Peckris

Your post so good they named it twice ... er, FOUR times ?

It's actually just the right size Fits neatly into a tabbed browser with bookmarks bar on a 17" screen, which just by coincidence... (By the way, you mean Photoshop not Photobucket, the latter is a picture hosting site!) For f***'s sake don't encourage him!

I think the first two are the funniest! (Cameltoe and phlegmball )

Dave, I've been studying your picture quite closely, alongside just.me's uploaded images. What seems to be the case is that the bust on yours is the same position as on those others. It just LOOKS lower because it is very very weak (whether from the die, or just on that particular coin, it's really not possible to say) at the base of the bust where the WW would be. But, looking at the base of the bust both to the left and right of that area where it's less weak, it appears to be the same height as those others. However, it is very difficult to determine with absolute precision without overlaying the images in different colours one over the other.

Yes, that's another of the differences. Also there are a few minor differences in the ribbon immediately above the date (no fold on the left, thicker strand on the right). I'm impressed by your knowledge of Hocking! I can see myself getting around to asking them in around two years time LOL.

That's my whole point Rob. It's NOT a "minute difference". It's a bloody huge glaring "twice as big as normal" spacing. And I'm not one of your perpetual hopefuls ("Oh I'll post it at predecimal and show everyone that yet again I've got a massive rarity and soon I'll be famous"). I've STUDIED as many of those wreath reverse 1887 JH heads as I can lay my hands on, or through enlargements on eBay, and I can assure you, the spacing of that issue is pretty standard. Except for this one. I do not buy the "there are variations all over Victoria's reign" - not after the early 80s when the methods of production changed and as we all know from the bun penny (and all other) output from then on, there is a remarkable consistency compared to what went before. Anyway, that wasn't my main point. My main point was and is - all other varieties here cause an outburst of interest, enthusiasm and back-slapping congratulations. I don't see why my poor sixpence can't elicit a fraction of that instead of the wet blanket treatment.

I would of never thought of using the Hubble telescope. Now you're just being unfair. If you "Enlarge" it, it's quite obvious there is a hole near the top of the ... ?coin?

Hi - it's on this page http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showforum=44 - about halfway down It's a sure-fire unrecorded variety Dave - the 8 over 8 is clear as daylight, and the wide space between the 8 and the 7 is clearer still. It can't possibly be a 'smudge' or a 'worn die' or anything like that. That's why I'm so miffed. It's so clear and so obvious. I did get some interest from our friend 1887 who agrees it's unrecorded and wanted to put it in his book, though it's all gone quiet on that front. One of you guys who's friendly with Davies could do me a favour and point him towards the discussion pages, if you felt like it?

Well, I have NEVER seen another 1887 "8/8" "8 7" sixpence, so unless I can get Spinks interested then despite its rarity it's a worthless piece of crap that no-one is bothered with. Amazing how every other unrecorded variety posted in these forums has everyone in orgasms.

In other words, only "one between two" for every inhabitant of Britain. Oh dear, a lot of people are going to go without. I won't deny you Peck.You can have my half I won't hear of such unselfishness Peter - I insist that you have it

My 1887 wreath reverse sixpence variety is a lot more of a sure-fire observably different coin compared to the regular issue than yours appears to be Dave. Yet how much interest has it aroused in this forum? Almost none. Sorry if I'm unsympathetic, but that's been my experience. Sour grapes? You bet.

In other words, only "one between two" for every inhabitant of Britain. Oh dear, a lot of people are going to go without.

ROFL. "Only" ???

What do you want to know? History? Value? Grade? Pictures would be necessary if either of the last two are required. Ok i will try and take some pics and attatch them i want to know everything The 1807 is probably a halfpenny (new collectors often assume they are pennies as they are quite large). The value of them ranges from about £1 in worn condition, up to near £100 for a really top grade specimen. George III issued halfpennies and farthings in the 1770s, then stopped, and there was a dire shortage of small change. Tokens (mostly halfpennies) filled the gap and are a specialist field all to themselves. Then Matthew Boulton got together with James Watt (yes THE J.W.) to produce steam equipment for automating coin production and got a contract to produce copper twopences and pennies dated 1797 (the so-called "Cartwheels" due to their size). Then the value of copper rose so the coins got smaller as they had to contain their own weight in copper - halfpennies and farthings were issued in 1799. Then slightly smaller again, and in 1806-7 pennies halfpennies and farthings were issued, which were the last coppers of George III. There was a huge redesign of the coinage in 1816, which didn't include copper. However, from 1816 it was decreed for the first time that coins didn't have to contain their own face value of the metal used, which is how it's been ever since. The other coins you have are unremarkable predecimal 20th Century issues, unlikely to be worth anything much. The halfpenny would be worth something in really top condition, the 1944 halfcrown contains real silver (50%) so has an intrinsic value, and the 1965 is worth about £5 but only if in absolute gleaming mint condition.

Here is a picture of an 1877 Davies 762 florin. On your example, the bottom edge of Victoria's dress is not very well defined and there is almost no discernible gap between the dress and the arc and trefoil border. My guess is that the WW has become obscured by the encroaching dress line. Is it possible to post the full picture Nick so we can see the cross on Viccies crown. In my very 1st 2 pictures you can quite clearly see the difference between the 2 rims to the trefoils, pic 1 has a gap whereas pic 2 has'nt Sure. Here it is. Ok from that picture i can see the full cross on the crown but not in my picture. Viccies bust is notably lower in mine whereas not in yours It's hazy and blurred - very difficult to tell where the bottom edge is.

Fairly common I'm afraid. But still, nice to have a 18thC copper, and no need to belittle it at all. Enjoy it, and if you have access to a camera or scanner, do upload pictures

Ah, but it does have the bust cutout where the initials would be. Is the WW incuse or raised on Gothic florins? It could be a filled or worn die, rather than a distinct and unknown variety.

You'd have to be 100% sure about the "No WW" for that to be unlisted.

Hey hey, welcome to the forums Ironically, it's called "coin alignment". The other alignment (the same way up transversely) is called "en medaille" (medal) and is how most modern coins are minted. Confusing? You bet! (It changed over in Britain in the 19th Century).

Rob's picture of those bun halfpennies illustrate the main omission from his otherwise excellent description. That is - although there should be a sharp dividing line between proofs and currency issues, that is not a "given". The complicating factors are : 1. Large issues of proofs (e.g. in 1953) can be much inferior to VIP proofs, i.e. where few examples were struck. This is less of an issue after 1980 when 'frosted proofs' were again adopted by the Mint after a long gap. 2. Early currency strikes. Even though these involve new rather than proof dies, they are much crisper, finer, and more collectable than where the dies have begun to sustain wear. It should be noted that in the USA, collectors attach a premium to these that place them (in value) much closer to proofs than we in Britain have done, traditionally. 3. The use of proof dies and even proof blanks for currency strikes. These produce much more prooflike strikes than regular dies would. And the use of special blanks are noted throughout the 50s up until the early 60s - the so-called "polished blanks" e.g. the 1961 halfcrown. In summary, it's not so easy to always tell a proof from a currency strike, and the collecting world - even in the UK - are waking up to the fact that a really crisp early currency strike is not only harder to tell apart from a proof, but should attract a premium far higher than a listed UNC.

The first one has 41 trefoils - that makes it Davies 764 The second one - 48 trefoils and no stop after date, which makes it Davies 762

Excellent! Wasn't there once a TV/TX movie called "Victor / Victoria" (or something similar?)

Dave, you've done what you can, pointed out to everyone in these forums what is 'afoot' on eBay, and they can act - or not - according to their inclinations. You can do no more. Except let it fester and that would do you no good. In fact, you could still be of service, drawing attention to a certain dealer's items without mentioning him by name, and stating that in your opinion the coin is cleaned, overgraded, and probably overpriced. But there is no onus on you to do so, and if you decided not to, no-one could criticise you, you've done your bit. But don't leave the hobby unless you're seriously pee'd off with coins (and I know you're not). Enjoy what you have, as others have pointed out - you'll only regret it if you sold in haste and lost what you've spent time and effort building up. And one parting shot - if you did sell up and quit, then "he" has won, not that that would cross his little mind for even one second.

It is a worry. Some dealers (e.g. Format Coins in Birmingham) have all but given up dealing in British coins because of the flood of fakes showing up, especially from places like China. And the fakes are getting better - but many are produced from genuine coins, so the fakes come complete with all the peculiarities and flaws of the original. However, few people have either the opportunity to study several pieces side by side, or to consult the - as yet non-existent - database of fakes. It is certainly a good idea to get provenance, though to say that a coin without it is therefore 'suspect' would be a minor disaster to the hobby (and I'm sure many would ignore that inference). It does mean, sadly, that slabbing services which guarantee the authenticity of a slabbed item, are going to become more and more popular. Caveat emptor.

Here is my prediction of the next Private Eye cover : Rupert Murdoch done up like Manuel from Fawlty Towers complete with black moustache. Speech bubble coming out of his head, "I know NOTHing"