! Some people must actually have paid those amounts, and sustained a significant loss on their investment subsequently. Even if collected as a hobby for keeps, there'd still be the gnawing feeling that if they'd waited, they'd have got the item/s massively cheaper. inflation calculator edit: at 2010 prices I suppose the fever was so strong that no-one predicted that the end of predecimal coinage would actually have the opposite effect on prices. But it's also true to say that pre-1887 stuff was at least as undervalued as some modern stuff was overvalued. But it didn't all come out in the wash until the mid-70s. I think dealers must have suffered the worst in the lead-up to 1971. Yet those who concentrated on the 'average punter' like R&L, the Beaumonts, Peter Ireland, etc, seemed to survive for a good few years unlike the serial overpricers such as Mayfair and Joan E Allen etc.

Which is why, as a very junior employee in that era, I stopped collecting coins once predecimal stuff couldn't be got from circulation, just too expensive for me then - and that was before mortgage and kids I was fresh out of school - even more poverty-stricken than a guy with a mortgage and kids

Exellent! Thankyou very much for providing that information davidrj. Thats great news and a big help. (how does the saying go? buy the book nefore the coin) Louis seems quite character! Just like all 16th Kings i suppose, Looks like he was busy fighting in 1693 in Belgium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France I emailed the editor, and some other specialist in France. I'll post the response here. Many thanks. #walks towards the door and slowly turns one other question! #the assembly gasps in the listing provided by davidrj it states "36.384 rf" "rf" = refrappe (restrike on earlier issue) does my example show evidence of this?? :unsure: C'est possible, peut-être? Mais il n'est pas très clair, à mes yeux!

Yeah. Never mind buying coins to slab and sell in the US ... we should be building a time machine, going back and buying up everything at 1960's prices! But nothing post-1936 Maybe we should think about selling some items at 1969 prices !!! I can't believe some of the prices back then. For instance, in November 1969, "Earl of Tooting" were asking £60-0-0 for an UNC 1925 shilling, and £25-0-0 a piece for uncirculated 1930 & 1934 shillings. Manor Antiques wanted £8-0-0 for a BU 1958 threepence, "City Coins" were asking £24-0-0 for a GVF 1949 threepence. "Joan E Allen & Company" were asking £48-0-0 for a BU1932 penny. Given that the average weekly wage back then was £26-0-0 it's no wonder the average punter would have been priced out of many good purchases. I know - the ultimate silliness in my book was from a 1970 price guide, where a BU 1932 penny was valued at £50, while a BU 1797 twopence was valued at a mere £35! Two weeks' wages for the 1932!!

Certainly fits the picture of S1699 in Spink.

That would be a clincher You could have said, though...

I wonder how you're sure about that - considering their UK portraits are almost identical?

Sorry, photos only! And scans?

Don't know ~ could be, but need a better pic. Agreed

The Royal Mint's currency striking standards have slipped appallingly in recent years - there are any number of errors, often 'blobs' of metal appearing somewhere on the design. Some people do collect these, but IMO they crop up too often to be of any real value, compared to the rarity of such phenomena predecimal (e.g. the 1946 'die flaw' penny).