Peckris

Hahaha. It never hurts to err a LITTLE on the conservative side! But more to the point, Derek and I seem to agree most of the time, and he wrote the book...

Yes, very nice! The seller has another couple in similar condition! Ah, but rather more than your bargain coin

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one. I don't know if the 1st effigy dies were used up before the ME was used or not, as it is equally possible they were used concurrently if the mint was using more than one machine. In fact there would be a very good reason for running them side by side as this would allow the die characteristics to be properly evaluated. No newly introduced design would have been previously subjected to a test to destruction if that involved striking 50-100000 or so coins. That is why I was hoping somebody might have the mint records for this period on the off chance that it might shed light on the dates when 1926 pennies were struck and when the ME dies were introduced. Whatever date this happened, the pennies weren't struck until the second half of the year with either obverse design as per my previous post regarding the articles in the SNC, although modified effigy dies must have been produced in 1925 as the halfpenny is known with this date, but again presumably not until the end of the year as its existence wasn't recorded by Garside until the August 1926 article. Even if the precise dates are not available, it should be possible to make an educated guess of the limits based on the striking rate of the equipment in use at the time and total output. At the moment we are all hypothesising without firm evidence, so could do with a bit of research. Any members of the BNS in the London area could take time out to visit the Library in the Warburg Institute for example as they have probably got a copy of the Mint records for 1925, 1926 & 1927. It would certainly help to pour water on certain assumptions - such as the one I've ALWAYS held, that the first issue of 1926 pennies appeared before the ME. But as you say, there's no proof of this.

LOL Well actually I used to know Stephen Lockett quite well - often saw him at fairs and auctions and bought a fair amount of stuff off him.

Prsumably the starting price is a reflection (sorry) of the labour time required to get it to that state. An hour and a bit at minimum wage rates is about right. Too right it's "Rather rare" - I've never seen one in such a crap state before!

True. There aren't too many exceptions in my list. However, I believe that a monarch can choose any name at all. Perhaps Charles will surprise us all and become King Kevin, or Brian or Wayne. KEVINIVS C.G. REX F.D. (CG = CAMILLA GRATIA).

Welcome to the forums Steve Without wanting to discourage you too much, that coin looks quite damaged. There's some cratering on the surface and the rim is kind of rough. The first 1 in the date could be collateral damage (it doesn't look like any kind of overdate I've ever seen), the colon after F also. The tone of the coin is artificially even and light, as if it has been cleaned. Keep it as an example of the type by all means, and enjoy it. I wouldn't get excited about a possible rare variety however. Anyway, see what others here say?

Now you've got me COMPLETELY baffled! Database fields only have the validation rules you give them, and the default is usually "Put something in here - but if you don't want to it's ok with me". Like an inflatable d... No no! NOT going there!!

............huh...... i cant get my head round all this bead stuff......give me an easy xxri anyday If you look at ALL Lizzie halfpenny obverses they will have the same narrow width rim and the I of DEI points to a very obvious bead. Once you see a "1968" halfpenny, the difference is quite clear - the rim is much wider, and the I of DEI to a space just confirms it.

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one.

I'm not too up on my Korean, Dave. Do you have a translation?

We're a long way off from your original question, but I'd give it a very nice GVF rather than EF.

But then again, a monarch doesn't always use their christian name. Edward VII was Albert Edward George V was George Frederick Ernest Albert Edward VIII was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George Elizabeth II is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Nick Not quite sure you've proved your case there Nick

All 1876 pennies were produced by the Heaton mint so all have an 'H' below the date. If you have an 1876 without the H, you might like to post a picture. Most likely it has simply worn off or been removed. Like you, I thought that the 1876 was H only, but according to Chris Perkins et al, there is an 1876 no H ~ link here I'd certainly never heard of one before, and it is a total surprise to me. I only discovered it whilst looking for the respective values of wide and narrow date 1876H's. The source is "Bamford" 2006. The fact that it raised less than 1/10 of the value of a narrow date 1877 in similar condition in the same sale, would rather indicate - especially as it would be unique - that no-one was very confident about this coin. In fact, if it hadn't been Bamford, would it even have sold?

its the thought that counts.....besides....i can refreeze it.....thanx You're welcome

Actually it's really easy, just very well hidden for some reason. This is what you do: 1. Choose the cell that you want to activate the coin pic. when you mouse-over (if you want separate pics for OBV & REV just use two cells, one for each) 2. Right click on that cell then choose 'insert comment' from the drop down menu 3.The text box which pops up may contain some dummy text which you can just delete. 4. Place your mouse pointer over the BORDER of the box, right click and choose 'Format Comment' from the drop down menu. This is the important bit, because if you right click over the centre of the box you won't get the option to add a pic later! 5. In the Format Comment window that pops up, click on the 'Colours and Lines' tab then click on the down arrow next to Fill Colour to bring up the colours and fill effects. Click on the 'Fill Effects' button at the bottom. 6. In the fill effects window which pops up, you will have a 'Picture' tab which allows you to browse and select a picture from your computer. 7. Finally, you may need to close the Fill Effects window and go back to the Format Comment window to set the size and aspect ratio of the pop-up pic. You can also add some text if you like too. Once you have done the above, a small red triangle will appear in the corner of the cell to show that a pic is available. Very neat! And that's it. Sounds complicated but it's really not. Thanks for that Accumulator. Have been using Hyperlinks up to now and am now busy adding comments The problems there are : 1. You have to physically add each and every picture to your spreadsheet 2. You will be physically duplicating all those pictures A related database table avoids that - the picture you see in your main table is not "there", it's "virtually there".

yuk i have sooo gotta get that out of my mind...........send me a jubbly One jubblie in the post - but I don't guarantee it will still be frozen by the time it reaches you

Rob says..... Maybe it was noted very early on, and then kind of "forgotten". Although I'm the first to admit that seems a somewhat vague and highly unlikely scenario. Rob seems very specific on the issue, although I'm not sure what the "circular" in question, actually was. What circular was it, or was it a coin magazine called the "circular" ? Excuse my ignorance, Rob Having a description of the changed effigy, and actually spotting them in your change, could be two very different things. Most of us know it took a while as newbies before the 'instant recognition' of MEs became 2nd nature. I was checking from banks between 1968 and 1969. I found - I think - one rather woebegone 18KN, and one 1953. The 26ME I was given in change on a bus, and was the first 1926 penny I ever got! My second was in change in 1970 - but again, I think was due to people not being expert at spotting them, Yes, I think you've hit it there Tom. It is the hardest variety to spot unless you've become fairly expert - there isn't the precise line of an 02LT, the tiny letters of the H and KNs.

The short answer is this : One variety has the obverse that is identical to the 1968 (dated 1967) "wide rim" halfpenny; the rim is much wider but also the I of DEI points between two beads instead of at one. Another variety has the long reverse teeth as on one of the two 1954 reverse types. There may be other differences, but that's the quick way to spot them.

Gordon Bennett !!! ~ for that price I'd want a die number under the date Yes, but it could the narrow or open cat hair Good God. That's the most common 1860s bun, right? The commonest date until the later 1880s. Absurd. Absolutely ridiculous.

I'm still not convinced about the wisdom of having the provenance information (which is the raison d'etre for the entire exercise) stored in a separate layout away from the main page (or the concordance in yet another). It also begs the question as to what I would put in the main database. It seems more sensible to have everything under one roof rather than in several databases. The only things I store away from this are the images which are systematically named as the standard commonly used detailed classification (eg. Besly or Morrieson die pairings) together with the image sale reference, and stored in clearly identifiable folders giving the mint and denomination. This also allows me to run down the image folders and files in quick time without entering the database if I want to compare an image with one already stored. I don't know if the attached will show up adequately, but it illustrates the 6 columns as used with the individual coin provenance forming the link. As the full sheet displays all the examples I have recorded to date, a quick scan down the list (16 in the case of the Exeter C11 crown) will tell me what to look for. For example, Cumberland Clark 95 I know to be the C11 crown with the 5 legged horse. Click on the box with the provenance and the image pops up. It's simple, but quite effective. This is the 'not understanding databases' part : the information isn't STORED separately. It would all be stored in the one database (except pictures, which by virtue of their size are best stored in a separate purpose-built table and simply 'appear' before your eyes in the main database). Layouts aren't tables. Layouts are simply views of your data which you can arrange and design to your heart's content. In each layout you can choose to display as much or as little as you want - you just pull the fields into each layout, and can repeat a field in every single layout if you want. Here, just to demonstrate. I have a selection of layouts I designed : Data Entry (most fields are here, arranged so the data for each coin fills one screen) Values (a list view showing latest Spink values) Buying (purchase details, with a good text entry to add comments) Locations Calculator (to input Spink values) Spink print out list (to take to library) and that's just a few. Some fields appear on most layouts, but I can change layouts whenever I want without disturbing the overall database. It's much more flexible than spreadsheets.

what about edge knocks? i have a multi purpose penknife for removing boyscouts from horses hoof's I have something similar, for removing boy scouts from Graham Norton's ... oops, better not go there

I assume there is also a big difference with winning an auction and paying immediately compared to waiting for the sellers invioce before paying. I know if I think I've made a steal I bang in the payment before the seller has had time to think about it. Picked up a UNC 1956 1/2d F475 the other day for $5, was on the edge of my seat until it arrived.lol. Lucky sod. I've never even SEEN one of those 1956 varieties.

Yes, I love Spinks' Circular for that reason too (as I also did Dolphin Coins' brochure - what was that called, 'The Sovereign'? Some excellent photos of rare proofs, etc) And I agree - part of the attraction of 1960s-era Coin Monthly is the snapshot of a different era, and ah! more innocent times! (Who now would print a cartoon featuring a football match coin toss, with all the players scrabbling around on all fours, and the ref asking "Are you sure it was a 1951 penny?")

I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two. Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO. If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing. Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps. In 1926 there had been no pennies issued for 3 years. Then demand must have increased enough to warrant an issue, even though the modified effigy must have been close to readiness. Assuming the normal run of casual collectors who habitually put a BU penny aside, the first run of 1926s must have satisfied that urge. By the time the ME came along (at the end of the year?) would people have readily seen the difference between the two types anyway? By the time they did, the 1927 pennny would have emerged in large quantities so those got put aside instead. I'm really thinking the 1926ME 'slipped beneath the radar' as far as being noticed. I'd agree about the 1864 (both types) and the 1875H from the Victorian era. Even 1869 is easier to get in a very high grade than those two. Also, I agree with earlier comments about the fallibility of the Freeman rarity estimates. Obviously they were never really any better than inspired guesswork. Nonetheless, that doesn't really explain why there are so few 1926ME's in high grade. For a coin a lot younger than the buns I referred to, and only 45 years old at demonetisation, it is hard to explain IMO. If I had to put a guess on how many of the original mintage were modified, I'd say 15-20%, something of that order. Again though, pure guesswork. No real way of knowing. Thanks for all the comments & opinions, chaps. Surely rarity figures are all nonsence now due to decimalisation. I would guess only 10% of pennies exist now and all the so called rarities were stripped for circulatiion beforehand. The playing field is much levelled now a days and H and KNs are as common as 1967 pennies. That's a very good point, though I'd hardly claim parity between H & KNs with 1967!! We're on the same wavelength here Derek. As a schoolboy it took me a year to suss that my first-ever 1926 penny from change, was the ME ! Back in '26, I'm wondering how many people actually noticed, especially considering how few there were anyway?