Peckris

I started collecting pennies as a schoolboy in the 60s. The elusive date was 1926. Finally got one in change from a bus conductor. I was a raw beginner, and it was nearly a year before I realised it was the ME variety.

At first glance I would say from the reverse that it IS a matt proof - it has superb overall detailing. Harder to tell from the obverse, as it seems to have been cleaned, which is a real shame. I think it IS the proof though.

Damn the truncated summaries of a post's title on the right! All I saw was: Hi and best way to get la I was really hoping for something interesting, or at least a few tips.

Tim Farron, asked about the likelihood of the LibDems accepting the offer of a deal with the Tories: "No deal is better than a bad deal".

Yes, the obverse is a crown, not halfcrown. I remember once getting very excited when I saw a 1928 penny on eBay with large portrait - that's until I saw the same seller had a 1927 penny with small portrait.

What do you mean "up side down"? Do you mean that if you rotate the coin horizontally, the reverse is upside down compared to the obverse? If so, that's how it's supposed to be.

Wow. Doesn't surprise me though!

There are three factors that must be taken into account to value a coin: condition rarity popularity The third is as important as the other two. It explains why 1933 pennies - which are not only very rare, there being only 7 of the normal type, but also have a legend around them - would now fetch probably 6 figures if one came up for sale; compare this with possibly unique proofs of Victorian bun pennies which might fetch a few thousand if you're lucky. It also explains why fairly common or mildly scarce coins like 1912H pennies or 1902LT pennies fetch prices well in excess of their rarity. As for the first year of a monarch's reign, these are generally lower in value than rarity might suggest, as ordinary non-collector members of the public would put specimens aside for their novelty, and so they survive more commonly in high grades than do later years.

Not so much an error, more likely a repunching of weaker letters. The Mint had very many problems with the early bronze coins, so this is an effect you often see.

"Sold FROM 1971" I would say - as Copper says, the 1970 set was very popular (and still is) so they carried on minting them up to the issue limit of 750,000. Its popularity is not surprising considering it was the only proofs of the main Elizabeth II post-1953 type, and was of the vanishing £sd coinage. Several of the 1970s sets contain 'proof only' denominations, which might have made them more desirable to collectors, especially the 1972 set. However, it's likely that a 'modern collectors' market - i.e. decimals - was already developing then, as Coin Monthly seems to show little interest in UK decimals even by 1975, and doesn't even feature 1970 proofs in its Market Movements. (I don't think you would have bought the sets in 1975 - certainly not before the preparation of Seaby 1976 - as there is no mention in Seaby of anything post-1971 under Proof Sets. Unfortunately Seaby took a break of a few years after 1976 so we can't date them precisely unless someone has coin magazines for the period 1976-1979?)

That's an interesting atypical 1919. The obverse is very shallow (possibly due to a worn die, often seen on 1919H pennies) so giving a good rim on the reverse, and very well struck up head, face and chest of Britannia, which are more often weak than not.

Not so sure myself. The shield is reassuringly complete, but all other details - e.g. fingers, face, helmet, drapery - aren't strong enough to be VF IMO.

Wasn't 1953 the Caw-anation year?

"Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice... My 1976 Seaby's (which would have been prepared and issued during 1975) lists only the 1970 and 1971 sets under "Proof sets". I suspect therefore that the Coeshaw advert of 1974 was for a made up set of BU coins, probably dated 1971 but including the 1972 crown, and optimistically described as a Silver Wedding Set.

I've just had a look in the December 1974 issue of Coin Monthly. Apart from one advertiser, there is only ONE advert selling a 1970 set, and none selling UK decimal coins, proofs or otherwise. It seems that the readers of Coin Monthly had little interest in decimals at that point. However, on page 135, there is an advert by M Coeshaw (Leicester), in which - as well as featuring BU Coin Sets of 1953, 1962-1967, and 1971 - he features, in a section called 'Choice Sets of the World', BRITAIN 1970 Last sterling PROOF set..... BRITAIN 1971 First decimal PROOF set..... and BRITAIN Silver Wedding set of 7 coins 50p to 1/2p (inc 1972 25p).... BU £2.00 Interestingly he doesn't describe these as proofs, but they must be as there are no 1972 coins that aren't, apart from the 25p. So the 1972 set had been issued by the end of 1974 (but perhaps only just, as they aren't mentioned in ESC 1974?), but the 1973-1976 sets appeared - as you say - in the mid-70s, but obviously after December 1974.

It's slightly difficult one. There are three complicating factors: 1. It's not a rare coin (16m were minted). 2. A group of Unc examples was found (?in the 1990s) and have appeared on the market ever since. 3. Their value is nevertheless enhanced by their popularity among collectors for whom a high grade H penny would be out of reach I would say for insurance purposes, a valuation of £150 - £190 wouldn't be unreasonable, allowing for the fingerprint.

I was mistaken. In the November 1972 edition of Coin Monthly, there is an isolated advert for 1970 sets, and another that included singletons, though there is no mention of them in the 'Market Movements' section, so it's possible that they had begun to be minted in 1972. There is no mention of a 1971 set, though there is no mention of decimal coins anywhere in the magazine. ESC (1974 edition) mentions both 1970 and 1971 sets, but not 1972. My impression is that the 1972 set was produced earlier than 1973-76 which - as you say - were issued all together in around 1976. Certainly the 1972 set is packaged differently from the next 3 or 4, which are all the same apart from the colour of the card folder and foam insert.

Sorry - I think you misunderstood me? When I said "chucked into the hopper", I meant the bin of output coins ready to be bagged up and sent to banks. After all, as far as the Mint were concerned, the experimental reverse would have been a kosher 1922 reverse, and possibly didn't think anyone would even notice the difference. They may even have had a few knocking around in employees pockets with strict instructions not to spend them, just to see how they would wear compared to the normal reverse.

Not relevant - the 1970 set wasn't issued in 1970 or anywhere near. It seems to have been struck between 1972 or 1973 and the mid-70s. It certainly postdates the 1972 set, and was probably issued due to collector demand at first, then it became more widely popular and more were struck.

None for circulation, I'd say. Even the genuine 1922-with-1927-reverse was probably just a few to experiment with and then chucked into the hopper with maybe a couple of pieces held back for the museum? Yes, quite right. I was talking only of currency coins, but indeed the crown (which was totally new - the first of GV) was also issued. Oh shoot, yes. You told me this ages ago and I forgot. Mea culpa. You're quite right. But this only reinforces that it was a late strike and nowhere near 1922. The main puzzle is why it's dated 1922 - the best theory I can come up with is that the experimental 1922 reverse was subsequently revised and finalised for use in 1927, but of course it wasn't needed 1923-25, and the 1926s use the standard earlier reverse (apart from the odd proof or prooflike strike done probably in 1926).

This is a much more complex subject than it first appears. As far as official issues are concerned, it's not the 3d but the halfpenny (1925) where the ME begins, and the last denomination to introduce it was the 1927 proof florin. However, the matter is complicated by pennies (as usual!). There is an extremely rare - possibly unique - 1922 penny with the modified effigy and the rare experimental reverse (so-called "1927 type", though it isn't). My own thesis, developed in an article for Coin News, is that this doesn't date from 1922 but is an experimental piece quite possibly struck in 1925 - when no pennies were scheduled - using the new obverse and a leftover experimental 1922 reverse die (which was effectively introduced for each bronze denomination when the ME came in, with the exception of the 1926ME penny, which I suggest was an unplanned emergency issue). The relative rarity of the halfcrown types has long switched back and forth; my opinion is also that the ME is scarcer, but not by a long way.

Sorry to be a bit late to this. I'd say that a type set's scope is defined by an individual collector and their interests. For example, when it comes to silver, I'm not particularly interested in silver varieties (which are anyway "micro" varieties), and would settle for one of each denomination. As far as bronze is concerned, any variety collecting would start - and possibly end - with the LT as those were very definitely a first 'type', replaced by the high tide. For halfpennies and farthings, that's pretty much it. For pennies you could go down a very long road, starting with an 'open 3', the 1905s, all those 1908-9 rarities, etc. There's nothing to stop you having a basic type set of each denomination, then constructing a full set of pennies if that takes your interest.

That is most likely a recut 1, quite common on bun pennies.

Wow, a variety caused at the Mint by the coin's current owner! You should be proud - there's few of us can lay claim to that.

I'm not counting chickens, especially with the ARS only 1 point behind and not having missed out on CL in ?16 years! Mind you, "all" we have to do is match their result and we're safe. We have had some regular injuries - earlier Coutinho, Sturridge (as usual), Henderson for months, and Mané has been out quite a while now.