Peckris

In a word - yes. Must be your phone or whatever. On my monitor I can see quite clearly the eyebrow, eye complete with pupil, nose and nostril, and lips, all well defined. And that's from a small picture.

Are we talking pennies here? The 1876H is commonly the narrow date variety, whereas the wide date is quite rare.

Apart from being - thankfully - a football-free zone, what on earth are the sports featured at 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock? Gymnastics and tykandwo The noble Yorkshire art of not buying a round?

I hope you find someone who would go out and sit with you and have a look through (I'm nowhere near). Unfortunately, my spirits sank when I read "sitting in bags". Why? That's the nature of a typical accumulation rather than collection, the kind of thing I used to wade through attending auctions as a dealer, in the usually vain hope of finding something worthwhile. True collections are found in albums or trays or even cabinets, not in loose bags. I do hope I'm wrong, but I doubt there is going to be much there. Base your hopes on that, then anything good will come as a pleasant surprise. But please, don't count on it. As a rough guide, silver and gold have a bullion value and can be sold accordingly. British silver coins before 1920 are sterling silver, before 1947 have 50% silver, from 1947 have no silver at all.

GVF Yes I agree with GVF. Superb detail.

Yes, that appears to be around EF grade, much better than your first picture, though still a little on the dark side. ("Luke...hsssssss hhhhhhssssss....I am your father, Luke...hhhhssssss"). From what I can see, the darkening looks very similar to that handed out to farthings between 1897 and 1917. That was done at the Mint using a bath of photographer's 'hypo'. As to your coin, either this was darkened in error at the Mint, or someone took a coin barely circulated and subjected it to the same treatment, post-Mint. That would be my theory anyway. It has the giveaway 'blue' tinge that hypo-treated coins have. I can't comment on the lightness, but do bear in mind that all coins have an upper and lower range within which their weight can fall. I really don't know if yours falls within that band or not. Someone with greater knowledge will comment on that.

Apart from being - thankfully - a football-free zone, what on earth are the sports featured at 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock?

No, that's not fair. It's not 'slacker', it's just different. In other words their EF is lower than ours, but is consistently lower, same with AUNC, and so on. Their grading is as consistent as ours (should be), but their grades don't exactly match ours. Just saying..

Yes, this is where Peck is so valuable as his coverage of the Soho Mint and all the Taylor restrikes, is unsurpassed. Though "C W Rob" is our home grown expert on all this. The Taylor story is fascinating, as he inherited the Soho dies/punches with varying degrees of damage and rusting, some of which he repaired himself, and some which he used complete with rust spots etc. He also paired obverse and reverse dies together which had never been paired at Soho so those are easy to identify. And of course he was quite free to do all this as the Soho currency was no longer legal tender.

That would seem to be a (small) consensus then - in favour of the 1850/49. It's very hard to tell, but a 50 over 49 makes much more logical and business sense than 50 over 46. That's my (our) four penn'orth anyway.

It's an "erb".mannnn. If you like Oriental/Asian food you've had some. Please see the following new topic. We magnified and posted two good pics on the post and also provided a link to photobucket with 21 pictures!: 1850 /46 Victoria Shilling Part 2 Follow-Up PICS Follow-Up To First Post--With Pics and/or http://photobucket.com/185046_USBmagnifier I had a good long look at the largest 'blow up' (of the 50). The 5 is indisputably cut over a 4, but the 0 is a puzzle. It seems rather 'heavy' on its left hand side, as if it was compensating for something underlying on that side. That would make more sense if it was a 9, as extra work would be more needed on the left, whereas a 6 would need more work on the right hand side. But that's mere speculation - it doesn't appear at all easy to tell what the underlying digit is. I don't suppose you have a good blow up of a known 1850/49 to compare it with? I sure wish that we could find a known 1850/49 or even an 1850/46 to compare it to! Based on your input, we did compare it to an 18x6 and an 18x9 to compare the 6 and the 9. Our thought (and possibly the graders?) were along the same as yours. What are your thoughts on this: the heavy, ''thick/wider'' left side would indicate an underlying 6 rather than a 9?? When looking at the two numbers on the "control" coins and their shapes, a 6 would go along the entire left side, causing a thicker left side from top to bottom. And a 6 would really not thicken the right side per se, due to its shape and also the bottom of the six is about the same "width/shape" as the bottom of a zero. Whereas the 9 would do basically the opposite: thicker right and partial thickness on left??????? What do you think?? Looking forward to your reply! Thanks!!! Have a look here : http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/webcatalogue/131/L1743r.jpg That shows that the left hand side of the 6 on an 1846 shilling is virtually completely usable as the left hand side of a 0, with no further alteration needed. But the right hand side would need quite a bit of work. I would guess the reverse is true for a 9? The intriguing thing about your close-up shot, is that there appears to be a ghost in the middle of the 0, showing faint lines that correspond not only to the bottom of the loop of a 9, but also the top of the loop of a 6 ! I'd say the jury is still out...

It's an "erb".mannnn. If you like Oriental/Asian food you've had some. Please see the following new topic. We magnified and posted two good pics on the post and also provided a link to photobucket with 21 pictures!: 1850 /46 Victoria Shilling Part 2 Follow-Up PICS Follow-Up To First Post--With Pics and/or http://photobucket.com/185046_USBmagnifier I had a good long look at the largest 'blow up' (of the 50). The 5 is indisputably cut over a 4, but the 0 is a puzzle. It seems rather 'heavy' on its left hand side, as if it was compensating for something underlying on that side. That would make more sense if it was a 9, as extra work would be more needed on the left, whereas a 6 would need more work on the right hand side. But that's mere speculation - it doesn't appear at all easy to tell what the underlying digit is. I don't suppose you have a good blow up of a known 1850/49 to compare it with?

There was a very High Grade Florin posted by palves and was fiound to be fake. There was also a dot underneath the I of BRIT But if the dot was a genuine die flaw, wouldn't that too get reproduced on the fake? Maybe the only coins containing the dots are known fakes, but it would only take one genuine coin with dots, to disprove the theory.

Hi, your penny is the normal issue variety. Not worth very much in that condition, but thank you for posting it - it's always worthwhile checking just in case.

Oh yes, I see it - tiny, right? There appears to be two in fact. There again, it/they could be anything - a minute die flaw for example.

I'm unsure. I can't speak for the florin; the William isn't exactly top grade, but may have been dipped. As for the Anne shilling, mine is even better, but was bought in the 90s before the Chinese invasion. For some reason that particular Anne quite often turns up in virtually UNC condition (and is rated accordingly in ESC and Cope & Rayner.) So they may all be genuine. I can't see any spot beneath the 'i' of brit.

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II? I've messaged him: "INTERESTING COIN DATED 1562 - WHAT IS IT?" - it's a replica coin, composition uncertain, but the thickness tells me it may be lead or pewter. I used to be a dealer and was taken in by one of these in the early days, and had to refund the sale price to the buyer. Since then I've become expert at spotting them. Yours is almost identical to the item I had. I'd recommend you either withdraw the item and relist it, or amend the description to reflect the fact it's a replica. Hopefully he will take the hint, but don't hold your breath... I'm turning blue already, Peck! We should definately have a dedicated thread for OBVIOUS ebay fakes, which has all members emailing simultanteously! From a specially dedicated ebay account, goes without saying of course! I think the fake-meisters would soon tire of it! I actually got a polite, but rather incoherent reply, to the effect it was too late to change the listing with only 12 hours to go!!!

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II? I've messaged him: "INTERESTING COIN DATED 1562 - WHAT IS IT?" - it's a replica coin, composition uncertain, but the thickness tells me it may be lead or pewter. I used to be a dealer and was taken in by one of these in the early days, and had to refund the sale price to the buyer. Since then I've become expert at spotting them. Yours is almost identical to the item I had. I'd recommend you either withdraw the item and relist it, or amend the description to reflect the fact it's a replica. Hopefully he will take the hint, but don't hold your breath...

The penny would be one of Peck proofs KP14 through KP20. It's all down to the number of leaves and berries, gunports on the ship, the nature of the K . : , olive branch leaves, waves, etc. Most of those include a bronzed variety, ranging from S to VR. If you don't have access to Peck, I can summarise each KP for you. The farthing looks a little less convincing, but it may just be the photo. If a genuine proof, it would be KF6 through KF10, which have minor differences, mostly the dot on the lowest fold of drapery, and die flaws in the legend.

Always amazes me that such ancient quality coins can be acquired at affordable prices, those are great Hus! Good Romans are plentiful. Not surprising when you consider the size and sophistication of that economy and culture. But yes, it's good that so many are available at such reasonable prices. Ironically, when you look at the late Republic and early Empire, the silver coins are much more affordable than the bronzes.

I'd still love to know how it could happen. The only possibility is having two reverse dies in place, but how that could be done on a one-off basis seems far-fetched?

I guessed as much. But still, you must admit that getting 'pock' and 'wart' into the same sentence is nifty!

I have a 1970 proof penny with two reverses and even under a x20 microscope I cant see any foul play. Have often wondered about getting it authenticated. The "genuine" examples - e.g. 1970 penny - will have been minted at the London Mint when they were on the way to being shut down. I wonder if the supervision was a bit lax if all they were doing was proof sets, and therefore could get away with a bit of 'monkey business'?

That is the big problem with slabbing companies that don't insist on good quality images! CGS are as bad, a lot of their images are just token gestures, totally underexposed and blurred at times, as good as useless. Any 'jasmine' slabbers would surely be trawling the TPGC sites looking for the unidentifiable images and using those slab numbers on their own slabs, wouldn't they? I think slab buyers, and slabbers, should begin insisting on quality images, especially when dealing with milled coinage! I just bought a slabbed coin that looked much better in the hand than the photo had suggested it would. CGS had used very directional lighting that highlighted a surface flaw that 'in the flesh' was almost invisible to the naked eye. On the one had I was glad but on the other hand I know that their pic could be a problem if I come to sell it on. Although to be fair to them, even a bad CGS photo is almost always going to be better than a good ebay photo. I Take it you have'nt seen my photos then? My own opinion but i think my poctures represent my coins 100% accurately warts an all A pocture is a wart?

Nice. Rated only 'S' by ESC but hell, it's a great chance to own a pattern that's affordable!