Peckris

Peck Email sent regarding the 1915 1/4d & Seaby 1972....thats if you didn't recieve it Oh yes! Thanks Peter (I didn't recognise the email address, but yes I got it, having just checked).

If you hunt the second-hand bookshops, Seabys did one in the 60s. It would be useless for values, but you could see comparative rarities, and it would be great for identification.

No knowledge I'm afraid, just deduction : the rose looks like the rose / shamrock / thistle emblem you find beneath Britannia on pre-bronze pennies of William Wyon, and which represents the British Isles post-Union. The shield, as you say, is the royal arms which you see on many reverses, with two sets of 3 leopards en passant plus an Irish harp; the 4th quarter should be the Scottish lion, but it's hard to make out. The allegorical figures of Faith Hope & Charity look very 19th Century, as does the rose symbol. So my deduction - which doesn't allow for the word "State" (that sounds American!) - would be a medallion from the late 19th Century when the Temperance Movement was very strong. If, that is, alcohol is really the theme. An interesting find, despite the condition.

Could be, though from the sound of the wear it could be genuine. Mind you, resin or pewter repros are much thicker of course, and as the OP didn't mention that it was "thin", it could equally be a repro.

There was a real stagnant period for British coins, from the mid-80s to the mid-90s, with a serious economic recession falling right in the middle of that. It looks likely that Coin Monthly was a victim of that "double whammy" and that if it had managed to hold on for a while longer, would now be enjoying an upsurge. It was published by The Numismatic Publishing Co of Brentwood Essex if my memory serves. I suppose it was they who went bust?

Hi connylad, Welcome to the forums We'd really need to see a picture e.g. a scan of both sides. Is the coin very thin compared to modern coins? It sounds from your description like a groat of Henry VIII (and yes, he does look like himself on his coins!), and certainly POSVI ("posui" - Latin) is part of medieval legends. The feathers symbol would be the three fleur de lys that represents France, and which the Prince of Wales still uses as a heraldic device. The quartered shield with a cross is exactly right for a groat of the period. But pictures would confirm it...

The "darkness" you refer to is the classic green patina from a coin that has been some time in the ground. I can see evidence of the typical corrosion that this typically produces, for example a few random 'dots' where there shouldn't be any. It's fairly significant that on the first picture, where the green is most evident, the 5 doesn't show up at all. It looks like it is probably a "shadow" effect from some corrosion in the date area, though that's just a 'best guesstimate'.

It's a bit poignant though. Has Michael fallen on hard times I wonder?

On this subject, if anyone has a Seabys Standard Catalogue from the mid-1970s that they don't want, can they let me know? (I'm making a study of coin prices - I have the 60s, and 80s to Noughties pretty well sewn up, but the only 1970s listings I have are the Coin Monthly blue pages for 1979. After decimalisation - from around 1974 - as modern coin prices collapsed, earlier coin prices passed them on the way up. It's this fascinating period I'm trying to cover.)

Not really, but I have this from Philip Mussell (Coin News) : "...we started the COIN NEWS YEARBOOK in 1994 and dropped the word NEWS and adopted the blue pages in 1997 – after the demise of COIN MONTHLY and the other YEARBOOK..." Whether that means that CM packed up in 1997, I am unsure. By the way, I have a few issues from 1968 and most from 1969.

They are Coronation crowns - unfortunately not rare at all. Worth between £2 - £5. Unless the edge reads "FAITH AND TRUTH I WILL BEAR UNTO YO" (instead of "YOU" - the so-called "hip hop error" ) in which case it would be worth between £30 - £80 depending on condition. The proofs are worth between £15 - £25.

Oh I don't know - a few tinnies of Fosters, perhaps?

Thanks for that Peter. I had a look at CC's Oxford Collection results : £475 for a nBU example, not what I'd call "cheap"! Even the GVF went for £120 (I suspect it might fetch more than that now - there isn't a whole heap of difference between those two examples in the Oxford sale). Here's mine (thanks to this post I've now seen 5 times as many as I had in my life up to now!) : "If anyone can (botch your pictures with their terrible scanners), Canon can"

Hi Stargazer - Welcome to the forums Neither coin is particularly rare, but condition is absolutely everything. Photos would be a great help, or a scan (both sides of each coin). To give an illustration of how important condition is - either coin in Fine (partly worn but still respectable) would be worth around £5. In Mint condition the shilling would be worth £50, the sixpence around £100.

I know - but Colin's site doesn't yet have a picture of the 1915 TT variety. As for its rarity, I've examined quite a lot of 1915s in my time, and my own example is the only one I've ever seen. So far, I've never seen one on eBay, nor on Colin Cooke, nor on Michael Gouby's site, though the latter two I've only been inspecting this year. The pointings do make it much easier to spot - there are about half a dozen points (at least) where something is to a tooth instead of a gap, or vice versa. And you only need to compare a 1911 with a 1917 to get the differences. I agree, it hasn't reached superstar status, but I'm tempted to suggest it might be quite as rare as the 1874H Gs over sideways (that's a guess only though). I'd love a scan of that Coin Monthly letter if you were able to upload it for me?

Nice job - just need to correct you on 1914 and 1915 farthings (haven't looked further than Geo V) - there are TWO known varieties of each farthing for those dates (a different obverse introduced in 1914). Also, in 1918, there is only 1 obverse and reverse - the "variety" as such, is that some farthings were darkened at the Mint like pre-1918s, others were issued with full lustre.

You have the 1915 Obverse 1 farthing?

As a student of coin prices, particularly modern coins, I'm always interested to read these sort of articles. In my own coins database, I have one layout devoted entirely to Seaby/Spink prices over the years : 1966, 1969, 1980, 1985, 1997/8, and more or less biannually since 2000. (I'm missing the mid-70s, and trying to track down a 1976 Seabys; there is no need to have anything from 1985 to 1997 as there was a long period of stagnation in values, partly caused by Seabys becoming a bit out of touch with the real markets). From all this data, I can show that the grade that has performed least well over time is VF. This may be due to collectors falling into two broad groups : those who buy the very best (EF or better) and those who are 'completists' making date runs etc, who are more likely to push up the Fine coins more. But it may also be because the VF grade itself has slipped relative to other grades since those stricter times in the 1960s/70s. Back then, the top grades Unc EF and VF clustered together with only quite small differences between them; then there was a huge gap down to Fine. These days it is more of an even spread below EF, from which I have to conclude that the modern VF is slightly worse than the VF of yore. However it is true to say that buying the very best you can afford will not be a bad policy, and never has been (unless you were buying 1950/1951 pennies for "investment" in the 1960s ). It is equally true to say that it is impossible to predict the next trend / fad / fashion, in coins as in everything else.

Oh, you meant 'metal creep' due to the repunching, not due to the strike! Ok, I understand what you mean now. I'm still slightly doubtful though - I would have thought (and this is not based on scientific knowledge) that metal creep due to numerals being repunched, would cause a kind of cone-shaped deformity? In other words, the date numeral would taper outwards towards its base? Whereas in these numerals, the overlying numeral has a clean edge, and the underlying numeral does too, as if providing a flat shallow plinth which the numeral sits on. In other words, all the edges look too 'clean' to be deformities, but that is purely a layman's opinion.

Yes I notice that Michael Gouby has a perfect 1973 set for well over £20. They really are rare.

Yes, zooming in shows more wear than at first appears evident especially on the obverse (a common failing with bun farthings, which often appear better than they really are). However it is still clearly VF and I wouldn't see those tiny green dots (which must be truly tiny considering it's a farthing!) affecting the value at all. So it would be fair to quote the OP a value of £5, with your sensible proviso that that is an "insurance value" only, and that such a coin could be picked up for less. rolling, when you are quoted a value, always ask if that means "book price" or not. Book price is what dealers and collectors use to insure coins, and also as a dealers' guide to price choice or rare coins at. Commoner coins, especially if not in the top one or two grades, can usually be found at well under book price. Bun farthings come under this heading - they are plentiful in VF, far more than bun pennies which came in for a lot more wear and were less protected by their rims.

In hand, under magnification, what is very clear is that there is no underlying '1' at all, and the '5' does not creep in the same direction as the '8's (the top horizontal is below, not to the left, and the right hand side of the large loop has virtually no underlying numeral). And the 'creep' is different on each '8' - quite a lot of the underlying showing to the right on the 1st 8, but very little on the second. From this I would have to deduce that this is more than simply metal creep or the underlying numerals would be consistently offset relative to each overlying numeral. No, this looks like a recut date, with possibly the '1' not being recut.

Well no - don't forget that on the die, what you see on the coin as raised surfaces are actually incuse. So just imagine a small incuse date, then imagine a larger date cut into the same die - it would make what is simply a hollow space, a larger hollow space, and therefore it would be impossible for the previous, smaller incuse detail to survive. Enlarge a hole and the previous hole disappears entirely!

Only that it is interesting - I've not seen that before, nor does it seem to be recorded. It MIGHT simply be one-off damage to the loop of the 9, but at the same time the inner loop looks smaller too. Worth keeping out of interest. Thank you, I was wondering if there are any variety types on the 1926/1927 farthing please? No. 20th Century farthing varieties are few and far between. In fact, after 1915, there is only the 4 die pairings for 1953, and that's about it. This is true of small coins in general - you will also find very few varieties of silver 3d, or even sixpences, after around 1893.

Very nice! This error was noted in 2008 ( Large date over small date) (CC 2009) I dont know anything about coins but I brought collectors coins 2009 - my bible lol Ooh yes, you're right - I have CCGB 2009 and didn't even realise I had this variety! (I only recently saw it when looking through a glass - strictly speaking, shouldn't it be described as "small date over large" rather than the other way about?). Mine is AU, much better than the scan shows, a glorious even tone and glistening fields. very true, might be worth a mention to Chris Perkins for inclusion in the next CCGB. Possible large over small AND a small over large types ?? I'd be quite surprised if there was a "large date over small" variety - how on earth would you tell? Purely by comparison I suppose, the one thing I have learned from sorting my fathers coins is to expect the unexpected You need more examples first. No, what I meant was, if a large date is cut over a small date, it would swamp the smaller date completely, wouldn't it?