Peckris

Welcome to the forums Jackie That's not really an error, more an example of how lax the Mint have become in standards. It's probably a die crack or something like that, and the 5p is so small that probably the inspectors failed to notice such a tiny phenomenon until a large number had been minted. If you found 3 it's unlikely to have any rarity. Thanks for bringing it to our attention though. Hi Thank you for you reply. i must agree with you. yes it looks like royal mints standards have droped. the other 2 coins are different, one is die filled. and the 3rd coin the word penny is just a mess. I thought die cracks ect were classed as errors. now im confused. jackie There's more than one way of looking at everything! To some they would be classed as errors, but among the collecting community they would be regarded more as deterioration, or degradation; dies wear, or crud gets onto a die or a blank, or dies crack. To collectors, an error is usually regarded as something that is the result of human error not simply a machine. For example, blundered dates, or an overdate / overpunched letter, spelling mistake, design flaw - that kind of thing.

And 1950. Also don't forget that Edward VIII coins were actually issued in some African colonies.

Unlikely - what if the king / queen died suddenly, or some other event? It's almost unheard of for currency coins to be issued early (even the 1968 bronze coins in the blue wallets weren't current). Unlikely becasue that would risk having predated coins in circulation which by definition should be rejected by the person paid if they are half awake. Agreed. They were busy striking 1936 Geo V coins like there was no tomorrow (which is why they are so common). The only Edwards that survived were a few specimen brass 3ds, and a few ultra rare proofs. His main coinage would have been issued in 1937 if he hadn't abdicated - note that George VI used Edward's reverse for farthing, halfpenny, penny, brass 3d, shilling, and florin. The sixpence and silver 3d were totally redesigned which is probably why the George VI designs are so cruddy. The halfcrown used a slightly modified George V reverse. As for the obverse, it needed little more than a name change - the two portraits are virtually identical. That's probably why George VI's first year issues were able to be issued pretty promptly. Unlikely becasue that would risk having predated coins in circulation which by definition should be rejected by the person paid if they are half awake. Ok, that sounds plausible. Surely though, they would at least have made a headstart producing some dies for the new year? Or wouldn't they know what the demand would be at that point. Yes they would start preparing dies, provided they had already identified a minting need. But with 1849 and 1850 mintages both given as low, it is quite possible that a mintage need hadn't been identified - it may have been a rush job, last minute.

Welcome to the forums Jackie That's not really an error, more an example of how lax the Mint have become in standards. It's probably a die crack or something like that, and the 5p is so small that probably the inspectors failed to notice such a tiny phenomenon until a large number had been minted. If you found 3 it's unlikely to have any rarity. Thanks for bringing it to our attention though.

They Dursn't

The very same..

No, but definitely fewer than the 685,000 figure that is stated in ESC and Davies. It is by far the rarest date of the Victorian shillings. Anyone like to make an educated guess how many are left? 2 or 3 dozen perhaps with the number in high grade in low single digits? Unfortunately the phrase "educated guess" begs more questions than it answers. There are just too many imponderables : - First, the stated mintage figure which as we all know is misleading and probably includes very many dated 1849 (approximately the same mintage but not rare at all) - second, the number that might have been swallowed up after 1920 or 1947 when the banks withdrew silver - third, the distorting effect of commoner dates being now less common in relation to 1850 as a result of collectors absorbing 99.9% of all remaining 1850s since the 1950s, but at the same time absorbing a much lower % of common dates, e.g. from 1966-71, 1980, etc - fourth, the lack of any Freeman-like survey AFAIK to base any educated guesswork on It's probably true to say "we'll never know".

O, just checked my email account and the hosts sell domains plus hosting for 0,99c a month, so i've secured www.classicbritishcoins.com after my good old mate Dave, I'm liking the irony of your choice. Lol, i was wondering when someone would spot it I've only seen the corrected signature. What did the typo say - "cons" instead of "coins" perchance?

From the Philippines too! No way I would risk that one ... Pardon my ignorance (again) but does anyone know why the 1850 is so rare/valuable, the mintage wasn't particularly low? The mintage figures back then were for total minted IN that year, not OF that year. Many's the time the Mint used up a previous year's dies but they were still recorded in the figure for the year they were struck in. Is there any information out there, for example Royal Mint Annual Reports, that would allow more accurate mintage figures to be compiled? Unfortunately not, not official figures. The Mint would refer to their own records which would show the wrong figure. You'd have to rely on a Freeman doing a large survey, but those become less and less reliable over time.

Erm that is a rolleicord V Peck, mind you I also have a number of Russki copies of the hass and other brands here as well. Oh and a number of them new fangled Yashica Mat's and canons and erm, yeah, enough !. What was the difference between the 'Flex and the 'Cord anyway? I never used any TLR except the aforementioned Lubitel, so I'm not an expert. What I do remember - and lusted after at the time - was the very nice little 35mm compact that Rollei brought out in the early 80s. My first 35mm camera was the Zorki 4 - a very competent imitation of the pre-war Leica III. No lever wind, no meter, and a shutter speed dial from hell, but a great rangefinder and some very good lenses. I still have it, and its standard 50mm lens (the 135mm and 35mm lenses must have got sold off years ago). The flex had better lenses, bodies, auto cocking and wind of the film ( cords had a knob to wind te film so was not as fast as a flex when shooting), the cords also had no metering on them and the view screen was not as good or clear. Other than that just personal preferences I guess, I like the cords as they are cheaper to buy, but if I was to buy a rollei and mmoney was not a thing I would have a flex, I have a small 35mm Rollei round here somewhere, and one of those russian spy cameras as well, though how a spy hid that thing I don't know, they aren't exactly small. I have to go in the loft this week to sort it all out for selling so will take some pics before I do. Unlike the Minox huh? I did once consider buying into the Pentax or Minolta SLR 110 system, which I reckon would have smuggled into rock concerts easily enough, hidden down one's undies! Never got around to it though.

From the Philippines too! No way I would risk that one ... Pardon my ignorance (again) but does anyone know why the 1850 is so rare/valuable, the mintage wasn't particularly low? The mintage figures back then were for total minted IN that year, not OF that year. Many's the time the Mint used up a previous year's dies but they were still recorded in the figure for the year they were struck in.

Erm that is a rolleicord V Peck, mind you I also have a number of Russki copies of the hass and other brands here as well. Oh and a number of them new fangled Yashica Mat's and canons and erm, yeah, enough !. What was the difference between the 'Flex and the 'Cord anyway? I never used any TLR except the aforementioned Lubitel, so I'm not an expert. What I do remember - and lusted after at the time - was the very nice little 35mm compact that Rollei brought out in the early 80s. My first 35mm camera was the Zorki 4 - a very competent imitation of the pre-war Leica III. No lever wind, no meter, and a shutter speed dial from hell, but a great rangefinder and some very good lenses. I still have it, and its standard 50mm lens (the 135mm and 35mm lenses must have got sold off years ago).

Probably the same person as that eBay seller :-)

It's probably so hard to spot that I can easily convince myself I don't want it.

ESC is ok but I think a little dated now. The rarity scale is a fair reflection, though milled is not my thing now, but like the Spink price guide the ESC is only a guide too with regard to rarity, for example a few years back I owned a 1825 shillig with the roman I in date which is classed as an R7 in ESC...hmm R7 states one or two examples but I have seen probably at least a dozen the amount of these in the last decade...so worth thinking on!! Okay, will probably just stick with the Spink 2012 and Coincraft 1999 that I've ordered for now, and will try to "digest" these first. BTW I found the Introduction section of Davies very educational, especially the Historical outline, hope there's more useful background material in Coincraft and Spink, not just coin lists (though they're useful too, of course). Whatever else you think of Coincraft or their catalogue, there is a phenomenal amount of useful background information in there. Not just good articles as appendices, but in the introduction to each denomination and reign. It has the added bonus of recommending what grades are best collected in each series. It's a mineshaft of information. But which copy of coincraft is best, the latest ( 2000 ) or previous ones, not all newer versions of something are better than the past ones. They're all good. More varieties got added after the first, and people corrected a few things they got wrong, so I'd say any issue from 1998 onwards would be good. It's a shame but I had both the 1997 and 1998 issues and gave the 1997 edition to a jumble sale a few years back, before I even joined this forum.

Ah, the good old Rolleiflex - staple camera of wedding and portrait studio photographers for many decades Somewhere I still have a Lubitel, the Russian imitation. Very plastic, very cheap, very inferior, but great fun.

ESC is ok but I think a little dated now. The rarity scale is a fair reflection, though milled is not my thing now, but like the Spink price guide the ESC is only a guide too with regard to rarity, for example a few years back I owned a 1825 shillig with the roman I in date which is classed as an R7 in ESC...hmm R7 states one or two examples but I have seen probably at least a dozen the amount of these in the last decade...so worth thinking on!! Okay, will probably just stick with the Spink 2012 and Coincraft 1999 that I've ordered for now, and will try to "digest" these first. BTW I found the Introduction section of Davies very educational, especially the Historical outline, hope there's more useful background material in Coincraft and Spink, not just coin lists (though they're useful too, of course). Whatever else you think of Coincraft or their catalogue, there is a phenomenal amount of useful background information in there. Not just good articles as appendices, but in the introduction to each denomination and reign. It has the added bonus of recommending what grades are best collected in each series. It's a mineshaft of information.

Interesting that there should be an overdate at this late stage in the bronze series, when - if you study Freeman - there was a great stability from the early 1880s onwards. The 1893 farthing also has a few variations. It makes me wonder, was the original plan to bring the OH in for bronze at the same time as gold and silver? It would make more sense, as having a 'staggered' introduction of the bronze redesign is a bit odd to say the least, especially when you think it perpetuated the young bun head to an absurd degree. Perhaps the OH bronze design was postponed through pressure of timescales, then they would have had to bring in proper dies for 1893 and 1894.

No, the Traveller USB camera is just used as a digital microscope for large magnifications of small areas of a coin ie examining overdates. As far as a digital camera setup goes, you'll probably want either: a digital compact with a macro mode; or a DSLR and a prime (fixed focal length) macro lens. In general, the more megapixels the better - it's easy to crop away those you haven't used. Obviously, the DSLR route is a lot more expensive, but prime macro lenses usually contain high quality optics and also allow you to position the camera further away from the coin - which makes lighting the coin easier. If you do go for a prime macro lens, one that will do 1:1 reproduction will be the dog's doodahs. This means that at 1:1 the object will be the same size on the sensor as it is in reality ie a shilling would only just fit into the frame. Thanks, Nick, very much appreciated, a great starting place. I think DSLR will be the way forward then. As you've obviously got your head around these things, would you mind if I came back to you for a little more advice on the matter when I've narrowed down a couple of set-up's? No, that's going from one extreme to another. A DSLR is a total waste of a lot of money if you only intend to use it to photograph coins. There are a great many compact cameras that have good macro facilities, then there are good quality mirrorless system cameras like the Panasonic G series for which you could get a decent macro lens for a fraction of the DSLR system cost, and I have a superzoom camera that takes good macro pictures but costs around 1/3 or less of a DSLR basic system, i.e. without even factoring the cost of a macro lens. Basically what I'm saying is - DSLRs are for serious photographers who factor in the cost of an entire system, which amounts to a body, a few lenses, a good tripod, a separate flash, etc etc. They are total overkill UNLESS you are interested in developing a photographic hobby alongside coins. Just to give you an instance : a decent superzoom with macro built in, plus a tripod, will set you back not much more than £300. To get the same kind of DSLR kit would set you back more than double, maybe 3 times as much. You need to think very carefully about this.

Looks like another totally crappy ebay decision! I guess we'll be seeing more 'patterns' or 'I don't know anything about coins' on ebay in the future - after a possible replica stamp has been removed to comply with ebay rules. And sad news for collectors of US contemporary counterfeits and for the genuine collectors of replica coins! What counts as a 'replica', I wonder? A 1933 penny is obviously a replica, but no-one is going to be fooled by a listing claiming it to be genuine. I'd mourn the loss of those good fakes, as Peter says. I can only assume that an 18th Century evasion halfpenny won't count, as they are 1) collected in their own right (as are seuk's favourite series from 1816) and 2) who will rule that a genuinely 250-year-old forged or evasion coin is a "replica"? If the ruling is that items marked COPY aren't allowed, will we then see such items listed as genuine?? I come back to the crucial question - who will rule?

Just make sure your mint doesn't get lost in the wrinkles. Now now. The Blessed Felicity is one of our better preserved lovelies - I think she must visit the same 'therapist' as Lulu!

Kendal Mint Cake = that's the prince of mints :-) ooh only if I can eat them of Naked Felicity herself Now you're talking

Kendal Mint Cake = that's the prince of mints :-)

Bento (i.e. a database) will give you a lot more flexibility of views than a spreadsheet, plus it will be easier to incorporate pictures. So that sounds like a good way to go.

LOL I did a reply with the URL to Rowntree's site, but I withdrew it - I thought it shouldn't be the first reply.