Peckris

Looks as though I will need to keep an eye out for an example for the collection That would be very comforting - it would be more desirable if there were a few others known (this marks it out from misstrikes like brockages or misshapes or wrong blanks), and could set it apart as an 'error variety', in the same way as the 1888 and 1889 double florin ("1 for I") I think goes that without saying Rob - from the late 19th Century on, you couldn't have a punch error as all coins were produced from huge pre-approved and inspected design matrices that were used to cut dies via reducing machines (the quaint idea of an "I" not being punched, just doesn't compute!)

Being the proud owner of a fake of which I can't find a difference I would be very interesting to know what attributes Chris uses to authenticate it You'd have to ask Chris that Gary, i've no idea. What is your weight/dia etc? How did you know did you know yours was fake? Maybe upload a picture so it can be used as information for others. Here's the reverse. I bought this from auction as a fake and as this particular auction house has sold a few over the years I assume they know when they see the real McCoy or not. Having looked in detail at both sides, and at your side-by-sides, I can say that the fake - as a starter, before getting down to specifics - just doesn't "feel" right, mainly with respect to wear patterns and definition. • the legend on the garter should be the FIRST place to wear, yet there is none whatever • the rim doesn't look right, I can't say any more than that • the legend and shield beading look absolutely unworn and yet the crown and fleur de lys look severely flattened • the Scottish lion looks blurred, more than merely a worn die would • on the obverse, the wear pattern to the beard compared to the totally unworn legend, just isn't right (those coins don't wear that way) • essentially, the coin is a patchwork of absolutely unworn features, compared with other features which are flattening more than a little I suppose it's easy with hindsight - would I be able to tell if you hadn't told us it was a fake? I'm not sure. I can tell you this - on close inspection and comparison it doesn't look or feel right. But at a glance it would certainly pass muster.

I had to draw the line at those types of things - filled dies, missing engravers initials from 61 halfcrowns etc. Not deliberate enough. Yes I know 1881 xx/ri florin wasn't deliberate either, but that one's in all the books, so it has to count! I'd still love to know why they thought they needed to make two different kinds of sixpence in 1964 and 1965. I suppose we'll never know.... Yeah, the world died of boredom with that 1961 "missing EF variety" halfcrown, which didn't stop me buying one in 1978 However, the 1964 sixpence is a bit more noticeable than those microscopic designer initials - after all, an obverse legend that reads GRAT A instead of GRATIA is pretty spectacular!

V useful article - I've bookmarked that :-)

So glad I could reignite your interest Declan! But make sure you also look for the 1964 sixpence with the I of GRATIA missing (oops sorry, didn't I mention that before? )

Try manual focus - it's what I used for that 1970 Varieties Survey (plus a tripod!) All I can see are some extremely slight marks in the obverse field that would be all but invisible to the naked eye. That's a truly lovely shilling, Nick.

It's part genuine scarcity, part myth. The 1905 has always had a reputation within the lesser but still strong reputation of Ed VII generally. It's been a target for forgers, always a good sign of 'popularity'. Some experts think it's not so rare as this suggests though - some say the 1903 is at least as rare especially in higher grades. But overall it's the myth that drives so many to try and get one. Not sure I buy this thesis Dave? It is true that Ed VII, like William IV, is a popular collectable reign, full of rarities, and both reigns were short. But Geo VI is relatively short too, and his prices are low. While George II had a long reign and his prices are high. It's surely more to do with supply and demand of individual dates and types? As for Ed VIII - there's one single reason for his high prices : on the throne less than a year and his coins never issued except as ultra-rare patterns, proofs, and a few trial pieces!

Scans are wonderful for detail, sharpness, and evenness of focus. They are dreadful for tone and lustre. Anything blown up that large will show the tiniest scuff, dig, etc, that aren't apparent at normal size. I'd be more worried about some evident wear showing up - but even that may not be apparent at normal size.

I thought 1887 Obverse 3 has the J of JEB immediately under the medallion? As to values, you'd have to interest a collector of these varieties, and the hardest thing is to get unknown ones authenticated. I've said it before, I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face, better to have a coin where there are a few examples known (and collectors therefore get excited) than a complete unknown. Generally. Others may disagree.

If I'd realised that, I'd have taken screenshots of the lot. I wanted to look at it again as well. Maybe Peck will be kind enough to upload again I've uploaded my copy to here David Thanks David

OMG, really? Which link didn't work, Megaupload or RapidShare? Have you tried the 'other' link?

that worked, thanks Peck how big is it, send it to me and I will host it for you? Thanks for that Colin - it's 11MB but it seems that the Rapidshare link is working for people? (Above).

Ok, I've tried Rapidshare instead. http://rapidshare.com/files/453022536/Coin_Varieties_1970.pdf

Damn. As for uploading it here, it's 11 MB !! Sadly that's a no-no. Does anyone know of another upload site I could try?

Rob, I also sent you a DM about Davies (one copy, for me) but I didn't get any 'mailbox full' message? (Just the normal 'Sent' message). In case you didn't get it, would you DM me here, or at least send me an email address to contact you about it? Thanks!

I just tried the link myself and got 'temporarily unavailable - please try again later' message - that may be because I just tested it outside this forum? (You only get a limited number of free downloads.) Hopefully you will fare better.

Here is the promised list of coin varieties as was published in the Coins & Medals Annual 1970, by David Sealy. It's in the form of a multi-page PDF like the recent CM pennies survey. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PA52TZCX I think it will live there for 30 days? Enjoy!

It's not dated 1973 by any chance? It looks like the worst fate that happened to that year's proofs (I had a set with the 5p and 10p just like that, and had to sell 'em off real cheap).

Come on Liz, blow yer hooter, I'll lend yer a tissue! Mind you, old Pistrucci lost his job for less than that

A nice coin but has been harshly buffed.It is a shame. No disrepect Az but I couldn't live with that. If it's certified genuine I could live with that amount of buffing, I've seen much worse.

I agree with Peter - the 1842 is lifted up to GVF by its reverse which is easily half a grade or more better than the obverse (which is only VF in my opinion). The 1844 is more difficult to grade from a picture. The hair above the ear looks quite seriously worn, but far more than it should, considering the rest of the overse is much better. But that hair detail is notoriously prone to die wear. The reverse looks superb, but you can see the edges of oak leaves wearing, which would make it EF maximum, or NEF if you're a purist. All in all, the 1844 COULD be EF (though a weakish EF) but seeing it in hand would be a better indicator

You sound like the sort of chap that, instead of going to PC World and buying a computer, goes to Radio Shack and buys a whole load of electronic bits which he strews around the room and proceeeds to 'breadboard' together with various odd lengths of wire and lots of crocodile clips. But I'm sure that's completely wrong! No, I'm the sort of chap that very belatedly upgraded to OS X Leopard and found that all my essential software continued to run quite happily, EXCEPT for Photoshop through which I had my scanner software linked. So I tried to buy Photoshop Elements and discovered that Adobe no longer sell Elements 6 which is the last version that runs on my ageing machine. Which all goes to show that Adobe have all the commercial instincts of a dead hedgehog.

If you do find the time, it would be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately all of my old magazines and several books have been thrown out over the years following the usual succession of house moves. It's less finding the time, than it is logging out of the computer and logging in to an older version of the operating system on an external hard drive, which is the only way I can run Photoshop, which is the only way I can operate my scanner! But I will, I will :-)

This is why in my books on bronze and silver varieties, I gave tribute to a small group of people who carried out these reseaches in the early 1970s, describing them as 'heroic.' I can't imagine sifting through such huge numbers of coins in the way these guys did. An even greater feat was the counting of edge nicks on the milled silver in order to show that the Mint were using these as a kind of mint mark. The results were published in the Numismatic Journal in 1968 (I think) and described a wide range of what I would call micro-varieties of 20th century silver. They covered pretty much all dates through the century and all denominations and the results had to have been obtained using an eye glass on each coin!!! Quite likely the sheer scale of the task and complexity of the measurements needed is the reason why there are few known varieties of the later decimal coinage. It's just too big a job to undertake. Or maybe modern methods mean there are few types to find. I've never seen any study of bronze coinage much beyond the early 1980s i.e. when those involved in the CM studies stopped reporting their findings, or died of sheer exhaustion. The Coins and Medals 1970 Annual has a very good 12-page section on varieties, entitled "British Coin Varieties 1816 - 1968 (Bronze 1895 - 1967)" by David Sealy. He also includes known additions to Peck from 1816 - 1895. Interestingly, he includes the Gouby X 1911 penny (rated Rare), but not - clearly unknown in 1970 - the 1915 Obverse 1 farthing, nor the 1921 pre-1920 shilling obverse. Sometime I must scan it and upload it here, though like that penny survey, there's quite a lot of it!

It does look rather more colourful than it should, a bit like an oil puddle on a wet day. I presume this is down to the scanner as these things often are with some MS coins. And that's all BEFORE you factorise in die wear (which no-one in the UK does formally) so that even two BU coins might be different to each other - one being an early strike, say, the other being from a die beginning to show signs of definite wear.