Peckris

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?

It's certainly in top grade - book price is about £25 but you could probably pick them up for less. Not a rare coin, but collectable - anyone who can't afford any other Geo V crown will target those. And the reverse design, though much mocked in its day ("the rocking horse crown") has come to acquire a certain Art Deco charm.

I have an absolutely identical 1937 3d, and I have always assumed it was chromed. I've never been that excited about it - I got it at an auction where other dealers were peering close at everything.

Nice coin you have there Gary. Interesting that with both our coins the reverse is a lot weaker than the observe. Thanks.... Yes, even after the modification, the reverse was still left 'high and dry' and it took the 1927 reverse modification, and then the smaller head, to finally make the reverses as strong as the obverses.

I had the last coin I received from eBay (Recorded Del) pushed through the letter box, no attempt to ask for a signature. The PO must be changing their rules "unofficially".

I changed to Norwich Union to get the cheapest "valuables cover" I could, and the single item limit is £1500, and none of my individual coins is worth that, so I'm ok with it.

I think that's the point Gary is making. Not all pictures give you the option - when you right click there are only about two options available, neither of them Save As. I know something is wrong when I can't click and drag the picture onto my desktop, which in Safari I can do with any normal pictures. Interesting - you're judging on the colour? In other respects it looks pretty good to me.

Some lovely MEs there, I'm quite jealous. My only consolation is how inexpensive mine was.

Hi thanks for the heads up Dave. It's good to know that it is so comprehensive. I will have to think about whether to add it to my shopping list, after I've bought Red's Grading Guide. I was being slightly satirical about the ship halfpennies - the pointlessness of that particular exercise is that each 'variety' is a single year variety - as soon as the date changes, the ship changes slightly, so I'm less than excited about them. The exception of course is those oh-so-rare 1956 varieties, and I have to confess that I've never even seen one of the rare variants of those. I don't count the varieties of the 1957 calm sea as significant, where the only difference is a minute positioning of the downstroke of the 7. The 1956 variants 'feel' radically different : teeth, rim, pointings, etc.

And here's mine, given to me in change on the Downend to Bristol bus in 1968 - oh happy day, and it cost me less than 1/2p (only it was the best part of a year before I realised it was the modified effigy, having no other 1926 to compare it to!). I bought a better one off Cookie some years back, but I won't part with this one. There's actually more hair detail than this 'orrible scanner has picked up.

I do hope that your book includes the 1946 die flaw O N E ' penny? I managed to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, but I'm still working on the less-convinced Chris Perkins to get it put in CCGB ! I also bought a 1966 penny a few years back that has an 'extra wave' crashing against the lighthouse, while at the same time I managed to get a 1915 'recessed ear' penny in high grade. I'm told there are two 1937 reverses, but as they both look exactly the same at first glance, and are both very common, I find them totally unsexy As are all the minuscule variations on Elizabeth II ship halfpenny reverses. ("Oooh there's a tiny difference in the size of the ship, but you should be able to spot the difference - one has 1958 on the reverse, the other has 1959" )

Welcome david! I was the same with banks and my 5/- ... My only bits of luck were getting a 1926ME penny in change as my first ever 1926, and then when i decided to have a go at 3d bits after months of checking bronze, finding a 1949 in the first bag I looked through. Never found a 1950 or 1951 penny, but let's be honest, they never quite escaped their hype, did they? Good luck with your present collecting.

Not more than book price really - sequential notes are nice to have, but only worth a (small) premium if the series prefix in question is a collectable one, and there's nothing special about those ones sadly. But they look collectable condition all the same.

Pfft, the seller is not much of a detective. It couldn't be "1926,7,8 or 9" now could it? If it's the small mod effigy then it must be 1928 or 9, if it's the large mod effigy then it is most likely 1927 unless you're an optimist, and if it's the unmod effigy - break out the champagne !

Oh yes. I saw a nice GVF at an auction some years ago - possibly nearer EF but it was a weak strike. I decided it was worth going to £100 for, but it went for over £350 in the end!

Anyone who doesn't agree that the British NHS - for all its shortcomings - is an absolutely fantastic component of our society needs their head examining (on the NHS of course!) We can so easily take it for granted - after all, it's been there longer than most of us - but we forget just what an awful situation there was before it came into being. The poor didn't get anything but rock bottom treatment, and generally avoided going to the doctor as they couldn't afford it. The NHS has not only brought "free" medicine to everyone, they have sponsored research into all kinds of revolutionary new treatments and operations for all kinds of illnesses. Yes, can pay to go "private", but for all your BUPA subscriptions, you will be treated for serious operations by NHS consultants, using NHS equipment, as the private operatorS simply couldn't afford to set up on their own. Just don't get me started on dentists, postcode lotteries, or N.I.C.E. however...