Peckris

The answer to that question is no then. I've been collecting coins for over 20 years and well i've I don't have any of the first four coins. I do have some 1967 pennies but they were a gift, there's no way on earth I'd actually buy one! I suppose it shows our collecting bias. Every coin you list is copper or bronze and I've never collected copper or bronze coins. If I had made the list it would look more like this; Elizabeth II florin George VI florin Bun Head Penny Brass Threepence Wren Farthing 1967 halfpenny Elizabeth II shilling And the only reason I list these is because these are the coins most people in the UK who aren't collectors are likely to ask the question 'i've found an old coin, what's it worth?' That and most of us probably have a few of them lying around (unspent change in the case of the florins and shillings from about 20 odd years ago), even if we don't actually collect any of them per say. My nomination for the ugliest predecimal coin

Interesting. That second picture is lighter and clearer than the first you posted. I'm now revising my opinion about it. Looking at the epaulettes or whatever they're called, they do look remarkably similar to those on coins of George II. However, and this is the big problem, he's facing the wrong way. George II should be facing left not right. All I'm certain of is that it's not a UK coin. And clearly THR PY is an abbreviation of THREEPENNY

current = legal term for currency as well as being current. remember now, you can have legal tender that is not part of your currency system or, is not current to put it legally.............please read that again mr peckris. okay bearing in mind this statement is made with referance to those coins that are legal tender as of the 31-8-1971 and of course included in this act. (also specifically not included, the penny and threpeny bit). what coins could possibly have been legal tender and so covered by this act on the 31-8-1971, and under section 10 of this act being current at 16th may 1969?...............step forward once more the 5p 10p florin shilling etc now the big question...... what coins could possibly have been legal tender and so covered by this act on the 31-8-1971 (not the penny remember) but had after the 16th may 1969 ceased to be so (current)........step forward the sovereign, the half sovereign, the quarter sovereign, maundy money, just about every commemorative issue that has been produced since this date........i may stand corrected, but im of the opinion that proofs also fall into this category. they were, and are still all legal tender, but not current. 31-8-1969......the humble penny was not legal tender, was not covered by this act. ski. I cannot believe you have wasted so many words on perpetuating an error! Sigh. Let me try and spend fewer words to explain it. (1)No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. Ok, let's break that down into little pieces. 1. [i](1)No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin Shall we agree that part is clear enough? 2. which is for the time being That's legal terminology. It means not only "on the date the the Act was passed", but "on any date while this Act is in force." So, for example, you could insert today's date, and it still applies. 3. current in the United Kingdom We both agree that means "currency coins", yes? 4. This is the crucial part you're not getting. or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. That's seems clear enough to me. But just in case, I will translate or paraphrase : "any coin that has been currency (in UK) but has been made non-currency since 16th May 1969." That doesn't include the farthing. However, it includes your penny, your halfpenny, your halfcrown, your threepenny bit, your decimal halfpenny, your large 50p, 10p, 5p coins ... all of which ceased to be currency AFTER 16th May 1969, but all of which have been currency at some time. Sigh.

All right, I confess. Yes. I do. I do have a 1967 penny. I might even have more than one. So there.

Well, it's actually a portrait of George III (based on the Kuchler bust which appeared for the first time on the 1797 "Cartwheel" coppers which were the first machine-produced coins). The reverse, as you say, features the British coat of arms plus royal garter. However it doesn't correspond to any recognised coin type, but may be some kind of medallion, or forgery thereof. Because of the condition it's hard to tell much more.

not at all. the point of my posts is that the penny and threepenny bit were not subject to this act,simple as that, as you mentioned also the farthing and also the half crown and halfpenny. the act was not retrospective, but was and still is in place to protect the current legal tender....the penny under this act was not current and was not legal tender and fell outside of section 3 of what constituted as of 31 aug 1971 a legally tendered coin. even now, coins that would have fallen within the scope of the act as of 31 aug 1971, may not be subject to item 10 with referance to "has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so", because of subsequent acts or act ammendements. ski. You've misunderstood! The penny, threepenny bit, halfcrown and halfpenny WERE subject to the Act - read the exact wording again, and you'll see it's so. All those were demonetised AFTER 16th May 1969. Only the farthing wasn't.

Yes, the sandblasted proofs are ultra-rare 'specials', quite distinct from mirror or frosted proofs. They have more in common with the matte proofs of Ed VII but aren't the same.

Fake it is, then

Ski, I think you're complicating things. The original wording quoted above from the 1971 Act... (1)No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so. ...covers all current coins, plus any denominations that were demonetised after 16th May 1969. Only the farthing is not caught by that.

Actually the far more common name is "frosted design" proofs. They were introduced here in the 1980 sets after many years of ordinary "mirror finish" proofs. Having said that, very mild frosting can be seen on some George VI proofs (or if not actually frosted, the raised design doesn't actually have the mirror finish of the fields).

On page 72 of CYC there is an Info panel on how to calculate the value of modern proof sets (basically, a multiplier of the total face value). I'd just like to add the following notes : 1. The first three sets 1971/2/3 attract a variable premium - 1971 through being the first decimal proofs, 1972 through being a 'proof only' year set, 1973 through being very difficult to obtain without ugly toning so untoned sets attract a premium 2. Coins that weren't issued in currency form (e.g. 1974 2p 5p 50p) are worth around double the proofs that were. They tend not to add to the value of the whole set but have more value as singletons, which is why so many early sets are broken up on the principle that 'the whole is worth less than the sum of the parts'.

I've seen chocolate coins with better outers than that! It actually doesn't look like a worn coin so much as a fake or an acid victim (does gold dissolve in acid?)

Yes, I agree Bill. That wording seems to include all predecimal coins that were currency after the demonetisation of the farthing in the early 60s - therefore the farthing is not a problem but the penny potentially is. But I think drilling a hole doesn't actually contravene the Act.

I'd say "no". The Act was specifically to prevent the mass export of coins to recover metal values. Drilling holes is not really an issue, especially with demonetised issues.

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type). For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am. Thanks for the rapid reply. There may be a typo, however, as the reverse looks more like 2789 than 2785. The obverse has the tall bust, extending beyond the inner circle significantly. The problem there, is that the mintmark is the wrong one (it's most likely a harp not a tun), also the oval shield reverse actually starts with 2785 according to Spink. As for the obverse, yours has the inner circle which they don't from 2787 onwards. Unless I'm reading Spink wrong?

Aww, no bids. That little item deserved some interest

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type). For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am.

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist. Thank you for your vote of confidence. All you say is perfectly correct the Arabic 1 was used in the sets which would indicate that 797 were Arabic 1 but I have read that mintage of the proof double florin was, as with the other silver coins, 1084. This allows for up to 287 others. Recent work shows the proportion of Roman to Arabic double florins in a sample of 591 to be 200 Roman to 391 Arabic. This is using the reverse A and B as given in Davies. I have no way of knowing whether this proportion holds for the remaining 287 or if it applies at all, all I can say is, yes there are proof Roman I coins. You should also remember the specimen sets have a proportion of Roman I coins and people often mistake the high quality coins for proofs. Again the currency coins, that is those using the currency dies also have occasional proof or proof like strikings. As the years go by the best uncirculated coins, especially early strikings, take on an appearence of being proof but held up against the real thing it is easy to tell the difference. I would be happy to examine anything you think might be a Roman proof and send you photos of mine if you provide email. Obverse and reverse needed. As to value the last one I picked up for £140 not long ago. If I were pushed for a mintage number it would have to be less than 150 unless of course all the 287 are Roman. Many thanks for the information. I do have a decent Roman I example, but it is definitely just a currency piece. However, I now have hope that there is a Roman I proof out there somewhere that might appear for sale at some point in the future. I remember reading somewhere that there are many Victorian coins produced from highly polished blanks that appear to be proofs, but are not. All of the genuine proofs I have seen possess a distinctive uniform rim with sharp edge milling. I think it's unlikely that these were polished blanks (i.e. prepared for proofs) - the proof striking quantity would have been known in advance and the right number of blanks (plus maybe a few extra for contingency) would have been prepared. There are simply far too many prooflike currency pieces - or at least, UNC examples with highly mirrored fields but with the raised design not mirrored - to be explained by polished blanks. I believe it is more likely that the proof dies were used on normal blanks once the proof strikings were complete, as there would have been plenty of life left in them. Even with a single strike rather than double, this would have produced coins with a prooflike finish, but without the sharp rims that the specially prepared blanks would have had. The next step down would be the early strikes from new currency dies, which might have had something of a prooflike appearance, until inspected fairly closely.

Certainly looks like it. Appears to be a real overstrike rather than a 'double bounce'.

£9.99? I hope it's the 50% silver version at the very least. Somehow I doubt it though. Still, as you say, a free plastic sleeve..

I wouldn't wait, personally. On the news today, they reported that copper and tin prices have already fallen sharply very recently. Silver won't be far behind, I should think.

I agree with scott - it's most likel to be 8/7. That's a known variety, worth a little more than the regular issue, but not much more. By the way, Freeman only covers bronze issues. Peck is still the main copper authority.

Some do, some don't. If there's a lot of work involved, all dealers will charge. However, if you took in one or two coins for valuation, it's doubtful any reasonable dealer would charge you. And if they can give you a quick opinion off the top of their head, they wouldn't charge for that either. In between those two extremes, it's up to the particular dealer.

I think you're absolutely right. However, I stand by my point that all upswings are inevitably followed by a downswing. That's a rule that's never failed yet, except in the cost of living in the West since WW2 (though Japan proved that negative inflation was possible around 10 years ago).

Sorry to hear about your grandad. One thing puzzles me though - you say he was a collector for many years, yet only had one single modern series? It may be worth asking what else there is ("My family wish to sell some of the coins")? It may be that, not knowing much about the subject, they looked at these modern glossy proofs and decided that was where the value was. Yet actually, if he had other, older coins, they could be worth much more if of the right type and in the right condition.