Peckris

Isn't that 1200 posts, not 1000? Oh well, in a few posts time I will find out for sure

The Edw VII penny doesn't look streaked at all, just some dark staining which could be from anything. The 1919 penny looks in good enough condition for it to be "streaky lustre". Interesting. Those dark patches probably look clearer "in hand"? I can't tell much from the picture. "Steaking" may or may not, be lustre. I would have said that "marbling" is the actual metal content, not lustre? IMO.

Yes, good point. It looks a little strange, the lustre, but environmental toning could account for that.

Ladies?? OY!!! Is that a typo for 'laddies', or do you need a brain transplant?? From the 25p tray of a dealer at the Midlands Coin Fair (unsorted :-) ): • 1888 sixpence GEF • 1951 brass 3d, Unc with strong lustre From a Warwick&Warwick auction lot of pennies from 1860 to 1967 • 1919H with the usual flat hair (worn die) but in all other respects GEF or better, rich chocolate patina - £20 From a New York dealer : • 1903 halfcrown F+/AVF, lustre - £26 From circulation : • 1926ME penny, GF - £0.005

Forgive me being pedantic 1949! but don't you mean a "die blemish"? If there was a genuine die error in the modern era it would be remarkable and valuable, as witness the 1983 2 NEW PENCE error. (Though strictly speaking, even that is not a die error, but a mule - I'm finding it hard to come up with an example of a die error in modern times). Yeah.......I suppose. I'm not really sure what you would call mine either, and I'm very open to persuasion on this one. It appears like a little bubble in the upper field of the reverse. Die "blemish", as you suggest, maybe ? Or other blemish? E.g. on the blank itself? Or a bit of grease or foreign matter that got in for just one strike only?

Good pictures scott. The 1866 penny is an enigma, but it COULD be a result of an abrasion scar across the reverse which exposed bare metal and hasn't properly toned back yet. It doesn't look like a classic example of 'streakiness'. Your other two pennies seem to be classic examples of 'streaky lustre'. This occurs a lot in the early 1920s, but you appear to have got two examples from earlier than that. However, there's no way of telling whether they came streaky from the Mint, or have acquired some form of environmental toning. The Vic in particular looks like a 'toned Unc with lustre', while the Edward ... do you think it is possible that is a high grade penny that has been artificially lustred? (It has the look of an Edw VII farthing that's been treated.)

Forgive me being pedantic 1949! but don't you mean a "die blemish"? If there was a genuine die error in the modern era it would be remarkable and valuable, as witness the 1983 2 NEW PENCE error. (Though strictly speaking, even that is not a die error, but a mule - I'm finding it hard to come up with an example of a die error in modern times).

Without detailed chemical analysis, I don't think we can prove conclusively why the hue varied, but I'm still sticking to my guns! I have seen much earlier coins (e.g. an 1893 penny) with the distinctive KN colour. My view on this is that King's Norton received all their metal from one source which may have had say, a trace of ferrous oxide in its makeup. Of course alterations in the alloy can make a difference (e.g. later QE2 bronze) but why would Kings Norton use a different alloy from that which the Royal Mint requested? My theory also explains why some coins have a streaky appearance i.e. ores from two different sources were used in the alloy, and were not completely mixed in the furnace. I can certainly corroborate from experience that the red-brown colour appears outside the date range I mentioned above - for example quite a few late date Edward VII pennies, i.e. 1908 - 1910, also feature it : which leads to two possibilities perhaps? (1) That KN actually provided blanks to the Mint not just in the period mentioned by Freeman (which in turn came from a RM Report apparently) but from the 1890s through to the end of WW1 when that colour seems to disappear. (2) That KN consistently got their copper from just one supplier (your theory) who also was used passim by the RM. I've only ever seen bad streakiness on coins from 1920 to 1926. The explanation I heard from one source was that this was caused by the use of gun casings in the 'mix', which we've discussed here before I think? The problem I have with the 'two ore' hypothesis (though I freely admit I'm not a chemist) is that surely two sources of copper ON THEIR OWN could not cause streakiness? After all, irrespective of its origin, chemically copper is copper is copper. Would it not be more likely that the other metals used in the alloy were not properly mixed together? Though I'd welcome an input from a chemist to clear this point up.

You need to be careful in your terms Peter : "use(d)" and "uncirculated" are contradictory. As soon as a coin is used, it ceases to be uncirculated.

Interesting research Red! May well account for many variations. It does not though, I believe, account for the Kings Norton red-brown tone, which I think really was due to a slight variation in the alloy. This can be verified by a similar tone appearing on some examples of all dates of pennies between 1912 and 1919. "What?" I hear you ask, "how does that confirm the Kings Norton thesis?" Well, according to Freeman, KN supplied blanks to the Mint between 1912 and 1919, as well as minting a small number themselves in 1918 and 1919.

I believe (others may correct me if I'm wrong) that copper, not steel, is still used for the BU Royal Mint sets? In which case it has most likely been taken from a set.

I'm afraid your coin isn't 1998. The portrait of the Queen would be the current portrait if it was. What yours shows is the portrait used between 1985 and 1997. Up to 1990, 5 pence pieces were the size of the current 10 pence piece, but were then reduced in size. Two years later, the 10 pences were reduced to their current size. What you probably have is an old 5 pence piece, probably dated 1988 or 1989, which should be evident if you check with a magnifying glass. Hope that helps.

You did NOT see me smoking behind a pillar in an underground car park

Outbid. Too rich for me.

Repunched legends and dates are extremely common scott, as you know. It sometimes seems to me it would be harder to find Vic copper WITHOUT any signs of it!

I'm inclined to say that it looks and 'feels' genuine (with the proviso that there's no substitute for "in the hand"). Probably photo'd with flash, always tricky with lustre. But I see nothing suspicious about it, and I'm watching it

I cite Binns, and Mackay, who both showed from evidence that the Loch Ness Monster was unknown before 1933 and was in all likelihood a myth created by the then water bailiff (whose name I forget). The supposed photographic evidence can all be explained and - using Occam's Razor - the explanations are all simpler than conceptualising a monster. (Sorry, a digression there. But I find Nessie about on the same level as Roswell, the Twin Towers 9/11 "conspiracy", and "Man never landed on the Moon". Oh, not to forget the esteemed Von Daniken and his astronaut "gods" )

Is that a verified 1882 London Mint? (I.e. the obverse and reverse types are correct, as far as you can determine?) I have to disagree with your assessment of popularity. The London 1882 is a long-established and greatly sought-after rarity. As far as I know it is VERY rare (yours is the only one I've seen in the wild). Although it can be faked, it's a more distinct variety - i.e. a complete absence of the H mint mark - than simply the spacing of the date numerals. I'm prepared to bet it appears in more catalogues, going back a lot further.

Well, you nearly scared me off. Well! After a telling off like that I definitely need to lie down in a darkened room with a medicinal bottle of whiskey. And perhaps a nurse too. Just in case I take a funny turn. If your turn is REALLY funny, I'll buy tickets

Sadly, coins like that are horribly underrated. Just because it doesn't have anything much in the way of lustre. Yet it's clearly uncirculated (i.e., in the sense of not having any detectable wear) and I'd be proud to have it in my own collection. The stain is your typical bronze stain, I believe, possibly the result of being sneezed on or something similar! A penny worth having.

Absolutely no surprise. It's a gorgeous coin. I'd have paid that for it, to be honest. Yes, a real beauty.

No, I think you may have misunderstood? I'm not talking about the same session, but about coming back the next day, when there could be quite a lot of new posts in a topic. What ANY forum software should do, is what you get in this forum, but only at the top level : the ability to go into a topic and go to the last post you read (i.e. the day before, or whenever)

Wow, you going for the record of how many topics to put one post into?

Good point. Though I'm thinking of one Sunday recently when azda got into an enthusiastic verbal exchange and there were around twenty or more posts to go back through (including a change to an earlier page, just to add to the general hassle). If it had been the last topic posted to in that forum it wouldn't have mattered ,as I could have got where I wanted from the top level, but sadly it wasn't. I'll try messaging Chris as you suggest, but it's possible it's just a "feature" of this software.

scott - it's driven by two factors IMO : 1) tradition 2) the market. Varieties that come under 1) are e.g. the 1902 LT penny and halfpenny which have been known about for the longest time. So, despite being just one insignificant difference, there is a market for them. Varieties that come under 2) are e.g. the sub-varieties of 1902 penny (date pointings). These have only recently been researched, and as yet, no-one is sufficiently interested to pay a premium for them, except maybe a few punters on eBay. I'm prepared to bet that Warwick&Warwick wouldn't even look out for them. There's no tradition - the market rules.