Peckris

Note Davies lists values which are virtually meaningless, dating back to 1982. However, comparing values can be a useful indication to how rare a particular variety is (or was, in the early 80s).

It applies if the developer is tied to a particular API set that gets upgraded by Apple in their annual release. Adobe Photoshop rarely suffers - CS6 can be used on Macs running as far back as 10.6, and Elements 6 runs in 10.5 on a PPC Mac right through to at least El Capitan. Microsoft software often survives quite a few MacOS releases, and even where it doesn't, Apple's own Pages, Numbers and Keynote will not only open Word, Excel and Powerpoint documents, but will save in the Microsoft format too. LibreOffice (free open source equivalent of Office) will open a lot of old formats, even going back to WordPerfect. Where applications require only a minor change after a MacOS upgrade, you will often find that developers won't charge you for the latest version. Having used OSX since Tiger (10.4) I've suffered very few software failures after an upgrade, and most of them have been upgraded free of charge.

Quite common to see the later reverses wear - for example the 1895 YH farthing rarely turns up with a decent reverse, I suspect the reverse die got overused as the OH was about to be issued.

They aren't a genuine variety as such - unless you count clogged dies as such. There are very many such errors in the 19th Century. However some guides will list them so if they're in Davies (for example) then they're worth cataloguing as a variety, otherwise file them as a curio.

Sorry about your dad too. Rafa will probably get a decent reception at Anfield (a lot of mutual respect there), and I expect he may even get a big hug from Klopp of the Kop. (God I do hope we beat Middlesborough and prevent a last minute sneak - as so often in the past - by the Gooners into the CL).

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

When you say "Very old 1912 penny", you're implying it's older than other 1912 pennies. (Which it might be ... by a few months )

To be honest, there is no such thing as a very old 1912 penny. They are in fact, all the same age...

The sale is completed when the auctioneer decides it is - the rap of the hammer is little more than a widely used convention. However, it could greatly impact an auctioneer's reputation if they change their minds more than occasionally, and without good reason. The delay of the internet complicates matters further.

Perhaps the difference is: "cameo" - an effect of proof striking that sometimes comes across and sometimes doesn't "frosting" - a deliberate preparation that always causes a crystalline effect on raised design as opposed to the mirror fields? Or perhaps "cameo" is simply the American term for "frosting"?

Are you talking about that gap between the lace and the hair? Part of the normal design - see here: https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/great-britain-double-florin-km-763-1887-1890-cuid-1174565-duid-1327641

Freeman reference.

Definitely not an 1853 proof set - the bronze coins are the 'bun' designs of post-1860. Curious mix of designs though - not perhaps from a single year?

Whoever designed that was a well known clairvoyant, and knew that one day in the future Birmingham would be the centre of British car production. Hence the 2D hedgehogs...

Yes, there is a special process for producing 'frosted' proofs, though I couldn't quote you chapter and verse. Some seem to occur naturally as part of the process, which can be seen between 1937 and 1953. Maybe the intention was to 'frost' lightly but the effect only lasted for the first strikings? As for decimal-era, the frosted proofs began to appear in - I think - either 1980 or 1981. I imagine that Peck, Freeman and Gouby don't document them because base metal proofs of the 19th Century are rare and tend to be 'bronzed' (or especially silvered / gilt etc) rather than frosted. Those ARE mentioned by Freeman etc.

"Cameo" appears to have replaced the term "frosted", which was always the traditional way to refer to proofs with a matt raised design contrasting greatly with a mirror field.

Hull has a very fine equestrian statue of William III (as depicted), and was one of the first cities to declare for him during the 'Glorious Revolution'. In that sense it's both a trade token and a commemorative - the date relates to when it was struck for use. INDUSTRY HAS IT'S SURE REWARD Either a forgery or else the grammatically confused existed as much in the 18C as now.

British Silver Coins by Peter J Davies, 1982, the 'bible' of silver varieties from 1816 (now out of print, but I believe there are copies available?). He lists £3500 for a genuine example back then - anyone's guess now.

That's a really weird one. The obverse is not a sixpence. Sleepy has it I think - it's the half sovereign obverse, gold proof error. Davies 1141 indeed.

Thank you Dave.

Thanks for the welcome back. I'm not sure I'll be a regular like before, but will certainly drop in every now and then to share in the madness...

My guess is that it's a metal prototype for the cardboard-and-foil advertising coins, as the obverse in the eBay listing is very similar to the one in Sword's link. The portrait is far too big, and so is the date, where the 1 touches the truncation. Compare both with a genuine 1878 obverse:

Just passing by and saw this topic. Thought my 1964 6d might be relevant. The clog is obvious, but there are no signs that the "I" has been filed away, so I think it's a genuine die clog, and a 'ghost' of the I remains. (Would be fascinated to know if there are any more out there?)