Peckris

The proof sets only included 8 silver coins. 2/6, 2/-, 1/-, 6d, 4d, 3d, 2d and 1d. If we were to assuming the 3d is part of the maundy series there would be no proof currency 3d.... but are the maundy coins proof or maundy issue. I say proof which would make the 3d a proof currency 3d because the normal issue maundy 3d has a different observe the proof issue. This sounds like a grey area. The only official Maundy Money is that which was issued as part of the ceremony. Therefore the "Maundy" denominations as part of the 1911, 1937 proof sets, etc, can't really be regarded as Maundy, and therefore the 3d should count as a currency proof (how you would classify the 4d, 2d, and 1d, I have no idea).

Your Vespasian still shows the powerfull portrait of an Imperial Brass Sestercius - you aquired the coin very well Thanks

For new collectors - especially the young without much money - the chance of getting good coins to start a collection, is less and less. Common coins are around in abundance though, so if youngsters stick to those, there's still hope. But upgrading to get good stock requires more and more outlay, which is great for existing collectors with decent coins, but I'd say the long-term outlook isn't that great for newbies. If the current interest subsides though, and prices see the sort of 'correction' that house prices saw, who knows? But, the stock of predecimal coins is finite and getting smaller by the year.

Yes you're right. I was judging it only on the reverse which is passable. The obverse is pretty awful.

An interesting story. I've often admired such coins though never had a yen to collect or research them. However I do know that desirable Arabic coins - especially when competed for by oil-rich buyers - know no bounds in price. My own interests outside British milled, lie mostly in ancients, though my collection is quite small. It was helped considerably by an auction I picked up from W&W when dealing - a good mixed assortment of Roman and a few Greek and Macedonian types. After selling a few - including a rather nice Sassanid silver coin I wish I'd kept now - I thought "what the hell, I'm keeping the rest of these" and bunged them into my own collection. Sadly the collection was lacking any early large bronze, and so was my collection, so when this Vespasian came up on eBay I decided to go for it (large bronzes are notoriously expensive). Although only Fine, and costing me getting on for £30, I didn't regret my purchase, though it is still my only large Roman bronze. And not THAT large either - a dupondius is a lot smaller than a sestertius.

Astonishing that Victoria perpetuated that myth of youth in 1897, when she was a withered crone just 4 years from death! Still I suppose it was only 10 years earlier that Brits finally saw an end to the Young Head...

It's the kind of thing an antiques dealer would be much more help with. Numismatically, it's too 'altered' to be of interest to a coin collector, but one who was also interested in antiques and curios might find it irresistible. But even an antiques collector with little knowledge of coins might find it of great interest. Have you tried your local antiques dealers? (If it was 'just' a coin, in that grade it wouldn't be worth more than around £20 - £25).

I'm not sure? One's a striking error, the other is a design error. In my eyes, the two things are worlds apart (from a personal 'desirability' point of view). Possibly ~ that one could be up for debate. I'm honestly not sure. I'm only speaking personally. To me a misstrike is a unique curio, no more interesting or valuable than that. Whereas a design error (or die error) is to me very desirable, such as the 1923 florin with the early portrait, or 1946 mint dot penny, or 1944 penny with lustre, or any lettering error, that kind of thing, as there are going to be several examples in various states of preservation, a collectors market for them, plus they feature in numismatic publications and folklore. Surely the 1946 ONE' flaw and an untoned 1944 cannot be considered design errors, or have I misunderstood you? They are striking errors, as the error occurred through faulty production rather than the (intentional) alteration of the die by a 'designer'. I would suggest that the 1903 'open 3' is a design 'error' and collectible, whereas the 1946 ONE' flaw is a striking error and no more than a curio. A more satisfactory categorisation might be: 1) A one off striking error (as with the coin originally posted here) 2) A repeated striking error (as with the 1946 ONE' flaw) and any die crack or disintegration 3) A design 'error' (as with the the undated 20p or 1903 'open 3') Personally I shouldn't generally collect 1) or 2) other than for a sense of completeness when they are listed in reference works. So yes, ok, I admit to collecting the main 2) varieties The 1946 I would class as a die error (broken) which I allowed for. The 1944 pennies with lustre are I suppose a case on their own, but I wouldn't class them as misstrikes as they were simply given the treatment that halfpennies and farthings got, instead of the hypo bath which wasn't a normal thing. The point with all of those is that there are plenty of examples, and that sets them apart from misstrikes which are curiosities and usually unique and therefore unmarketable. The exception being brockages perhaps, which have a collector's group of their own.

Indeed! One might be forgiven, examining the subsequent genealogy, that they have been trying to increase the genetic legitimacy of their claim by marrying above themselves ever since. :D

I'm not sure? One's a striking error, the other is a design error. In my eyes, the two things are worlds apart (from a personal 'desirability' point of view). Possibly ~ that one could be up for debate. I'm honestly not sure. I'm only speaking personally. To me a misstrike is a unique curio, no more interesting or valuable than that. Whereas a design error (or die error) is to me very desirable, such as the 1923 florin with the early portrait, or 1946 mint dot penny, or 1944 penny with lustre, or any lettering error, that kind of thing, as there are going to be several examples in various states of preservation, a collectors market for them, plus they feature in numismatic publications and folklore.

I miss the old billion too! Ours, I mean, not the American one which we've adopted. If our deficit was measured in proper billions, we'd be in even deeper doodie than we already are!!

If you go back to the bastard offspring of Edward IV that Henry VII entirely based his claims on, they aren't royal at all! Henry VII and VIII spent much of their time killing off the more legitimate "pretenders", though apparently the true line has actually survived to the present day.

As Tom says, the coins in question will determine the best auction to select. Also, what he says about fees is also very germane. I'm not saying eBay is necessarily your solution, but for certain types of coin, the costs would be much lower. This is one experience I had selling a lot a few years back at Greenslade Taylor Hunt in Taunton. The two lots went for £30 (hammer price) - I got a cheque for £17. Just a thought.

It's definitely filled with something - the hatching beneath the letters is still very clear. I don't know if it's an I though, but I've never actually seen one.

I knew there was a picture somewhere! (To my shame I've never used the Search facility here).

I have nothing but admiration for any survivors of WW2 (though let's not be so black and white - even among surviving soldiers some will be genuine heroes, others may have a sorrier or more mundane tale to tell.) They all deserve their pension, and the care of the State. However, despite his no doubt creditable war service, no-one can sanely or reasonably compare the Duke of Edinburgh to any other war survivor. Has he ever had to worry about his financial situation? No. If he is ever ill, does he have to worry that he won't get the best private medicine that money can buy? No. Is he renowned as a man of moderate, sensitive and tolerant views, especially of certain foreign races? No. So, if anyone takes the piss, it's not because of his war service but because of who he has been for the past 60 years. Even so, our remarks (above) were hardly on the level of Hogarth and Rawlinson, were they? No.

Sorry I can't be of help on your question. But, a giant LOL @ "FRETNA" !!! It's actually FR ET NAV REX (short for FRANCIAE ET NAVARRAE REX - "King of France and Navarre").

You're welcome. Here's one on eBay that someone is asking forty quid for : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1799-George-111-Halfpenny-AEF-SN1422-/230598523295?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item35b0be399f#ht_3811wt_915 It's comparable to yours but probably a fraction less wear, and no graffiti. (Just in case you wanted to see one in reasonable shape).

No, none of those are. The way to tell is from the lower loop of the 3. If it curves up towards the top loop, almost vertically, it's the normal type. The open 3 looks far more like the typed 3 <------ but with the lower loop a bit further extended outwards than the top loop. If you Google it, there are some decent photographs on the net.

Well that seems to have sorted that out then! It's a Sydney Mint variety, and the initials are not present on most half sovs it seems (probably too little space to include them). As for value, it would need to be calculated using catalogue values only as a guide. Gold bullion values are much higher than when the last ed. of Spink was published (unless someone has the 2012 edition yet?). If using an older edition, then do this (it's a bit complicated) : 1. look up the UNC prices of Elizabeth II sovs - they will be just a little above bullion 2. Note that values of Vic veiled head Sydney half sovs in VF (which yours is - average of obverse (+) and reverse (-) ) are roughly the same as this 3. As yours is a scarce variety, the values in EF and UNC will be way over bullion in multiples, so ignore what's listed 4. Your coin should be worth - very approximate - the bullion value of a sovereign (its own bullion value would be (half?) that) That's a very very approximate guide indeed. You'd be better off waiting for the 2012 Spink and looking up the actual value in VF. Your nearest large library will have a copy.

Nothing 'poor little' about that! You can add that to my "impossible reality", "incredible dream" too. :)

I'm not sure? One's a striking error, the other is a design error. In my eyes, the two things are worlds apart (from a personal 'desirability' point of view).

Ok, that's fair enough. Well assuming it's London Mint (no mintmark) then it's worth bullion value, but gold is pretty high right now, so if you can get a quote on that, it's worth its weight in gold!

That script looks Cyrillic, so Russian? The double-headed eagle looks about right for Russia.

You sure that's a genuine half sov? It doesn't seem to have the right colour, it looks almost like a bronze lustred copy. If it was genuine with an Aussie mint (M P or S) it would be rare and valuable. Otherwise it would be bullion value.