Peckris

That's very very inconsistent. The 1914 is way overpriced. But i can understand the 1868 - it looked EF and is a scarce date so less than £150 seems fair to me.

I was hoping nobody would notice my spellin mistake! I couldn't figure out how to edit the title once I posted...Shameful! Aww. There's always one. And it's always me

If you look carefully, what appears to have have happened is that a chunk has come out of the lower 3. It's a piece missing. The question is, did it happen at striking which would make it an interesting (but probably not valuable) misstrike, or has been gouged out since?

Very handsome. Victorian, would you say?

Peck has nothing to say about it. He rarely bothers with overpunched letters, just the occasional overstruck date.

I think you'll find that is VOCE POPULI (i.e. VOX POPULI = "voice of the people") Just sayin'

His "thesis" says it is vinegar and salt that does it, but vinegar on its own doesn't. I have to take issue with him there - I've used vinegar as a fast remover of verdigris, but the price is, it makes the whole coin noticeably lighter in tone.

I don't think you need Google - if you read the legend on the reverse, it gives you all the historical information you could want, including the precise date. There are a few dedicated commemorative medallion collectors, but it's a small field compared to coins.

Yes, that and the fact Germany never really 'lost' WWI in the conventional sense, we just managed to persuade them that they had. We tried to do the same to the Boers 15 years earlier - "right, we've captured Pretoria, that's it we've won, it's the end of the game. " They weren't having it though. Since we are now wildly off topic, might as well mention the Lusitania again, spent some time reading about it last night. It seems that in the 1950's, according to the local Irish fishermen, the Royal Navy spent two weeks blowing the bejesus out of the wreck with depth charges, prompting specualtion that they were trying to destroy evidence of something or other. What I guess we'll never find out, but one rumour that has grown legs, is that the Lusitania was carrying something it shouldn't have been under a neutral flag and that the high profile Americans on board were being used as a human shield. It is also alleged that the Germans knew about it and their embassy in New York posted an advert in the paper warning not to travel. Also interesting is that the wreck has been in American ownership since, it was bought for £1,000 in the early 60's. The problem is, there are so many conspiracy theories (a man smoking a cigarette on a grassy knoll somewhere near Roswell, confirms that man never landed on the moon, and that the US Administration was behind 9/11 ...) that good ones that come along tend to get ignored. The best I've heard in a long time, is the chain of events that led to al-Magrahi being convicted of the Lockerbie bombing - that one is chilling. (He was almost certainly a scapegoat, which is why he got cheered on his return to Libya).

Blimey. The chap's written a whole thesis on how to ruin your entire bronze collection by cleaning.

On that subject, I'm currently looking through a Giles annual, showing his cartoons from the late 40s to the mid 90s. In the 60s he did a cartoon inspired by the fact that Boy Scouts had been issued with new uniforms. The cartoon shows a Brownie Leader leading her pack of Brownies and saying, "We'll give them 'new uniform', won't we girls?" (paraphrase). The Brownies are all dressed in Bunny Girl costumes. THAT wouldn't get passed today! And let's never forget, if it wasn't for the treatment of Germany by the Allies after Versailles, the Second World War probably wouldn't have happened.

Another one I've never heard of, be interested to see the pictures Thanks for the info David I hope that this picture is clear enough, That 1934 looks like a one-off striking error. (Piece of lint or something filling the die for one strike only?). For me, that makes it even less of interest than a brockage. On the other hand, if other specimens DID turn up, then I'd find it interesting. After all, I have a 1964 sixpence where the I of GRATIA is missing, presumably for similar reasons? No-one here has suggested I might be sitting on a fortune. I shall watch the result of that auction with interest. If it realises a high price then I'm sending my sixpence to Colin Cooke for an online auction.

That works fine until the day your snipe just beats another using the same strategy. Then you find yourself having to pay the "stupidly high price" You only pay the price you want to pay Peck I was commenting on a strategy that involves sniping a "stupidly high price" - it COULD happen that your S.H.P. outbids someone else's S.H.P. by only a few pounds, and then you HAVE to pay!

Good God. I notice he isn't showing the reverse. Well even if it WAS the 2mm variety, I wouldn't pay £29.99 for it in that condition.

Another thing to bear in mind : it's a strange quirk of the beaded border that until it's all but a featureless disc, a few beads will survive intact. It's extremely rare for a coin to be in your grade and not show a complete bead or few. That's another (not very scientific) way to tell them.

Boo... Phew. I'm relieved. The last thing I'd want to do is get rid of someone else's dandruff off a coin!

That works fine until the day your snipe just beats another using the same strategy. Then you find yourself having to pay the "stupidly high price" It's never happened yet, so it's a chance I'll continue to take. Good luck!

That works fine until the day your snipe just beats another using the same strategy. Then you find yourself having to pay the "stupidly high price"

But that's what I said!!! (Re-read...)

Your logic, unlike your coin, is flawless

Yes you need to keep an eye out for fakes and over-grading but showing a high grade coin then sending a dud is just plain fraud in my opinion. I also hate stock photos, it's just lazyness. I expect to receive what is in the picture because that is what I have used to appraise the condition and used as the basis to make the decision on what I'm willing to pay. Gary D dead right. Even for E-II cupronickel. Too right! I remember someone selling an E2 florin not so long ago. They captioned it "coin in picture is not the actual coin". Considering the coin for sale was 1965 and the picture was 1966 ... caveat emptor is about right!!!

Hi Gary. I can't see it in hand, obviously, but the 44 on the left LOOKS like a pale but toned example (the range of Mint toning coloration is quite wide). Is there actual lustre on it? As for 1946, I believe they come evenly spread between lustred and toned? Having said that, I only have a toned specimen, but I saw a lot years ago at Warwick & Warwick which I scoured for the mint flaw (without luck) and all 15 or so were lustred.

Hm. I hate to sound a sour note here, but have you thought it might be dandruff from the seller? Just sayin' ...

I notice he hasn't adjusted the starting bid price!!! Still, as he says, there are plenty of idiots out there.

I don't know whether this is a breach of protocol, but I thought I would say that I have a couple of Unc 1944s for sale and one GEF that avoided the toning process. How much lustre on the 44 escapee? And how much are you asking? (You can DM me if you'd rather not discuss it in open forum).