Peckris

You ought to try scanning the coins - that hammered Charles I shilling would scan really well. It's in very reasonable condition, but needs to be sharper for more positive ID on the issue and mintmark, etc. The first coin is foreign. I don't recognise anything about it, perhaps the legend is vaguely Hebrew-esque? But that's little more than a wild guess.

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D. The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ... (My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!)

That's quite weird. I've tried to visualise all kinds of situations, such as a brockage or someone attempting to use a normal reverse as a kind of punch to impress into a sawn-in-half penny, but either way, the reverse would be 'mirrored', i.e. back to front. And in the case of a brockage, you should have a normal reverse on the other side. So this is a bit of a mystery.

What on earth is one of those?

I would say VF except for the portrait which is only F, so GF seems fair (the portrait is the most important element). It seems to be Second Issue, so value would be £100 - £150, as a rough estimate.

For what you've described, storage doesn't need any expensive solutions. Transparent coin envelopes (you can probably buy some from this site?) would meet your requirements. In the long term, if some of the coins are bronze, then they perhaps should be stored in paper envelopes. If you need more advice about the value and / or identification of your coins, then people here would be happy to advise, and you should certainly make up a list anyway. If you live somewhere in a dry salt-free environment, then they could even be left in the boxes, but your daughter could scratch them quite badly if she took to shaking the boxes! Individual envelopes would prevent that.

I've noticed this on my 1970 set ~ penny and halfpenny. The 1973 set is by far the worst : I'm lucky enough to have a perfect set but it took some hunting down. All the ones I sold I had to break, sell the good coins individually, and virtually give away the bad ones. I remember one set that had the ugliest 5p you ever saw, and this was a proof! Unless they changed the glue for one year only, I'd also suspect the dyes used in the foam insert - 1973 is the only year they used that bright red so that would be my guess.

That's my 1818 LVIII - unfortunately my scanner only goes to 1200 dpi.

Yes, indeed. If you discount all the reports other than the numbered #102 etc (otherwise it gets confusing!), it's plain to see that the 1970 sets were produced from 1971/2 through to 1976, the 1971 sets from 1973 to 1976, and the 1972-1976 series from 1975/6. That's pretty conclusive I think? It does show that if the 1970 sets were issued for sale as soon as the minting began, they could have been available from (maybe) 1971 but more likely 1972 given the pressure on in 1971. What did surprise me was the number of 1970 sets minted. Getting on for 5 million. More than I thought. You've fallen for the same confusion I had at first! It wasn't until I re-read for the 3rd or 4th time that the "penny dropped", so to speak. Some of those reports talk about coins minted, the others talk about sets. As there are 8 coins in the 1970 set, that should square the calculation hopefully?

Or alternatively, "She Keeps A Möet and Chandon ..."

I read in MOJO just today that Brian May used sixpences as his plectrum, and a bag full would be given to him before each tour! I'm not quite sure what he does for them now - if anyone has a good supply of old tanners, they should jump at the chance to append "Official Supplier to Brian May" after their name

Yes, indeed. If you discount all the reports other than the numbered #102 etc (otherwise it gets confusing!), it's plain to see that the 1970 sets were produced from 1971/2 through to 1976, the 1971 sets from 1973 to 1976, and the 1972-1976 series from 1975/6. That's pretty conclusive I think? It does show that if the 1970 sets were issued for sale as soon as the minting began, they could have been available from (maybe) 1971 but more likely 1972 given the pressure on in 1971.

OMG - Joan E Fisher .... could this be Joan E Allen of Coin-Monthly-adverts-late-60s fame, and married to a Mr Fisher by 1977 ??

If I knew they were only coins ever to carry the date 1972, I'd want one! In fact, in 1978 the first proof sets I ever bought were the 1970 set and the 1972 set. The Royal Mint report #103 for 1.4.1972 - 31.3.1973 says for 1/2p Reported 274,800,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. 1p Reported 130,000,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. 10p Reported 116,050,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. 50p Reported 5.036,000 struck between 1.4.1972 and 31.3.73, but not dated 1972. Also, 79,415 1973 EEC 50p proof and 586,554 1970 Lsd sets produced. Interesting - though it doesn't say exactly when during that 12-month they were minted. Could be that they started on 1973s towards the end of 1972? Good to have those figures though. And it looks like the bulk of the 1970 sets were minted in 1972/3 - now we're getting somewhere!

Much of that is Restoration propaganda! In just the same way as Tudor propaganda blackened the reputation of Richard III of York, in perpetuity. I think the Irish have most cause to hate Cromwell, but most of the atrocities ascribed to him in Britain were actually perpetrated by Henry VIII.

And the Mint learned the hard way too - there was clearly something they used in the 1973 proof sets that caused a reaction, mostly on the bronze. It is one hell of a job finding a good untoned 1973 set, while 1970 - 1972 are usually good. (The 1973 toning is particularly ugly, too).

I've always found a cotton bud dipped in surgical spirit good for dirty or filmed copper / bronze, while soap and water does the same for silver. Drying requires patting with a clean dry towel, or wiping lightly with a micro cloth (the sort you clean specs with).

The question here is was 1974/5 the manufacture date of these sets or merely the first release for sale date? I just find it hard to believe that the only thing the British Mint did in 1972 was the 1970 sets and the 1972 crowns (ignoring their foreign contracts). There were no sovereigns/gold that year, no regular coinages minted that year. Maybe it could be argued that they minted the 1973 circ stuff throughout 1972? Surely it would have been a quiet enough time to manufacture (if not release for several years) the 1970-73 proof sets? Just a thought. Well that's an interesting idea, but it leads to another question : if all the sets were begun in 1972, why weren't they sold until later ? I suppose we would really need to see the Mint Reports from 1971 to 1976 to get a definitive answer. I'm also thinking - much of the new Mint's output was fully automated, so they would have probably only needed to hire some extra inspectors and machine minders (or take them from Tower) for the big pre-1971 push. After that, who knows? Perhaps in 1972 they started on weighing and sorting the pre-decimal withdrawals before sending them all for meltdown - I can't see them having much time for that in 1971.

OMG !! Mine are all fakes then - they clearly show the Queen on horseback ... and ... SHE HAS A HEAD !

That set of links was useful 1949 - despite the infuriating newspaper archives not letting you view the full article (god that sends me demented - do they really think they can outrun free data as encapsulated by the likes of Google and Wikipedia? They will go under soon enough if they don't allow people to access stuff.) Mind you it doesn't give the start date though it does imply that in 1974 the 1971 set was a new product. And it could well be true also that 1972 saw work begin on the 1970 sets, there being little else to do! However, I'm 90% sure that the 1971 proofs were the first, and the 1970 sets followed (and they were definitely the first two sets - ESC 1974 confirms that). Here's a suggested timeline : 1972 - 1974 : 1971 sets produced, maybe not offered for sale until 1974? 1972? - ??? : 1970 sets produced 1974/5 - 1976 : 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 sets produced, then sold from 1976

Try this Enough research. I'll shut up now No, that's excellent 1949 - thanks. That parliamentary Q&A is exactly the sort of authoritative source I was looking for. Yes I'm pretty sure that's the case - the Welsh Mint opened specifically to do the massive decimal recoinage, so Tower Mint would have handled the 1967 jobs. Though bear in mind that the halfcrown and halfpenny ceased production by 1969, no shillings were issued for 1967, florins ceased after 1967 with the issue of the 1968 10p, and the sixpence was scheduled for demonetisation before its reprieve, so my guess is that the only job they had to do from 1969 was churn out some pennies and 3d bits. I suppose all those 1967 pennies weren't actually needed, they just gave the Mint workers something to do ! Dark, I don't think you can be right about the 1970 sets - but I suppose it might be possible that the 1971 set actually did first appear in 1971, though it was minted continuously after that for a while. But equally I wouldn't be surprised if the Mint was so busy through 1971 that they deferred creating the 1971 proofs until 1972, when they had no regular issues to produce. And it now seems that 1972 - 1975 sets may not have been created until 1976!

A common misconception has it that they were issued in 1970 and 1971 respectively. I even read an article (linked from this very site) that says the 1970 set was issued in 1968! I think the writer must have been thinking of the blue plastic decimal wallets... I recently corrected the Wikipedia entry on this, so it would be good if anyone had an authoritative source. Certainly the leaflet inside the 1970 set talks about specific denominations in terms of "... WAS demonetised on 31st August 1971" (my capitals), suggesting a 1972 issue at the earliest. ESC (1974) says of the 1970 set : "These sets are still being produced dated 1970. Not more than 750,000 will be struck." ....................................1971 set : "Up to April 1974, 260,000 sets had been made, all dated 1971." Interestingly, although the text was clearly written in 1974, no mention is made of the 1972 or 1973 proof sets, implying that they did not appear until even later. If anyone has additional sources to add, I'd love to hear.

I'm not sure this would stand up legally? It would be the equivalent of saying that all X's jewellery is "a single item" and therefore the lost engagement ring isn't covered as the combined jewellery value exceeds the single item limit? I'm afraid it works just like that. If you are under insured although the item being claimed for is within the limit you will only get a proportion of the value No, that's not what I meant. I'm not talking about under-insuring, I'm talking about treating a collection of items as a single item - I'm not sure it would hold up in court.

I managed to get to Online coins last night and tried again today, but all I get is : http://guide.opendns.com/?url=www.onlinecoins.co.uk You tried to visit www.onlinecoins.co.uk, which is not loading. What gives?

I'm not sure this would stand up legally? It would be the equivalent of saying that all X's jewellery is "a single item" and therefore the lost engagement ring isn't covered as the combined jewellery value exceeds the single item limit?