Peckris

If it has the same profile, thickness and weight as a 20p, then it is a blank that got through. It should be flat on both sides as the relief is made by the dies. They usually sell for a few pounds at most, so there isn't a fortune to be made, but it's still a nice thing to have. Basically Hannah, you can group 'weird coins' into groups : • misstrikes and errors (which Rob has identified yours as) - these are collected by some, but even if you don't sell it for a modest sum, it is worth keeping aside as a curio • counterfeits - these might be created to fool slot machines, or like so many current £1 coins, to pass off as a genuine coin; some are historic : a lot of early 19th Century silver was counterfeited in copper and given a thin wash of silver, and these are now quite collectable in their own right. • forgeries - these are valuable coins which have been faked to fool collectors, and which are our biggest headache • tokens - produced to meet a shortage of small change (e.g. late 18th Century), or gambling chips, or even for political reasons • coins that have been 'tooled' or defaced after being taken from circulation - engraved love tokens in the 19th Century, or just worn on a necklace; some are interesting and collectable without being particularly valuable, others are near worthless, e.g. modern coins with initials engraved • coins that have acquired a patina or other unnatural tone - e.g. green from being buried in the ground, or turned into wafers from being immersed in acid I'm sure there's other groupings I've missed - it's worth a whole study in itself!

As a starting point, from the Arabic-like script and minarets, it seems it could be Islamic in origin.

Surprised? That's why you should always buy the books and then the coins. Most people overpay for items because they haven't done their homework. An ethical seller might list an unc 1967 penny for £1. Less scrupulous people might list the same item for £10, after all, £10 isn't a huge amount of money in this day and age. With a little knowledge, the same £10 might just buy all of the Elizabeth II pennies in UNC once you realise how cheap they are. Would you prefer 8 coins (1953 & 1961-7) for the price of 1 without dropping grades, or not? Silly question probably. A really ethical seller would give BU 1967 pennies away free with other purchases. Will they ever be worth anything? Hm. Not in our lifetimes. Having said that, the earlier Liz II pennies (1961 / 62 / 63) are becoming a lot harder to get in genuine BU. The only really easy ones are 1965 / 66 / 67. I know that, but on the assumption that a business needs to sell things you have to say that everything has a price. The point I'm trying to make is that you have to get a feel for the market and not blindly accept what is presented. This can only be done by research, whether on line or printed is not important as long as it is done. Having done a spot of reading, it wouldn't come as a big surprise to find that some uncirculated coins are remarkably cheap despite being 70 or 80 years old. Some 1953 coins, 1948, and 1936 come to mind particularly.

Surprised? That's why you should always buy the books and then the coins. Most people overpay for items because they haven't done their homework. An ethical seller might list an unc 1967 penny for £1. Less scrupulous people might list the same item for £10, after all, £10 isn't a huge amount of money in this day and age. With a little knowledge, the same £10 might just buy all of the Elizabeth II pennies in UNC once you realise how cheap they are. Would you prefer 8 coins (1953 & 1961-7) for the price of 1 without dropping grades, or not? Silly question probably. A really ethical seller would give BU 1967 pennies away free with other purchases. Will they ever be worth anything? Hm. Not in our lifetimes. Having said that, the earlier Liz II pennies (1961 / 62 / 63) are becoming a lot harder to get in genuine BU. The only really easy ones are 1965 / 66 / 67.

I've always wanted to get some of the older "odd denomination" US coins such as the three cent piece and two cent piece and see what reactions I got when I spent them. After all, I get lots of funny looks when I spend half dollars (half the cashiers think they are quarters, others think they are dollars and still others think I'm spending foreign money!) and $2 bills, I can't imagine the looks if I'd spend 3 cent and 2 cent pieces. Unfortunately, even low grade examples seem to sell for $20+ for each of them, so as of yet I haven't had an opportunity to do it. im gonna do that with a crown but a decimal one Just make sure you don't demand change from a 25p when what you've handed over is a £5 crown....

P'raps it's just the picture, but the one on the left doesn't look much like a hollow neck to me.

I think you may have missed my post above? It's actually most likely GEORG.II D.G. M. BRI(TT). ET H. R. (GEORG II DEI GRATIA MAGNA BRITANNIA ET HIBERNIA REX) ("George II by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain and Ireland") That's if it conforms to inscriptions on English coins, and so much of it seems to.

Yes, I'm sure I could fill a few gaps. I'd have to look at what I've got, but it's probably only a small % of the full range available. I will post back when I've had a look. The easiest date is probably 1971, as this is (I think) the most common British coin of all time.

i do not understand. Alarm bells should now start to ring. They make their money by selling you the first item and then routinely send you things on approval that they expect you to pay for but are never even close to being value for money. Unless you (or your grandfather) have signed up for a specific number of items and any distance selling cooling off period has expired, then you are under no obligation to take further items. I assume it was your Grandfather who bought the items in question and it is he who will be bombarded with items on approval sent to the contact address given. On the assumption there is no long term contract, I suggest that you write to them (preferably signed for to prove that they have received the letter) or email them asking to be taken off the mailing list, whilst pointing out that you will not be buying any more things on approval from them and that if they send them, they will not be paid for and will be treated as unsolicited goods which you are under no obligation to return. (Unless of course that is, you actually do want to receive them in the future). They rely on people's guilt in not taking up an offer that has so "generously" been made available to them and a lot of people get conned into thinking they have a bargain. This has expanded on the reason why Peter said this was your first mistake. The one thing these people crave is contact details. Randomly sending out gilt pennies to all the addresses in the telephone book would not be cost effective, but selling these items to people with a passing interest in coins is the basis for a business as the material costs are a tiny fraction of the retail price and so you only need a small percentage to take up the offer and make it worthwhile on their part. Taking up the next offer by actually paying for it means you will probably get an expanded and more expensive selection of similarly overpriced tat to choose from soon afterwards. If you really want their items I suggest you buy them in the second hand market as the price will be a fraction of the original. Sorry for the doom and gloom one day into your 15th year, but there are a lot of people on this forum who don't like to see people being ripped off whether it is coins or anything else and these items fit the bill perfectly. Others will echo what I have said and so you would be well advised to post any queries you have for specially packaged or presented items. Use dealers for purchasing single coins. Chris who runs this site is one, and there are a few other members with websites listing coins for sale such as John (argentum...), red riley, ColinG, myself, Michael Gouby (whatever his id is?) etc. not to mention the many more who list items on ebay. Any reputable coin dealer will take back a coin you are not happy with, though for obvious reasons it becomes unhelpful if rejection is the norm and in this case you should drop the dealer. Yes, I agree. My sister got ripped off by some 'promotion' that arrived in the post - it was supposedly a prize draw, and you had to send the promoters a text. They then sent her 6 texts in return. What they didn't explain (except maybe in some very very very small print) was that receiving these cost £1.50 per text. And then, when she had already lost £9 and next topped up her phone, they sent her 6 more! This isn't as bad as that, but it's a way to get you to spend a lot of money on things that aren't worth what you pay for them. Decorated plates were a popular scam in the 1980s. "Limited edition" medallions by various private mints (the Franklin Mint for example) have always been another. If you like your 2009 halfcrown (whatever that is) then by all means keep it and enjoy it, but don't expect to sell it in the future. It's not real coinage. Don't get ripped off!!

Both websites are in Dutch. Go to Google, then select translate from "more" and paste the URL into the box. Google will then translate the page into English. Correction - Google will then translate into a fairly close relative of English

Most of the letters seem to be out of the proper alignment, which is a bit odd. The earlier Victorian coins were usually of a high standard of workmanship. Issues like these would tend to make me a little suspicious. There are many fake gold coins. Thet are not usually sought for their varieties. An investment....Ummm.A nice good portrait hammered Liz would be about the same price. You mean something like this Peter`? That's a milled coin Dave! But to my eyes, the best of Liz's output

Nice proof, very nice. It definitely doesn't look like an overdate, more like a mark or blemish. You'd have to ask yourself, when striking proof coins in 1806, why on earth there would be any 1807 dies (yet), and why - for a proof - they would use it!!!

Most of the letters seem to be out of the proper alignment, which is a bit odd. The earlier Victorian coins were usually of a high standard of workmanship. Issues like these would tend to make me a little suspicious. There are many fake gold coins. Thet are not usually sought for their varieties. An investment....Ummm.A nice good portrait hammered Liz would be about the same price. That would be on her birthday, after sending Prince Philip down the offy?

Weren't there some sheep mintmarks (at least one) on hammered coins?

Well, that would certainly fit with the Georges being also Electors of Hanover ... but what about the British obverse legend and British Garter on the reverse? Brunswick-Luneburg used the british legend on the obverses of some of their coins and also the british garters. George Luneburg became George 1st of England in 1714 . The coinage of Brunswick-Luneburg during the 18th century is very interesting, other Thalers also have the 4 shields the same as those used on the George 2nd Shillings of GB. Fascinating - I never knew that. And the Anglo-Saxon chumminess persisted I guess, until George V changed the royal name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.

Well, that would certainly fit with the Georges being also Electors of Hanover ... but what about the British obverse legend and British Garter on the reverse?

fictional bags of pennies can be melted down, because pennies are not covered by this act. Not true. I've already explained it to you in detail. I'm not going to waste my energies again. the date of 31-8-1971 is very revelant to everything associated with this act as, thats when it commenced!. Which therefore makes the date of 16th May 1969, SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Act, completely irrelevant, of course. By the way, did you know that Acts can be retrospective? Oh, you didn't? Oh, well then. Let me tell you - they can be. Especially those that refer to dates that predate the coming into force of the Act. Oh! As this one does!!!! Well! i agree with you peckris about new coins and the subsequent demonitization of other coins as you ve listed. indeed i wrote just that in my first post.....maybe you missed that. yes there are bills passed through the houses of parliment all the time and i read one just a few weeks ago about the royal mints request to make a new coin for the 2012 olympics whech fell outside of the 1971 acts dimensions and weights criteria for a coin of legal tender, the bill was passed. Now that we agree peckris, that you can melt down fictional bags of pennies, and break them up. You can do what the **** you like with fictional bags of pennies. Mine were just illustrating the facts and implementation of the Act to you in a simple and logical way. Real pennies cannot be melted down, of course, since they ceased to be legal tender AFTER 16th May 1969. It's there in the Act. How many times have I pointed this out to you? More times than I have the energy for. Moving back to the penny farthing bike........the question was asked was it illegal to drill a hole in the penny? clearly not. We agreed on that a long time ago. As 'drilling a hole' appears not to be covered by the Act, unlike the penny which is. (If you care to read and analyse it.) and that ma lord is the case for the defence I've had enough of arguing with you ski. I've tried to explain the meaning of the Act to you, in every way I can think up. You can't or won't understand. So be it. I don't want to seriously fall out with you, so I'm going to retire from this. I've said my last word on the matter, but I'm not yielding truth to you. If you want to interpret my ensuing silence as giving way, then be my guest. It's not so, but I have no more energy to give to this.

+ Edward florins - NOW you're talking! + If you'd said the Wyon/Merlen William IV halfcrowns (swoon).

Do your normal search, Peter, and look in the filters area on the left of the screen. Under "Seller", hit Specifiy Sellers A box will pop up. Check the box marked "only show items from", change the drop down to "Exclude", and paste in the names of those you want to ignore, separated by commas. Then hit Go to close the box, and click Save Search at the top of the page. I call mine "No Junk sellers", and my ignore list is enormous. I'm quite happy to share it if you want... Yes please! D'you think it would be OK in open forum, or should I PM? Seeing as it's real people an' all.... DM to be on the safe side, I guess. Though it wouldn't really stand up in court if someone sued - "He put me on his junk list!"

Do your normal search, Peter, and look in the filters area on the left of the screen. Under "Seller", hit Specifiy Sellers A box will pop up. Check the box marked "only show items from", change the drop down to "Exclude", and paste in the names of those you want to ignore, separated by commas. Then hit Go to close the box, and click Save Search at the top of the page. I call mine "No Junk sellers", and my ignore list is enormous. I'm quite happy to share it if you want... Yes please!

My nomination for the ugliest predecimal coin I wouldn't say ugly, just unartistic. Reminds me of the day my Dad had a go at flower arranging... Am I just being a grumpy old git or has coin design been on a slow downward spiral since some point in the early 19th century? Nope Though having said that ... There are some 'modern' coin reverses which I'd place higher than the over-fussy halfcrowns of George IV (last type), and a few other 19th Century 'villains' : thrifty 3d, ship halfpenny, Liz II shillings, wren farthings, 50p Britannia, 10p lion, £1 dragon, £1 leopards, £1 bridges, £1 shield (1988), silver Britannia, well that's quite a lot to start off with!

Sorry Peckris - but I'm not from the monarchy... This coin was on my grand-grandmother's dress (hence the hole in the coin). Ok - so we definitely cleared the typo... Any idea of it's value and nomination?!? Any idea what the small letters on the bottom of the reverse would stand for? PY? The name of the mint, maybe?!? Thanks very much for the replies!!! This is getting VERY interesting... No idea what PY would be, maybe someone else here does? Probably not a mint I'd say, as those haven't been included since the milled era. It looks too worn and damaged to have any value beyond the "interesting", unless it was something extremely rare (and would also have to be a coin, really). It's clearly got family interest, so that's more important I'd say. BTW I think I can make out BRITT on the obverse, not merely BRI.

"A man" - that's no way to speak of your monarch! The D.G. (DEI GRATIA) is split by "the man's" head. The rest of it is M. BRI. (MAGNA BRITANNIA = Great Britain) FR. (FRANCE) and the remainder would almost certainly be ET H.R. (ET HIBERNIA REX = and Ireland, King) On the Garter, it might be written QVI for QUI - an error has resulted in QIV instead of QVI / QUI

Thank you. Yes, a reasonable night's sleep. So, once more unto the fray... I wish to make the following points : ONE. I know perfectly well that the penny was demonetised on the 31st August 1971, along with the threepenny bit. That's never been an issue, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to raise it. TWO. HOWEVER, it was current (legal tender) after the 16th May 1969 (until 31/8/71) and therefore falls within Section 10 of the Act. That is unquestionable and indisputable. The wording may be legalistic and a tad convoluted, but it is - when you dissect it - quite specific and clear. THREE. The date of 31st August 1971 is irrelevant. The wording specifically refers to "current coins" at any time while the Act is in force; "OR WHICH" - very important legal clause signifying an exception to the previous statement, or an addition to it - "HAVING BEEN CURRENT THERE HAS AT ANY TIME AFTER 16TH MAY 1969, CEASED TO BE SO". FOUR. That general wording, and that 1969 date, are extremely important legally. Without them, the Act would not apply to : A) the decimal halfpenny (demonetised 1984) the large 5 pence (demonetised 1990) C) the large 10 pence (demonetised 1992) D) the large 50 pence (demonetised 1997) The Act also has to sweep up and include NEW current coins without having to specifically mention them : E) 25 pence (1972) F) 20 pence (1982) G) £1 coin (1983) H) £2 coins (passim, up to and including the bimetallic) So, with all that in mind, let me walk you through the story of a fictional bag of 1967 pennies, melted down for copper. • were they legal tender on 31/8/71? NO BUT • had they been current at any time? YES • had they ceased to be current after 16th May 1969? YES Therefore the Act applies to them. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

peckris I cannot believe you have wasted so many words on perpetuating an error! Sigh. Let me try and spend fewer words to explain it. there are none so blind as those who wont see......... the act of 1971 only applies to coins who were legal tender on the 31-8-1971.............thats it. Show me the wording in the Act that says so? And show me the parts of the Act that have now been superseded in relation to melting or defacing coins? The Act's wording SPECIFICALLY mentions the date 16th May 1969. It does NOT specifically mention the date 31st August 1971. The words "wall" "fed" brick" "up" "I'm" "banging" "against" "a" "my" "with" and "head" come to mind. Rearrange those into a sentence. For now, I will leave you to your stubbornness. Sleep well.