Peckris

Oh yes. There are several variants of 1922, at least one is probably unique, and a few extremely rare 1926MEs. The beginning point is to ask yourself : "Why was the 1926ME penny a mule?" No-one has ever come up with a definitive answer but I have a theory...

Haha. You've barely dipped your toe in the water. There's a whole book waiting to be written...

It's well known fact that Americans (apaart from members of this forum ) have more money than sense.

In that case, stay well away from 1922 and 1926 pennies.

Il vient chez-ils, vient chez-ils, enfin football vient chez-ils

It's allright - they're only Cleggs so they don't count.

A high five delivered by Anne Boleyn

Possibly not English?

Kane and Maguire Jumping ever higher In Russia you know where it's at And no-one's getting fat except Mama Cass

I'm more drawn to the sticky-fingered child theory. I find it harder to envisage a collector buying a proof set (which had to be applied for, by the way) then spending it especially when you consider that coin collecting was not an arena for the working classes of that time.

Why??

Not nearly as rare as they were considered to be in the 60s. And they probably all got saved and escaped the Great Silver 3d Meltdown.

That would be impossible considering the enormous force with which the die hits the blank. The only way IMO is to repunch the erroneous letter, which would certainly leave some trace of the underlying letter. That is obviously not the case with the ONF penny for example, where it's a case of die fill through gradual process, not a stray piece of metal. Where a piece of metal does stick to the die - a brockage for example - it survives only for a single subsequent strike, which is why brockages are unique.

That looks like a simple 'doubling' caused by recutting the date - my 1858 is exactly like that (though possibly without the protuberance on the 1)

I'm not - I'm looking at alfnail's big enlargement picture he posted, and I quoted.

The twofold problem with that theory is: 1. If 1859 dies had already been prepared, why strengthen an 1858 die for continued use? 2. Even more problematic - how does this theory account for the projection out of the 8 (top right) which a 9 could not have accounted for?

A 9 would be illogical unless they'd seen Back To The Future. My guess is that it could be a 5 - 1855 is a very common date for pennies.

Yes, that was the one time in the match that Columbia played better than us - and the first half of extra time. Not in this thread he didn't.

At a World Cup! We won one at Euros 96. But I'm still dreaming.. Surely we can beat the Swedes?

Since Corbyn is no further to the left than the average Cabinet Minister of Attlee and Wilson's Governments, (he's certainly not as far left as Benn or Bevin), then I think you're simply reacting to a straw dog created by the likes of Northcliffe, Desmond, and the Barclay Brothers, who are all non-domiciled press barons who don't give a sh*t about Britain as long as the £ keep rolling in.

I'm going to get a red one before Brexit happens. As for Corbyn, you mean to say you're not absolutely horrified by the prospect of Jacob Rees-Smog?

OF II on the reverse + CONST = the Arles Mint. This appears to have the same obverse: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LAC-Valentinian-I-364-375-E-Follis-Siscia-364-367-V497-/292348246153 Here's your reverse (different mint): https://www.ebay.com/itm/Valentinian-I-364-375-AD-AE3-SECURITAS-REIPUBLICAE-Thessalonica/113109889702?hash=item1a55dff2a6:g:augAAOSwLS5bNAeS

Ah, the mega rare "super fuzzy" 1906. At least, I THINK that's what it is...