Peckris

Welcome to 1980...

Just posting.

It's not doubling - but it does look like a recut A, the underlying A being a bit higher and rotated a few degrees anti-clockwise. The top of the original A seems to be protruding, and the right hand serif as you've noticed, and the bulge bottom left looks suspicious too. Recut letters are extremely common on the copper series, especially the farthings. Thanks for that.As you said, it does seem a common occurrence.Here is another 1845 I have which is similar but not quite as pronounced. Yes, that looks convincing. I'm afraid I don't have an 1845 farthing (I'm a type collector these days) so I can't go and check mine.

My thoughts : 1. There is no added numismatic value for the sixpences and threepences depending on silver content - they aren't even mentioned in catalogues and price lists. Therefore the difference between the two types won't be a factor in any grade above Fine (and below that they aren't worth collecting). 2. Therefore the only time it's important is when you want bullion value from worn coins. I would have thought that at that stage, there would be quite a difference in colour between the two? After all, the Mint got the first attempt at the new alloy badly wrong, and 50%-silver coins of 1920 and 1921 get discoloured and ugly. I realise that's not a scientific test, but it could help. But, I'm kind of wondering what profit there might be in cornering the market in worn 1920 6d's and 3d's, in order to cash in on the tiny difference in bullion value with coins that small. It seems to me that the costs incurred in trying out a definitive test would negate most of the profit? The words "worth" "trouble" "more" "it's" & "than" come to mind.

LOL - excuse my less than politeness above!

Actually, apart from a very rare example, all coins dated 1920 are 50% silver, i.e. a new alloy. It's PRE-1920 that they are sterling (92.5%) silver. The 50% silver lasted until 1946, then since 1947 all "silver" coins have been an alloy of copper and nickel. That's not quite true. There are 1920 sixpences and threepences of .925 and .500 silver. The easiest way to tell them apart is to let them fall (gently) on a hard surface and listen to the resulting sound. Then compare with a 1919 version (.925) and also with a 1921 (.500). To my ear the .925 is quite a sharp sound, whereas the .500 is a bit duller. You learn something new...

Actually, apart from a very rare example, all coins dated 1920 are 50% silver, i.e. a new alloy. It's PRE-1920 that they are sterling (92.5%) silver. The 50% silver lasted until 1946, then since 1947 all "silver" coins have been an alloy of copper and nickel.

It's someone who doesn't know what they've got ("what, on eBay?" I hear you ask...). That's a standard first reverse 1689 halfcrown. What the seller thinks is a "date stamped into the crown" is merely the pearls that form part of the design - it's all that's left of the design so it looks a bit like a series of "8"s. So if the date was 8888, then indeed it would look like that... It's around Fair+ condition if you want to bid on it, but it's not a rare variety.

It's not doubling - but it does look like a recut A, the underlying A being a bit higher and rotated a few degrees anti-clockwise. The top of the original A seems to be protruding, and the right hand serif as you've noticed, and the bulge bottom left looks suspicious too. Recut letters are extremely common on the copper series, especially the farthings.

That's just what my wife used to do in her informative years. Although I let her use the washing machine now though. As long as your wives don't beat the washing on your rocks I think its going to be OK. Spam is nice with a bit of branston or raw onion.Plus I use it sometimes as fishing bait. A cracked spambot with a modified effigy George V penny playing on a Xbox...WHATS ALL THAT ABOUT? Your grandson will know

Interesting that Michael Gouby makes no attempt to catalogue date spacing prior to 1866 1866 seems to be the worst David Probably because it is normal for 1860 - 1863 - there would be too many varieties to cope with.

You mean you tried? The obverse legend on it seems to be MARIA ANG FRA Z (et) HIB REGI (Mary, Queen of England France and Ireland), which sounds ok, but I'm no expert. The reverse legend SHOULD be VERITAS TEMPORIS FILIA but yours just has TEMPO which may be a known variation? As to whether it's a counterfeit or not, I don't know enough. It appears to be a groat.

From the convex shield it must be Reverse G. The date numerals are interesting. The second 1 appears to be closer to the 6 than you see on many others. The size of the digits may appear a bit larger due to the disappearance of the linear circle. There's a lot of variation in the date in the first few years of buns. But, you never know!

True, but it's in the nature of patterns to be 1) rare 2) exceptions to the business strike rule. They are experiments. (Though why those were double obverse, beats me).

Short for robot (unlike Rob ), i.e. an automatic - software - conveyer of spam without human intervention.

It is and it isn't. It is a kind of catchall to dump all uncollectable coins into. But you will not find a description of the condition, except something vague "so worn as to be uncollectable" or something like that. If you had an 1869 penny that was better than "CD" but worse than "About Fair", you probably would be advised to not grade it but just throw it up on eBay with pictures.

Both the fact he is able to list the same thing twice and the label on the slab. Maybe it is my screen, but I can't see anything wrong with it, unless it is a laminating flan - but then you have to take NGC's word for it Nor I. And how come he is selling it again, when he sold it for £310 a few days ago??? Buyer pulled out, or what?

Apparently it's called a 'console', and it plays games. Oh, and it fails often and spectacularly. Made by Microsoft. That's about all *I* know.

There aren't any official numismatic grades below Fair. You can consider EVERY coin below About Fair as Poor - grading subtle distinctions of Poor is not something that any collector would be interested in. You can add the distinction of CD (Clear Date) for rarities, e.g. bun pennies that conveniently leave their dates readable when all else is blank. Otherwise, all such coins merely have a scrap or bullion value.

Insert spam links into what looks like a genuine reply to a forum post. xbox 360 key r4 card cheapest r4 Yep I have no interest whatsoever. Then follow them up with a spam reply that looks kind of genuine at first glance. Damn, these bots are getting cleverer! there are absolutely no difference between the r4's these days. may of them are either clones of the actual r4 card, while others are clones of the acekard brand flashcarts. r4's may be popular, but every single one of them these days are fakes/clones, and there are heaps of better flashcarts to choose from.

Bet it never gets as big as the British thread. Just a thought True, probably Scott and I mainly David How could I forget scott! The thread may well grow to the size of the other then

Bet it never gets as big as the British thread. Just a thought

Yes, a sov is approximately the size of a shilling.

Oh I say. It looks Arabic or failing that Urdu. Definitely not Gibberish, which is generally found between Lowestoft to the east and Lands End to the west.

Suspect it was a half sovereign although the size you gave doesn't tally (1/2 sovereigns are just short of 2mm.). If it was a full sovereign, you were well and truly screwed! Yeah, looking at the comparative pictures above, it has to be a half sov. It's significantly smaller than the shilling.