Peckris

Unfortunately your two pictures are such different sizes, colours, lighting & exposure, and because they are 2 pictures instead of 2-in-1 side by side, cannot be viewed at the same time. I can't form any impression of their respective gaps. If you would equalise the two pictures in Photoshop or similar, then post that, it would be a great help. Thanks.

The finest known isn't much better than Fine! But I wish you joy on your search especially now you've reminded me there's a selfish motive to your finding an upgrade.. (I bow to you). I will try to get a photo of the '66 tidal wave, but it's such a slender sliver (could easily be mistaken for a fragment of hair on the coin) it may be a challenge getting the light just right. Maybe a scan would work better though I think I already tried that without success? I'd love to help you out with a spare Gouby X but my own copy is the only one I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, the way the light falls on the 4's downstroke, that doesn't add much to the discussion either way. (I'm assuming that was the reason you posted it, Dave?)

I'm still not convinced there's a difference that can't be explained by the damaged 4s. Below is a comparison of single and double exergue examples. It's true that the single exergue is 'faintly doubled'. That seems to confirm what I suspected. On the 'single exergue line', the downstroke of the 4 points virtually to a space, where on the doubled line it points slightly to the left of a tooth. There is also a difference to the waves, as there is also on numidan's examples. The relative position of the exergual lines and the exact pointings of the teeth could account for the 'up and left' nature of what we see here, plus the fact that there is quite a bit of wear which makes measuring such microscopic differences rather more difficult. I'd say it was a 75% chance that it's down to the existing exergue varieties, but there's room for doubt.

I'd go along with that. Anything you have to look that close at, and is not rare, doesn't float my boat in any way whatever. But then, I stopped being a completist some years back (though I would like a 1903 open 3). The 1913 varieties are worth having (the two mules, anyway) but it needs some experience and expertise to spot them. The 1905, 1921, and 1937 variants are equally common and equally minor so are probably ignored. The 1940 is a recognised variety though you have to look quite close, and so is the 1946 die flaw. The 1908 and 1909 rare varieties are probably too rare for eBay, while the 1915/16 recessed ear varieties are obvious when you know about them, but probably not to the casual observer. It's 1966 for the 'tidal wave', and yes I've got one, but I probably wouldn't have bothered except I was at a fair and one just happened to be there! 1965 or 1967 Britannia helmet 'stalk', anyone? Me too I think it's nearer a dozen And don't forget the 4 sub-varieties of 1957 'calm sea' halfpenny!!

Another new variety... Go pies!

This is not an unrecorded variety (except in Peck and Freeman of course) - as mentioned, DaveG features it, and it makes possibly its first official appearance in David Sealy's varieties survey in the 1970 COINS & MEDALS ANNUAL. Here it's described thus: A. Curl of r.h. wave (below foot) merges with upper of two exergual lines, which are close together. As B for 1940. B. All waves clear of exergual lines, which are further apart. Second 4 points to exact centre of wave curl above it, instead of slightly to left. Where one variety is notably scarcer than another, Sealy notes it, but he hasn't in this case leading one to assume they are broadly similar mintages. Don't forget also, that there is a scarce lustred issue for 1944, but you would need a high grade example for that.

Just a thought, but I wonder if this is the difference between single and double exergue line varieties? Have a look at this photo (zoom your screen in to enlarge it even more). With the single line, the downstroke of the 4 appears to almost point to a space as with your variety, where with the double line it points just to the left of a tooth. http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/g6/1d/1d40e.jpg Of course, both yours appear to be a single line, but it could just be due to wear that the second line (always described as "faintly doubled") is not evident? Clearly the teeth appear to have been recut too for the common second variety. That's not to say that your variety isn't a good spot, and it may be a genuine micro-variety, but it MAY simply be a single line as opposed to a double line, and your ratio of 1 in 30 would support that.

It should be pointed out that the Simple Simon here is not the piesman, but the wally on eBay who described his sixpence as a shilling

There's no age limit on being still (mentally) a teenage boy

Let's face it, the Glazers are not fools - they and their money are never parted What was the £60,000 item by the way? It's gone, and no-one's thought to actually mention what it was The 1933 and 1952 reverses are such obvious fakes (replicas?), from the size of the teeth and rims. The obverses appear to be blurry impressions taken from actual coins i.e. unlike the replicas that the reverses may have been taken from. The interesting thing is that the 1966 could well be genuine, i.e. struck on a cupro-nickel planchet in error.

Good luck with it. What style of guitar do you play? (Hoping against hope that the answer will be "More Ted Turner or Dave Gilmore than Slash..." I'm definitely NOT a metalhead! But you're a teenage boy, so you're excused - heavy metal was invented for your age group )

Actually I have seen some LJG fantasies, gosh knows if Richard Lobel hasn't made some already, surely he will. Oh, I've had some of those too. Oops, did I say that out loud? I had to scroll back up to check you weren't Peter then! I'm sure Peter shares similar sentiments, as long as Mrs Peter isn't looking over his shoulder

Actually I have seen some LJG fantasies, gosh knows if Richard Lobel hasn't made some already, surely he will. Oh, I've had some of those too. Oops, did I say that out loud?

I think it's Geordie too?

Except there's a big difference between 19 million and 750,000! I believe that the 1970 set will always be popular as the only proof set that marks the predecimal years of the Queen's reign after 1953. It's just a pity they didn't include a farthing. I agree about the toning problems, but that's a common thing with all those early proof sets especially 1973. I guess they will never be worth a huge amount, but there was a big demand for them at the time. I'm keeping my 1970-1973 sets despite the large numbers produced. I just wish they had stopped there, with single denomination proofs in all metals + piedforts for the first years of e.g. £2, £1, 20p, small 5p and 10p and 50p, plus a full proof set for each new portrait (1985 and 1998). For yearly sets, the BU specimens are more than enough.

It all depends whether you define a 'monarch run' as at least one coin from each REIGN, or whether you want one coin identifying each MONARCH. As you've noticed, the two aren't always the same thing. It's just the same with some Roman coins, where Antoninus Pius was used for more than one emperor around that time, not just the real and proper A.P. It's your collection, so I'm guessing you must define the rules for it. Just to give one pointer - Philip and Mary weren't joint rulers like William and Mary, but because he appears on a few coins, it would certainly be interesting to have that particular type, but not necessarily as part of a monarch run?

NO

It was actually a 1968 set - it contained the 1968 10p and 5p, and the three 1971 bronze coins 3 years before they became legal tender. It was having examples of the bronze that made having that set attractive to me as a schoolboy. But yes, there were a lot of them! Variety collectors might want to track down the two or three different 10p types in those sets. No, the 1970 is a proof set, there was no UNC set and it wasn't produced until after decimalisation. It was the only proof set of the second Gillick obverse type. And there's been a proof decimal set for every year since 1971. There's also been an UNC set every year since 1982 (produced to such a great finish that it makes the desirability of the proof sets less, somewhat, at least to me). There were absolutely loads of year sets produced for dealers on sale in the late 60s. These went back to 1960 or 1961 usually, before which it was harder to pick up UNC coins. Having said that, quite often the early 60s sets weren't strictly UNC. They were sold in custom made Sandhill cases, and look quite similar to the earlier decimal proof sets but without the Royal Mint badge. They weren't official. There was also an unofficial special 'First and Last' set which included 1967 coins, 1966 shillings, and the first decimals, taken from the blue wallets (I can't remember if the 1965 crown or 1969 50p were included). No, the 1965 set was simply a Sandhill year set produced for dealers. It was unofficial.

He wants a BACS payment for it - what, for 99p???

With no bag marks or other minor problems, a genuine UNC probably around £50 - £60 its got no hairlines or minor scuffs and it still maintains all its lustre 20th Century crowns are usually either highly collectable (1902, Wreaths) or else very common (1935, 1951 onwards). 1937s sit in a kind of middle ground - not rare in any sense, but a bit more collectable than later ones.

I See you still have a lot to learn Too bl00dy right - don't get on the wrong side of Dave!

Ditto. I found him friendly enough, though once he'd discovered email his manner seemed rather more abrupt. I think he was more comfortable speaking than writing.

Each major reference work includes patterns - Peck for copper/bronze, ESC for silver, for example. Freeman has a few too. The great advantage of Peck and ESC is that they have good photos of the patterns featured.

The Machin head first went into circulation in 1968 on the decimal 5 and 10 pence coins, at that time, the queen would be 42 years old, the portrait looks like the queen when she was 20 years old The Machin portrait goes back to 1965 or 1966, when it was introduced for Commonwealth coins. Actually, I do think it makes her look older than 20! Though somewhat shy of 42 (following a long tradition of showing monarchs younger than they actually are )