Peckris

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.

I haven't used a provincial auction house since the last débacle : hammer price was (I thought) a fair £30 for what I was selling. The cheque I received? £17. That's just grand larceny. I'd say eBay is your best bet providing the items are saleable. Fees are a fraction of auction houses (no staff or premises) and providing you begin your auction at a sensible time - e.g. 10PM Friday night or 10AM Saturday morning, and not mid-morning weekday - you should do ok.

Having said that, I recently bought a fantasy penny from eBay - the obverse is the Kuchler design of Geo III as seen on the Bank of England dollar, and the reverse is a replica of a pattern halfpenny of 1798. It's a heavy proof in dark slate-grey bronze and is utterly gorgeous (cost me all of £9.99 :-) If that had been stamped replica or similar, it would have been 100% undesirable. I'm sure someone of ill repute could try and flog those as rare patterns, but I don't think the existence of 1) crooks 2) gullible collectors should spoil a beautiful coin.

Actually you can just make out the faint trace of the dot. It's partly a combination of uneven wear (the higher dot is more protected by the rim) and a partly worn or filled die. That's my opinion anyway. Sadly the coin doesn't have any extra value. Perhaps its the one between GRA and BRITT I can see the faint dot too.... That's the one we're talking about az

How do you know when two coin collectors are about to decide something by the spin of a coin? "Ok, your call - obverse or reverse?" "Don't you DARE toss that, it's BU!"

I always get my gum from ebay. But then, I'm a Northerner.

Actually you can just make out the faint trace of the dot. It's partly a combination of uneven wear (the higher dot is more protected by the rim) and a partly worn or filled die. That's my opinion anyway. Sadly the coin doesn't have any extra value.

Great. At least we can say we know what it is now ! Are they quite common ? Not common as in coin-common, but not rare either, and with only a small collector base anyway. To be honest, yours is too worn to be of any interest more than scrap value ... but I've never seen a worn example before! So it's interesting purely from that perspective.