Peckris

"...but only if you're lucky" Apparently! Now here's a chance that must only come up once in every hundred lifetimes.... A roll of 2p coins I bought back in 1973 that seemed to have leaked! Steve, if they all say new pence and the Queen is on them wearing a necklace you should sell them on ebay; "cos sumone telled me that this a RARE coin and is gud for colectors and will be a gud invesment" And don't forget the "...don't loose this opportunity!!"

Are you THE Richard the Second?

Not my cuppa tea I must admit. Bit like bidding for a 2009 Ford Focus with 5 and a half doors.

I've got both volumes of North which I picked up at a provincial auction. I don't really want or need 'em. What's the second-hand value of 'em?

You're selling Thai massages Dave? Must be a nice lil sideline

It's quite telling that the 1903s in F are up for between £200-£300, with no bids, and the one in VF is up at £750, again with no bids.

Either I'm showing my ignorance, or that's a typo for D&M which stands for "Doriens and Magens" shilling, an unissued shilling of George III which is quite rare and highly sought-after. I'm not sure about removing the 'lower end coins'. Obviously the commonest and poorest, yes. But otherwise, where are new collectors - e.g. schoolkids on very low incomes - going to turn when they start out? No low end coins, no schoolkid collectors, no future lifeblood for the hobby.

I love the conjunction of "Bidding has ended on this item" with "0 bids" hang on! could that have been an 1882 no H........................ More like 1882 no Hoper

To be fair, there were precious few (forgive the pun) by then, and only because they hadn't yet been spotted by those who knew what they were. I calculate that I must have found fewer than half a dozen in the entire decade.

That's exactly what I did. The 1920 is a 50% overlay on top of the 1923. You can see from the background where I've rotated the 1920 to get the overlay to match precisely (on the legend). Because the two coins match so perfectly, the only part of the 1920 that shows up is the rim between 12 o'clock and 3 o'clock.

I love the conjunction of "Bidding has ended on this item" with "0 bids"

Hi Pete

I'm sure that's right, however it was also true that due to serious inflation caused by the war economy, that the price of silver exceeded its value in coin of the realm, making it impractical to mint sterling silver coins without incurring big losses. But, the inflation ended in a collapse of wages and prices by the mid-20s (which is why the mintage figures for large silver drops off so dramatically between 1924 and 1926), and the price of silver fell again to a value that made it practical to mint sterling grade coins again. However, as I mentioned above, once the 'alloy genie' was out of the bottle there was no going back, and gradual price inflation meant even 50% silver became no longer cost effective.

No harm in asking at all. An open 3 is a very rare variety of 1903 where the 3 in the date has its top and bottom strokes pointing to the left (as in normal writing). The common type has a stylised 3 where the top and bottom strokes curl towards each other, and the whole effect looks like an 8 more, but with a little piece missing from the left hand side. (Very hard to explain in words - there are plenty of threads in this forum where members have put up comparison pictures). I'm 90% certain (from the picture you put up) that your 1903 is the regular variety, not the open 3.

Hi Peteuk, welcome to the forum. Condition of the coins is very important, but as a start can you post images of the 1903 and 1918 penny reverses (tails side). As you have surmised, the vast bulk of these will be worthless but you never know... Here's the pictures you requested: Oh dear - I have to break it to you - your coins turn up in auction lots by the absolute bucket load! Worth little more than metal value I'm afraid. But, if you're interested at all in getting started, there's an inexpensive and highly informative little price guide available through this site - "Collectors Coins GB". As for grading, one of our members has produced a very useful guide to all the main 19th and 20th Century types showing each in 4 states of preservation, "Grading British Coins". But either way, you'll find we're a friendly lot, and you can learn more than you ever wanted to know about coins.

And this overlay I think proves it beyond all Carlsberg : You can just see the 1920 off-centre rim protruding on the right, but in all other respects it seems an exact match.

Gary, Looking at your photos of the five florins, whatever the outcome of the 'pointings' debate, there is no doubt in my mind that the 1923 with obverse 2 has a smaller head than the one with obverse 3. Assuming that both coins on the bottom row of your photo are the same size as they appear to be, then the head on the right is definitely smaller than that on the left - this is the other differentiator that Davies uses. When I compared your mule on the website with a 1920 obverse 2 florin and a 1923 'normal' florin with obverse 3, I again found that the one on your website is the same size as a normal obverse 2 type. My conclusion, based on what I see is that there are two types as defined by Davies. However, there may be another type and it would be useful to try and establish this from all three differentiators for these types. Here is the 1920, middle of top three. It all comes down to pictures! Looking at the separate photos of the 1920 Obverse 2 and the 1923 variety, I think I'm going to have to revise my opinion. I really cannot see any difference between them, except the size of the rim (and that's confused by the off-centre strike of the 1920). The photo you've just put up of the 1923 is the clearest one yet, and makes comparisons easier. The "5 florins picture" doesn't really prove anything due to the wideangle curvature involved, and the varying focus <=> sharpness. I'd only offer one sure conclusion from this exercise: it's much harder to tell the two obverses apart - especially if there has been some wear - on florins than it is on halfcrowns and shillings. But I would now be inclined to say that the 1923 is (Carlsbergly..) the pre-1920 obverse.

Pre-1920 silver is Sterling, i.e. 92.5% solid silver. This was replaced by a 50% alloy in 1920 and the banks recalled the solid silver coins, probably leading to quite a lot of hoarding (which is why George V silver 1911 - 1919 even now turns up in much higher grades than 1920 - 1926.) By the 1960s, when I began collecting, pre-1920 silver was very rare to find in your change. Pre-1947 silver is 50% silver and again was recalled from 1947 onwards, and once again, George VI silver 1937 - 1946 is VERY common in high grades, especially 1942 onwards. In the 1960s, it was by no means unknown to find 1920 - 1946 silver in your change (usually very worn) and though it tailed off gradually, 50% silver still turned up occasionally even as late as the 1980s. The resizing of 10p and 5p coins between 1990 and 1992 put a stop to all that. By 1920, the value of silver was higher than its face value in coins, which is why the 50% alloy was adopted. The price of silver fell again, but once these things begin there's no going back! The same in 1947 when the price of silver and the cost of War debt, made it urgent to save costs. But many people hoard coins for a whole variety of reasons, some of which feed back into circulation. Silver halfcrowns, shillings and sixpences were valid from 1816 until well after decimalisation. Florins were valid from 1848. The reason Gothics and Edward VII (for example) dropped out of circulation was 1) they were more collectable 2) they were more noticeable, but most of all 3) became so worn they were withdrawn by banks. Apart from that, each denomination was still legal and valid until its demonetisation point coming up to, or after, decimalisation

I make it obv 3 davies 1752 Ditto - the I of GEORGIVS is to the left of a bead and the I of BRITT is not clearly to a bead. Gary, your photo above hasn't resolved things really (not for me) - this may be partly due to wideangle curvature? For one thing, both your 1923s appear to show BRITT to a bead. Certainly, the top left is definitely a classic 'deep cut portrait'. The top right is too dark for me to make out which it is. The top centre is ambiguous-looking, maybe because of wear? But both 1923s APPEAR to be the same obverse (give or take the odd pointing), i.e. the shallow portrait. The one I want to study more closely is the top centre 1920 - I'm not sure which obverse I think it is right at this moment.

So? I've got a Bank of England nine bob note, an Arthur Daley £5 note, Fawlty Towers £10 note, and a Princess of Wales £50 note. True!

Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both. I was quoting Davies Then either Davies is mistaken or I have found a new variety. I've just checked my 1914 under a glass, and both the I of BRITT and GEORGIVS point to a bead. Unmistakeably. The photo on your site - pointing apart - is the shallow portrait (i.e. mostly like Obv 3). The I of GEORGIVS on your coin is to the right of a bead. On my 1926 it's to the left of a bead. And on my 1921 it appears to be directly to a bead. I think this whole topic needs to be revisited. The problem with photos is that the pointing can be very deceptive, and I think Davies is sometime a little off. It's a bit like the discussion about the 1911 penny where there is the shallow neck with I to tooth (Gouby X) and the normal round/flat neck with I to space. The round/flat neck can look quiet shallow on some examples. With the coin in hand the pointing definitly matches Davies description. You're absolutely right about pointings - last night I was checking under artificial light - this morning, in clear daylight with good visibility, the position is different : 1914 (Obv 2) : I of BRITT to a bead, I of GEORGIVS to a space (more or less) 1921 (Obv 3) : I of BRITT to the left of a bead, I of GEORGIVS to a bead (almost dead on) 1926 (Obv ?) : I of BRITT to the left of a bead, I of GEORGIVS to the left of a bead All three coins are minimum AUNC Ok, here's the problem(s) 1. Davies doesn't mention the I of BRITT, he only talks about the I of GEORGIVS. And he only talks about two obverses post-1911 (2 and 3). Yet from the pointings there seem to be at least three, but possibly four (see below). 2. I've not seen or studied a 1923 'mule' before, and despite googling, the only example I can look at is the picture on your website, which shows a clear example of a shallow portrait florin (pointings apart, everything else about it indicates this). Now, that means there are various conclusions we can draw. Conclusion A. Davies is right, there is a rare 1923 mule with the pre-1920 obverse (2). Yours isn't it. The pointings are correct for it, but the design is the shallow portrait. Which would make your coin a new variety, unrecorded by Davies. Conclusion B. Davies is partly right, partly wrong. Right, in that there is a 1923 rare variety with similar pointings to the pre-1920 obverse. Wrong, in that it's not a mule as it features the shallow portrait, and should be considered a new obverse. Yours would be that. I did flick back and forward from your florins page (1914) and your 1923 mule page, studying the pictures. It's no substitute for handling the actual coin, but everything about the picture tells me it's the shallow post-1920 design. I listed the relevant features in a post above.

Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both. I was quoting Davies Then either Davies is mistaken or I have found a new variety. I've just checked my 1914 under a glass, and both the I of BRITT and GEORGIVS point to a bead. Unmistakeably. The photo on your site - pointing apart - is the shallow portrait (i.e. mostly like Obv 3). The I of GEORGIVS on your coin is to the right of a bead. On my 1926 it's to the left of a bead. And on my 1921 it appears to be directly to a bead. I think this whole topic needs to be revisited.

Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be discouraging. But, when you're developing websites you have to be aware of all the potential users. I'm a Mac user and I can't use Silverlight, but I can use Adobe Flash. If I downloaded Silverlight it would be an .exe file which is useless to me. Then there are also the Linux users... So, that's why I said what I did above. FWIW I use OS X 10.5 on a G5 iMac, and I can run Safari, Firefox, or Opera browsers. Probably Chrome as well but I haven't tried yet. Most websites I can access with no problems, but yours came up saying "You need Silverlight to view this website". Then I knew I was f*cked.

I find that very difficult, as I don't have a straight edge that would rest easy against my LCD screen, but thanks for doing that. There are actually a massive number of tiny differences all of which add up to a distinctive 'feel'.