Peckris

The penny held up by King Harold at Hastings, when he said "Here, is that a 1033? I can't see it clearly. Let me just hold it up to the ligh..." Or when Nelson said to Hardy, "I bet you this Doriens and Magens shilling that we got them beat by sundown." Or the quarter handed over by Abraham Lincoln to the ticket office ("That'll be 10 cents for a balcony seat for tonight's production, Mr President") But actually, it would have to be any of the pennies laid beneath foundation stones by George V in 1933...

you learning Swahili, scott? That NGC slab is VF max in my book. Even allowing for differences between American and UK "gradining".

What's the reverse? My ESC doesn't give any illustration but does list the reverse of 206 as "Wreath".

Very nice.

It's all in the size of the picture, the presentation, and the description, I feel. Plus maybe the use of the word 'Belsen' in the description, which is a bit naughty as there is no other evidence for it being anything of the kind.

There's no point looking for a proof not dated 1927 - if they exist at all they will be mega rare and you should buy only from a reputable dealer. Otherwise, if it's dated 1927 it's a proof, if not, it's not. You won't see much difference between proof and non-proof wreath crowns, as they were struck in limited quantities to high standard (i.e., the mintages are too low to see die wear.) For some reason, you can see wear on the non-proofs, but this is probably more due to rubbing or keeping in a pocket, rather than genuine circulation. The 1927 crown will have a generally superior rim, and probably more of a mirrored field. Ironically, the 1927 proof is the highest wreath crown mintage.

Photoshop's compression scale runs from 1 (awful) to 12 (virtually uncompressed). Needless to say, the smaller the number, the higher the compression and the smaller the file. In my own experience, if you're displaying on a computer screen - i.e. not printing - you can reduce an existing large picture to 5 on the scale without seeing very much in the way of deterioration. Make sure that you do any Size reduction and PPI reduction and Cropping at the same time, then save. Refuse to pay that sort of money for Photoshop, I use a free program called paint.net which I believe comes from micrsoft, when you save to .jpeg it gives you a sliding scale from 100% down to 0% and shows you the file size as you adjust. It also has many functions of expensive programs such as the ability to work with layers and much more. If anyones interested you can get it here paint.net Actually, Photoshop Elements can do a whole load of stuff, but only costs a fraction of the full Photoshop. About 80% of the program for less than 20% of the cost. Also, Elements is cross-platform, which I suspect paint.net is not. For Mac users, there's Pixelmator, which supports layers and filters and text and a whole lot more, looks gorgeous, and only costs around £20. The GIMP is a nightmare to learn but it's free and open source and just as powerful as Photoshop.

Remember it well. For reasons best known to her, a girl I worked with dumped some in my umbrella. Used to get very strange looks when it rained... Bus stop bus stop, she's there waiting, under my umbrella...

***For Comparing our 1850/46 ...PICS of 1846, 1849, and 1850 "Plain" Dates*** sorry but they are way too small to do anything with. The 1850 pic is 121x48 pixels and just 6kb of data. You have obviously cut the dates out of an existing pic which in its self must have been quite small. To have anything workable then the date pics have to be at least 500 pixels in width. If you are using a camera use the largest pic setting and get it as close to the coin as poss, if you are scanning use the highest resolution setting to obtain the largest pic possible and then cut the dates outs into a seperate pic. In any photo editing software you have an option to save as .jpeg which will tell you the size of the saved file and allow you to compress it to a given data size ie 150kb. If the quality of the pic is reduced too much by the compression then reduce the size of the original pic (usually under "Image" and then "Size" or "Resize"), say the original is 1000x500 pixels then reduce it to 500x250 this way you reduce the data size by half (not quite true but good enough) and then save as .jpeg. Example- The pic of the 1850 shilling from azda above is 1024x1009 pixels and has a file size of 372kb and I bet he has reduced that before posting it. Photoshop's compression scale runs from 1 (awful) to 12 (virtually uncompressed). Needless to say, the smaller the number, the higher the compression and the smaller the file. In my own experience, if you're displaying on a computer screen - i.e. not printing - you can reduce an existing large picture to 5 on the scale without seeing very much in the way of deterioration. Make sure that you do any Size reduction and PPI reduction and Cropping at the same time, then save.

Hello! Thanks for the response, appreciate it. Figured out a way to compress a couple of pictures of the date and posted them a few moments ago. As mentioned in the prior post, we are waiting on a USB magnifier. Once it arrives we will take better pictures of the date and post them. Yes, we also agree with you on Rayner over Spink. Since we are new, is the upload limit per picture or is it an overall per account? Have a great evening! Neither. The limit is per post, irrespective of how many pictures. For each new post the 150k applies again. No limit per account. It's an "erb".mannnn. If you like Oriental/Asian food you've had some. Ahhhhh sooooo, Stuart thinks the 1850 shilling pic i uploaded is Chinese? Very cryptic, but i'd love to hear the theory why..... Stuart may be mistaken... patchouli oil was the hippie fragrance of choice of the 1960s. Now if he'd said MSG or jasmine or lychee or egg foo yung, I could have understood it!

Brilliant idea, that animation! If I had one criticism, it cycles too fast between them, so you can't study each state closely before it changes. But, it certainly looks as if the teeth and rim are different between those two. I used to have quite a sample of 1936 pennies, but alas I'm now down to only about 3. It would be really interesting IF (a big if) one of those two was much rarer than the other. Bear in mind, 1936 had the record penny mintage before the 1960s, by a long long way. Good spot.

If you can edit a super-enlargement of the date area only, and upload it as a medium quality JPEG, it should come within the 150k limit. Agreed, the upload limit per post is mean in the extreme, but you'd be surprised how big a picture you can post if you use an image editor to increase the compression of a JPEG. Do remember that the resolution only needs to be 72 (ppi) for viewing on a computer screen. Many of us would be interested to examine the date closely. However, as you're probably aware, it is often very difficult to get widespread agreement on overdates unless they are immediately obvious. Having said that, I'd trust Rayner over Spink anyday.

Yes, that's absolutely right. There can be a great discrepancy either way between the counterstamp and the host coin, which is why they are graded separately. My understanding is that a good counterstamp trumps a good host? I think that's entirely possible. The raised bits on the reverse where the counterstamp has pushed the design out, looks kind of 'fresh', as if done comparatively recently and the metal hasn't had time to tone back.

Yeah - hope you had a really good day Patrick

I tried to post my Reply and got a pink message about the Administrator not allowing more than one post in such a short space of time. I hadn't even managed one Reply so I hit Back and then tried to post again, only to see my post was there twice over.

Welcome Kris, Its impossible to be 100% certain from the photographs, but the second picture suggests what I would immediately assume to be true. One side of a 1962 halfcrown has been hollowed out on a lathe and a second coin, also reduced on a lathe, has been let into the first. The join is just visible in places along the rim. I have a couple examples of this and I suspect many collectors do. They have no value except as a curiosity. Good for 'heads or tails' though Yes, I agree. It would be impossible for this to be done at the Mint, so a lathe sounds the most likely way it was done. And yes, I'm almost sure I can see evidence of the join on the right hand picture. Good curio though, and worth keeping just for its own sake.

Welcome Kris, Its impossible to be 100% certain from the photographs, but the second picture suggests what I would immediately assume to be true. One side of a 1962 halfcrown has been hollowed out on a lathe and a second coin, also reduced on a lathe, has been let into the first. The join is just visible in places along the rim. I have a couple examples of this and I suspect many collectors do. They have no value except as a curiosity. Good for 'heads or tails' though Yes, I agree. It would be impossible for this to be done at the Mint, so a lathe sounds the most likely way it was done. And yes, I'm almost sure I can see evidence of the join on the right hand picture. Good curio though, and worth keeping just for its own sake.

Quite frankly I don't remember. However this year I made mad passionate love all day and then went home to Mrs Peter Did the mirror survive? :lol:

If you had time, and a few high-grade examples to hand, it would be interesting to look at the range of busts which are classified as Reverse 6. Here's some of the differences I've picked up in the past, with the help of a others on this forum: Different orientation of neckline rose More curved/straight line to rear of neck Berry in front/behind leaf of wreath Additional detail to hair in from of bun Double edge and extension to ear Larger gap between B of BRITT and hair Sharper nose Slight double chin These could be retouches to the die, of course. The following examples are from 1863 (on the left) and 1861 Presumably you mean Obverse 6 not Reverse 6? On those two examples, you missed one of the most obvious differences IMO - the obverse on the left has a bulging eye which the one on the right doesn't have. Also there's a difference in size and thickness of legend. Nevertheless, an impressive list of differences for what is supposed to be the same Obverse.

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only. You have nicely summed up George VI brass threepence collecting in one paragraph. As for Elizabeth II, just to complete the list, I've added the 1953 type 2 obverse and the standard 1958 which seem to be scarcer in true BU than their mintage numbers would suggest. Perhaps the availability of the 'plastic set' gave a false impression that BU specimens of the '53 were fairly common and hence were not worth hoarding. But of course it was only the type 1 that came with the sets. As for the 1958, these seem to be weirdly scarce in true BU despite a mintage of over 20 million! My only guess is that they were issued in numbers sufficiently high as not to be perceived as worth collecting, only to then fall victim to the big meltdown after decimalisation. Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939, 1948 and 1953 type 2 obv. Not so easy to find - 1945 and 1958 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 The 1958 3d is one of those weird inexplicable cases - it was actually identified as a scarcity in BU before decimalisation, as was the 1946 halfpenny, and other strange items like the 1957S shilling (the 1957E is really common in UNC) and the 1958E shilling. Not forgetting the 1958 sixpence and who knows how many others too. I guess we may never know why some dates are scarcer than others - it may be a combination of factors, e.g. time of year issued, whether any were held back, demand for certain denominations being greater at some times, a shortage in one denomination causing lower denominations to circulate more, the hoarding of certain dates more than others for different reasons... One thing's for sure, the great meltdown should have evened out those weird discrepancies more than actually happened - there's a kind of inertia to price guides that is resistant to reality at times. Interesting that the 1958 3d and the 1958 sixpence were identified as scarce in BU even whilst they were still currency. I really wouldn't have guessed that. If anyone who worked at the Royal Mint between 1957 and 1959 ever comes across this discussion it would be very interesting if they would share their insights into the mystery. I wonder if large quantities of certain coins were shipped out to colonies that then become independent in the late '50s to mid '60s and whether, in some way, this had an effect on subsequent scarcity. I personally have always found it slightly remarkable that collectors resisted the temptation to spend their BU coins. I mean, pre-credit cards if you were out of cash then your nice shiny 1958 threepence that you'd stashed away would suddenly seem like an expendable luxury! Actually, 1958 (along with 1954) is something of a key year for scarcities in BU - the halfcrown, florin, English shilling, sixpence, and brass 3d, are all supposedly scarce. 1959 is overrated by comparison, except that the Scottish shilling is very difficult in true UNC. Why there should be so many in one year is anyone's guess.

But bear in mind - there is a range of scarcity of BU George VI brass 3d's that exceeds most other denominations. Viz.: Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939 and 1948 Not so easy to find - 1945 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 So a BU 1939 is worth paying a reasonable sum for. Coins that are ABU or GEF are generally quite a lot easier to find, this scale refers to genuine BU only. You have nicely summed up George VI brass threepence collecting in one paragraph. As for Elizabeth II, just to complete the list, I've added the 1953 type 2 obverse and the standard 1958 which seem to be scarcer in true BU than their mintage numbers would suggest. Perhaps the availability of the 'plastic set' gave a false impression that BU specimens of the '53 were fairly common and hence were not worth hoarding. But of course it was only the type 1 that came with the sets. As for the 1958, these seem to be weirdly scarce in true BU despite a mintage of over 20 million! My only guess is that they were issued in numbers sufficiently high as not to be perceived as worth collecting, only to then fall victim to the big meltdown after decimalisation. Very rare - 1946 and 1949 Rare - 1951 Very scarce - 1950 Scarce - 1939, 1948 and 1953 type 2 obv. Not so easy to find - 1945 and 1958 Slightly easier to find - 1938, 1940, 1952 Normal - 1941 Easy - 1937, 1942, 1943, 1944 The 1958 3d is one of those weird inexplicable cases - it was actually identified as a scarcity in BU before decimalisation, as was the 1946 halfpenny, and other strange items like the 1957S shilling (the 1957E is really common in UNC) and the 1958E shilling. Not forgetting the 1958 sixpence and who knows how many others too. I guess we may never know why some dates are scarcer than others - it may be a combination of factors, e.g. time of year issued, whether any were held back, demand for certain denominations being greater at some times, a shortage in one denomination causing lower denominations to circulate more, the hoarding of certain dates more than others for different reasons... One thing's for sure, the great meltdown should have evened out those weird discrepancies more than actually happened - there's a kind of inertia to price guides that is resistant to reality at times.

No, not at all. Observe the SHAPE of the 0 on your pair of coins, in relation to the shape of the 0 on the lower pair. Unlike the 1 and the 9, there is a difference - as I said, the 0 is smaller and squatter (more round and less oval), and slightly further from the teeth proportionately. (This may be exaggerated by the fact that the coins in the top pair have some wear, where the bottom pair don't. But even so, there seems to be a difference. What would really help is if your system of blue and red lines was used on the bottom pair also). This is the best I could do with the picture Seuk presented. I reduced the width of top pair and increased its height. I added the red and blue lines as requested. I also added the white lines to compare the distances of the 0. One thing that I did observe though, the denticles for the bottom pair seems longer and therefore the 0 seems to be closer on the bottom pair compaired to top pair. This may be attributed to the blury pictures used for the bottom pair and the merging process (which I could not have done better ). Yes, I think you may be right. Not just the difference in sharpness (your pictures may be scans rather than photos?), and in wear, but even more so in the way the light is falling on the teeth and numerals. Someone else here posted about a possible difference between two 1939 brass 3d's, and that turned out to be just the way the light falls. What is certain however, is that the 4 on your variety is definitely offset.

Sometimes persistence with sifting through crap does pay off - I remember a W&W lot that was a large plazzy bag of modern stuff, some bags of predecimal cr*p, and an envelope with foreign and other assorted low value items.. plus an 1865 penny EF with lustre. I was happy to win that, though less happy disposing of the rest of the lot

And the last given Rayner is no more. Are we talking book here, or perambulating sack of squidgy organs?

I sometimes wonder if you read 2 forums at the same time Peter or if there's to much Bob Hope rolled up in the Cubans you smoke, definately of Jamacian origins though via Amsterdam lol