Peckris

Like the 1951 penny?

People such as yourself Beth, often collect what are called "commemoratives" - for example the proof sets and specimen sets produced annually by the Royal Mint. At the moment, such sets would struggle to fetch their issue price when sold later, but over 25 - 30 years, who knows? They are attractively packaged, but are in no sense rare, though they could give interest to grandchildren in time. Certainly, coins from your change are cheaper to put aside, since they only cost their face value. If you're going to do that, make sure you put aside Bright Uncirculated (new, full lustre) coins, as they are more likely to be worth something in due course than more worn / circulated examples. And the higher the denomination (£2 £1 50p) the more likely they are to go up in value over time. Do bear in mind that there was a massive recoinage between 1967 and 1971, and most coins from that period are still worth very little. However, it wouldn't hurt to study trends : for example, our present Queen can't go on forever, so her coins will become gradually more collectable when she's gone. And when Charles comes around, EVERYONE will put aside coins from his first year, but then it will tail off, so collecting from his second year onwards will be more fruitful (that has historically been true, e.g. coins of 1954, 1938/39, 1912/13, 1903/04, are worth quite a lot more than coins from the first year of a reign). Good luck with the endeavour!

Oh to be 13 again! On second thoughts ... [shudders]

CCGB 2009 doesn't mention it, but does list similar for 1845 where the error is given as AANNO.

I have several 1887 JH coins that are very prooflike, in that - like yours - they have mirrored fields. This is a hallmark of an early currency strike, some of which may have used the same dies used for proofs. Three things to say: 1. If the design is not mirrored but the fields are, that's a good sign that the coin has not been cleaned. 2. Early strikes should still command a premium over later ones, but not as much as they would in the USA (hopefully we will catch up on that one). 3. Genuine proofs have a rim whose edges are very sharp - if yours looks UNC but without sharp edges, it's probably not a proof. Hope that helps.

Don't worry. Not everyone collects gold, I don't have any.

The picture you have uploaded is of a perspex case with a card insert. The coins are seated in slots in the card so that you can see both sides. They are about £5 retail without the coins and can be wall mounted with spring holders or desk mounted on a small display stand. Hope that helps. John. Do bear in mind that high grade 1954 "silver" is quite scarce and pricey, so you might want to look out for an 'average condition' set, which should be priced very reasonably.

How many London Mint 1882 pennies would you say have survived (all grades)? Freeman has them as R17 (16 to 50 in existence). That was in 1985. Given their unique status, there's likely still the same number now, but most of those will be in private collections, which will probably not see the light of day for a very long time, if ever. That includes the prime example Bernie showed us a few weeks back. 16 to 50 is a fairly wide estimated range. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say less than 40. I bet there's maybe 10 which will come up for sale in the next 3 years, say ~ and the sales points could be anywhere. Mind, most of them will be flat discs. In that case, I'd venture that high grade examples will certainly be rarer than 1933s!

The £360 coin is no more than a really GF. Not even VF IMO. As for the other coin - now be fair! The seller describes it as F (which is obviously short for F***ing awful ) Blimey £100!! that's worse than mine David And mine :

My thoughts? That COULD be a genuine example, which some clown has stamped COPY into. See how the field around the stamp has been dished, as if the impress was done post-minting? And it's showing through on Liz's hairdo too on the obverse, which makes the whole operation unbelievably clumsy.

How many London Mint 1882 pennies would you say have survived (all grades)?

Nevertheless Rob, what you're espousing is right-wing monetarism. And nation states are NOT individuals! The Thatcher "England as corner shop" mentality broke down years ago, in fact it was never valid. Individuals and families certainly SHOULD live within their means (overdrafts excepted of course, from which the banks make healthy profits). Companies perhaps less so (add 'cash flow' and 'orders on the books' to the overdraft equation). Nations least of all. Keynes proved that in the 1930s and it hasn't failed since, unless perverted in the name of dogma. Yes yes, I know today's growth figures were healthier than forecast, but everyone spoken to said that has absolutely nothing to do with the spending review, which actually hasn't even begun to bite yet. I stand by the Keynesian analysis : we have to spend to invest. That way people are in work, the government RECEIVES : - National Insurance - Taxes - VAT on consumer spending The government SAVES : - on unemployment benefit and income support Everybody's happy. Everybody's quids in. Wankers with leveraged positions trading money that doesn't exist in some kind of 'game' that no-one fully understands. That's about the size of it. Doesn't it piss you off intensely that a few bloated, up themselves, individuals have so much unmitigated power I just found a brilliant summation of the argument against the cuts! Here is the link (it says it all much more logically, fluently and coherently than I could ever hope to) : http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/there-is-an-alternative-the-case-against-cuts-in-public-spending.cfm Good summation, although I do take on board some of Rob's arguments as well. There are certain moves which might lead a cynical person to believe that the government is not being entirely truthful with us. For example, the news last night that a "universal pension" of up to £140 per week, irrespective of National Insurance contributions, being dangled as a carrot. Apparently this won't get going until after the next election, which, assuming the coalition doesn't fall apart before then, will be 2015. Note the operative phrase: after the next election. What a transparently blatant attempt to scoop the grey, female and baby boomer vote in one fell swoop. Or am I the only one to think this cynically ? Yes it came from Vince cable, but he's only acting as Cameron and Osborne's puppet. The money's there when they want it to be, Peck. Either that or they're lying. Both, I'd say. Kicking the disabled will save a few hundred million, no more, but it will please Daily Mail readers who think we're all workshy scroungers. And we've had government by that xenophobic, rabble-rousing, anti-semitic, populist, poor excuse for a newspaper for far too long now.

57 huh? When exactly did Heinz start up?

But if we are right and it's been tooled, it is now a severely damaged coin with a much lower retail value David You could be right David, but look at how much "tooled" 1933 pennies fetch on the 'Bay!

"Hey guys, let's put ourselves down as the songwriters of this one - no-one will know it's an old blues standard and we will make a ton of money" ??

Someone's just lost £229 then Bit strong! A normal reasonably high-grade 1882H has got be worth more than £1

Wankers with leveraged positions trading money that doesn't exist in some kind of 'game' that no-one fully understands. That's about the size of it. Doesn't it piss you off intensely that a few bloated, up themselves, individuals have so much unmitigated power I just found a brilliant summation of the argument against the cuts! Here is the link (it says it all much more logically, fluently and coherently than I could ever hope to) : http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/there-is-an-alternative-the-case-against-cuts-in-public-spending.cfm

Yeah, but £1500 with 3 days still to go ... ? I too thought it was no more than EF. And I hate scrappy lustre. I'd much prefer an evenly patinated penny.

I think you are cynical but probably quite correct Declan. You should be a socialist!

Blimey. Say what you like about the seller formerly known as "gg..something or other", but he does get 'em in. £411 with 4 days to go... Superb isn't it. I forecast near £2k. Tell you what, if I had the cash, I'd be in there saying, "come to Daddy" £1,561.11 with 3 days to go...

Quite right 1949. A "Robin Hood" tax on the banks (the real cause of the crisis two years ago, and without which there would be no talk of "deficit"), would raise in one stroke, what Osborne is about to wring out of the sick, disabled, and every other little pot he's raiding. It's part of the propaganda we are being fed Az. The Chancellor began his so-called "review" by telling us the Coalition had pulled Britain back from the brink of bankruptcy. Absolute tosh. Even Zimbabwe - the nearest thing to a bust economy - isn't bankrupt. Nations don't become bankrupt. They incur budget deficits, which they all do from time to time, to varying degrees. If nations went bankrupt, then Britain was bankrupt from the Napoleonic Wars right up until the 1980s or 90s, when we paid off the final instalment of the National Debt. Like I say, it's just propaganda.

Drop the spam? Drop the spam? I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam bacon spam and spam "Sorry dear, bacon's orf" "Can I have spam instead of bacon?" "What, you mean spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam and spam?"

I think you'll find it was bankers (in both senses). Aided and abetted by governments who didn't regulate them. I think you will find that the bubble will have burst with or without the bankers. The problems we are in at this moment is largely due to government over borrowing. The bankers just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, scapegoat anyone, very convenient. Gary I couldn't disagree more. If by "bubble" you mean the housing market, yes we've been there before : 1987 - 1990. It collapsed spectacularly, but the economy didn't. If by "bubble" you mean the stock market, yes, we've been there before, many times; usually followed by a recession which lasted a year or two, then back to bull times. THIS crash was caused by unregulated credit (fuelled by banks after quick and easy profits), which showed its vulnerability first in the American sub-prime mortgage markets. When that fell, the whole rotten pack of cards went with it - from Lehmann Brothers, Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley, various foreign banks, and the entire world economy with it. But... thank God that New Labour bailed out the banks here. Can you possibly even begin to imagine what shit we'd be in now if the banking sector had been allowed to collapse? THAT's where the massive deficit came from. It didn't even exist in 2007. Governments have over-borrowed all last century and this. Sometimes it caused big problems, sometimes it caused small problems, and sometimes - as with the New Deal in the USA in the 1930s - it got the world economy out of the shite. We could do with a little bit more over-borrowing to stimulate the economy and get things moving again. Yes, I'm a Keynesian. And proud of it.

Blimey. Say what you like about the seller formerly known as "gg..something or other", but he does get 'em in. £411 with 4 days to go...

True enough; at the time, I did put aside about 4 in decent condition. They disappeared after a theft, then I lost interest in pulling from change. Now I just want to get one to say I have it, and they're just not there! Of course, there'll never be the demand like for £sd, but it'd still be nice to 'fill the hole'. I think I have a few. Somewhere.