Peckris

So sorry to add to the confusion! Actually both those coins shown above are better than average. The upper one is obviously nicer, and if you had a rare/scarce date in that condition, it could be worth hundreds (1862 is one of the commoner dates - most bun halfpennies in that condition are worth considerably more; pennies even more; farthings less). The lower one is also in reasonable condition, but it looks blotchy which is why it clearly didn't sell. 'Average' condition ranges from worn but still readable, to barely readable. Only rare coins in that condition have a value. Scan or photo a few examples to show us (pre-1937, preferably 19th Century - don't bother with the modern : only strictly uncirculated coins have any significant value, with a few exceptions. But also bear in mind : silver coins pre-1947 contain 50% real silver; pre-1920 nearly 100%. Those can be sold for scrap value even if badly worn)

Seriously guys, this is a real nuisance. It's piss poor design : if I can do it from the Top level via an In: button, why can't it work at the middle level also? I really am fed up to the teeth of having to trawl back through threads just to find the last one I read and then work forward from there. Is it too much to ask forum designers to have even a tiny bit of consistency? Doesn't this characteristic annoy you too? I can't be the only one pissed off by it.

I use FileMaker Pro (database software - think Access but easier to get started with). My pictures database has both obverse and reverse scans of each coin, plus a unique identifier that links them (relationally) to my main database, which means the pictures appear there without me having to import them. I can't use them in this forum because of the miserly 150k restriction on attachment size, but FM Pro databases can be shared on the Web.

OK Scott, if my scanner was working properly I'd send you photos, but it's one of those where you need a ruler and the two coins side by side. 1) On the variety usually known as the '1895 2mm', the angle of the trident and the P of the word 'penny' are 2 mm. apart whereas on the standard issue they are 1 mm. apart; 2) The variety has a slightly lower tide, but on neither type is the tide a particularly prominent feature and on worn examples it may have disappeared altogether. This is what gives rise to the variety's other name of '1895 low tide'; 3) The word 'penny' is much more scrunched up on the variety and has noticeably smaller spacings than the word 'one'; 4) Britannia is actually very slightly smaller and neater on the 2mm. making her look slightly more elegant. Hope that answers your question. Scott, there's a nice 2mm 1895 here 1895 2mm Here's mine: (That one on eBay has a miserly bid of a tenner on it, no wonder it hasn't reached the reserve price).

It's always been the case that you only have a few minutes to edit your post after first posting it.

If I am able to go into a forum from the top level - e.g. British Coin forums - and find new posts in "Lots of British coin-related Discussions" - this is what I am able to do: • Click "In: topic name" (on the right, below date of last post) and it takes me to the first unread post in that topic. Which is, of course, where I want to be. However, having finished in that topic, I then click Go to get back up to the forum's list of topics, and now I am faced with : • Click the topic title - which takes me to the start of the topic • Click a page number - which takes me to the TOP of that page • Click the last posted date - which takes me to the very last post There is no way - from a forum's topic list - that I can go to the first unread post in a topic. Of course, I can go one level up, back to the top level, but that only gives me the last topic which someone posted to. The infuriating thing about this, is that if there are 15 replies in a particular topic since the day before, I want to go to the start of those, i.e. the first unread post. Not have to trawl back through God knows how many, to find the first unread one.

That was my assessment as well, Bob. Superlative example of the coin. Mine too.

It's got good detail - however there's a spot or two, and also it looks rather reflective as if it had been polished once (though that might be simply the light source). My own is not far off VF but I'm not looking to upgrade except for the right coin at the right price. I would suggest you put it on eBay : 1903 halfcrowns generally fetch quite a good price there.

The date numeral variations between 1895 to 1910 are a fairly well flogged dead horse. It's almost certainly due to die wear, or very slight die differences at a time when no other changes accompany them. It's very common, and IMO not worthy of a flicker of interest. To underline the point : in the late 60s one Coin Monthly reader did a big survey of worn 1907 pennies, subdividing the 7s into length of downstroke and pointing, coming up with maybe 5 or 6 "varieties". Now? All that research may as well have never been done, for all the apathy that now reigns on the subject. Unlike bun pennies, that later reverse just doesn't seem to arouse enthusiasm.

It's precisely where you left it. (Ow)

NEVER start a sentence with a conjunction (chortle!). Actually, that's just a stylistic thing. Many novelists and writers ignore that particular Louthism.

OK. ONCE MORE WITH FEELING. It's just COIN-cidence. . . . . . . . . (pun intended) (Takes a fool to explain his own jokes, but hey...)

You KNOW what I'm gonna say. But I'm gonna say it anyway. LOSE not LOOSE. (Sorry, it's my pet irritant at the moment).

It's just coincidence. . . . . . . . . (pun intended)

No, I think you were right to begin with Az. That first picture looks 'wrong' somehow, and I'm speaking as one who must have seen thousands of the Paget portrait over the years. I cant put my finger exactly on specifics but it's not just the nose - it's also the eyeline, and where the hair meets the brow also just looks plain wrong.

Before I saw the reply I was going to say it looks like a repro! The colour is all wrong, and it is probably way too thick? I've seen several repros and they often look like that one, but that's not definitIve of course.

To be honest (sorry to be a wet blanket) the tooling error is extremely unlikely - if you mean an overstrike I for 1. The chances of such a variety in a straightforward series like that is pretty remote. So if you get a price for it, then IMO you will have done very well indeed.

I was seriously going to suggest George II !! (The triple tie band behind head would seem to suggest it). But worthless, even so, sadly. Thx for your suggestions - the reverse side is worn flat. I first started collecting coins when I was at Uni back in the 60's. It was triggered by me finding a lusterous 1908 Penny VF+ in my loose change - someone must have been very annoyed losing that ! I still have a GVF 1909 halfpenny I found while doing the 'bank bag shuffle' in the 60s. That's one thing I curse decimalisation for - the loss of all those opportunities.

I wouldn't say it happens that often, but the odd blemish/fault does get through the Mint's inspectors, even more these days when you look at some of the modern coins members have shown in the forums. It's a curiosity, no more, but if you like that kind of thing, worth keeping.

I'd tend to agree. If you look at the 1s in the date, they have an exaggerated upper serif, which the left upper of the I doesn't have. Bear in mind also that the 19th Century is absolutely riddled with die imperfections/damage/wear especially to low denomination coins where the incentive to fix the problem wasn't there. Unless it's a clear example of one letter/numeral punched over another (e.g. Gs on their side, 1874), it's really not noteworthy.

Russ, sorry to bring you down to earth , but ... If you look at an earlier post I did of a previously undiscovered reverse variety (unquestionable) of an 1887 wreath reverse sixpence, you will agree with all my evidence that this is a clear variety. However, no-one has expressed any interest in it, from Spink downwards. The main reason being (I suspect) that there is only this one specimen. Ironically, fi there were a few others it could be classed as a rare variety, enter the books, and make me a modest fortune. You're in the same boat. EVEN IF it turns out to be a 1 for I variety, without any other specimens you're on a hiding to nothing, and it's very unlikely anyone will take any interest. Sorry, but that seems to be the way of the world with coins.

I was seriously going to suggest George II !! (The triple tie band behind head would seem to suggest it). But worthless, even so, sadly.

Looks like someone had it for denarius ... not to mention lunchius and breakfastius too.

Peckris I'd say yes to the Bronze book, but then I would as its my book!! You could try asking GaryD for an unbiased opinion or maybe RLC35. I found my way through the PayPal jungle Dave, and have sent for the silver book. Now arrived safely - thanks! Looking forward to a leisurely dip into it.

Peckris I'd say yes to the Bronze book, but then I would as its my book!! You could try asking GaryD for an unbiased opinion or maybe RLC35. I found my way through the PayPal jungle Dave, and have sent for the silver book.