Peckris

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).

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.

On the face of it, that's pretty conclusive. However, it leaves a further puzzle. On the 'high left 4' pair, the 4 is clearly offset and so it shows up (as you've demonstrated). However, on that merged pair, the 0 shows no difference between the two coins; yet if you compare it with the other merged pair, there's a big difference : the first pair shows a 0 that is smaller, squatter, and further from the teeth than on the second pair. But as one of the coins in the first pair is supposedly 'normal', you'd expect the 0 to show a different overlay just like the 4 does.

Wow, hadn't realised there was near 20 years between the 4th and 5th editions.

Which edition do you have, |Dave? It's not in my 1974 edition.

Do you mean ESC? Yes, they are but Dave talked about Rayner unless that was a typo.

Haven't had much time for coins lately - but two days ago I took the time to have a closer look at one of my newcomers to find that it matched the dies of the 1956 hoard of 63 BoE 1s6d tokens found at Foden Road, Birmingham. Half a mile from the famous forger William Booths farm! (BNJ 1958, pp. 423-24 pl. XXV). These have smaller lettering than other counterfeits of the 1s6d and closely resembles the size of the lettering on an genuine coin though the design is slightly different especially of A, G, K, R and S. It also have a tiny dot to the left above B of BANK on reverse. Completely by coincident it turns out that today is the 200th anniversary of Booth's execution (15th Aug 1812) Interesting that the silver-washed copper forgeries predate the Great Recoinage, even if only a few years. But then, there must have been a chronic shortage of silver by the time of those tokens. There must also have been different laws regarding the metals allowed in trade tokens - copper wasn't exactly discouraged, but you don't see silver denominations as trade tokens in the late 18th Century. Having said that, one of my copper tokens has a face value of 6d, but those must have been pretty unusual. You don't see a token coinage until the countermarked 8 reales and BoE dollars, followed by those unusual tokens. Yet the biggest demand must have been not for large silver, but sixpences and threepences, and there was nothing to plug that gap. (Yes, there was the 1787 coinage but those survive in such high grade you can hardly imagine them circulating widely).

I vaguely recall a previous discussion on your 1966, so just did a search and found a line drawing with the wave marked in red. I suggested going through my 1966's at that time, but never did! Michael Coins listed a Gouby X for several months but I note he has now sold it. I had a look at the coin but just couldn't live with the grade. I'll probably live to regret that decision if I can't find another! VR Court found 37 out of 4,542 checked by him, so far from common. Mine probably isn't even quite Fine. They're not common at all, and I don't know what the "best known" is. Just out of interest, what was Gouby asking for his Gouby?

Yes, I'm a sucker for lustre and it certainly has more than mine! I have a near BU example that cost me £4:50. In 1978 Mind you, considering it wasn't a widely known variety back then, it was probably still quite a good price

This isn't listed in my Rayner at all - in fact the only variety listed for that series is the 1893 small legend which is rated R. In fact, awesome though the Cope and Rayner work is, they don't do much in modern varieties at all.

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?