Peckris

But I thought it was an irregular verb like fero, ferre, tuli, latum? Damifino, Ihaven'taclue, Don'taskme, Whydon'tyouGoogle

Which translated means, 'I saw, green, I conquered' Back to school Dave... Or alternatively, it means "I saw, I wrote Aïda, I conquered" ...

Davies list both types, 1751 & 1752 You're right - I'm not yet used to Davies - his placing Obverse 3 BEFORE 2 in the listing is a bit counter-intuitive! Be that as it may - the obverse shown on CoinsGB seems to be the shallow design, therefore Obverse 3, therefore not the rare mule. I think you will find it is the rare mule. Just noticed that it's my coin. Then based on pointings alone, we seem to have uncovered a possible new obverse. Based on other factors, I'm 90% sure your coin shows the recut shallow portrait : • the truncation has that little 'blip' forward towards the G • the lettering is the larger size • the hair is not deeply modelled • the V of GEORGIVS points slightly ABOVE the nose tip rather than directly to it • the rim is narrow • the flan is very slightly convex (concave on the pre-1920) I kind of "wrote the book" on the differences between pre-1920 and post-1920 obverses, and I can generally tell them straight off. I'm not claiming 100% sureness, but all the points above hold good. I've done a comparison of my own : to the left (sorry, poor quality, blown up double size from my database) the pre-1920, to the right, a 1921. What's particularly curious is that the pointing of the Obv 2 (left) doesn't SEEM to have the I of BRITT pointing straight to a tooth, but that fact will have to wait until I next look at my coins under a glass. However, I'm almost completely sure that your obverse is NOT the deeply engraved pre-1920. There is still the matter of the pointings...

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen. Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it. There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states : • 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium • 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes • 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that. ....and of that informal system, only the first ever has attention drawn to it. Unless it's a totally impartial assessment, of course ..... Hahaha - yes true, though I HAVE seen weak strikes described (usually by a dealer who wants us to know that his Fine-looking coin is actually EF)

Davies list both types, 1751 & 1752 You're right - I'm not yet used to Davies - his placing Obverse 3 BEFORE 2 in the listing is a bit counter-intuitive! Be that as it may - the obverse shown on CoinsGB seems to be the shallow design, therefore Obverse 3, therefore not the rare mule.

I know that, but you've still got to point it out because many people don't appreciate how things are made. The wheel has to be reinvented many times over - frequently in the same section of the forum, occasionally twice on the same day!

Welcome Gerrit Second tip - don't require people to use a proprietary software. I don't have Silverlight, and I have no intention of getting it. I'd suggest Flash (evil though it is) and pdf. Also, build your site so the following browsers can use it : Firefox Safari Chrome Internet Explorer (if you must!) and the following platforms : Windows XP / Vista / 7 Mac OS X Linux

Illegitimi non carborundum

The obvious problem being that strike variations are not consistent from year to year, and we only tend to notice the really sharp strikes, and those where there is obvious deterioration. Not the bulk of "ordinary" strikes. Moreover, as we all know, there are years in which nearly all the strikes appear to be sub standard, like say 1915/16 pennies, and for that matter, 1907 pennies, where I've yet to see a sharply struck shield, even on an UNC specimen. Die wear is a factor in so much as it is commonly observed informally, and may lend a bit of a premium to some sharply struck coins, but it would surely be an enormously complex and difficult task, to attempt to quantify and categorise it. There is a kind of informal system now, based on three states : • 1. early strikes, really crisp, which (should) command a premium • 2. the majority of 'bog standard' UNC strikes • 3. poor strikes / worn dies which usually go significantly cheaper I'm not sure I'd want to see anything more complex than that.

Is this variety unknown to Davies? He only mentions Obv 2 (high relief) and Obv 3 (shallow relief) for 1920, and only Obv 3 for 1923. The picture on CoinsGB clearly shows the shallow relief head.

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!