Peckris

There are a few nice EFs up for grabs http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Coin-Victorian-Penny-Young-Head-EF-1855-/381048592159 Most of the grading seems to be by consensus rather than by any analysis of the coin's wear which is why the EFs end up as UNCs and the VFs as EFs. But I can't grade for toffee so... I propose a new two-tier grading system. I was just reading some of his feedback though and I feel sorry for him actually, assuming his responses are honest as it would appear that other sellers are trying to discredit him on false grounds. From the same seller……. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Coin-Penny-Full-Lustre-1916-George-V-/381072204148?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item58b9ac6174 Be fair - he does say the coin's condition is 'Good'. I'm not going to argue with him

Happy happy birthday birthday!! :)

It's the shallow portrait, 4023A. I agree. A major pointer to it (especially on no-longer-mint examples) is the space between the legend and the border teeth - it's twice the gap on the later, shallow, issue.

That's the first known isn't it, the one in Michael Gouby's original British Bronze Penny?

Yeah, but "very fine" for a coin that's OBVIOUSLY better than a UK EF is - to my mind - absurd. It's not even consistent - I've seen the odd over-grading in that catalogue too.

Happy birthday Michael

Bag marks can be on a modern UNC coin. It's regarded entirely differently than wear.

It was an early pattern design for the new coinage. It was obviously decided to go for a beaded approach both sides, perhaps after seeing these few pattern strikes? They probably struck a handful and melted (most of) them down. You could understand continuing with the old reverse, but as there was no demand for pennies between 1949 and 1961 (1950-51 was West Indies, 1952 and 1954 were VIP/experimental issues only, and the entire 1953 production run was for the sets), they probably thought they had plenty of time to play around. After all, George VI died early 1952 and the Coronation wasn't until mid-1953, so there WAS plenty of time.

Yes, I'd say F+ was right - but do be aware the reverse has 'issues'.

I think it's a simple question of which is listed first? In which case it's ALWAYS the obverse. But perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree?

Even if you allow for striking problems rather than wear, there's no way it ranks 80! Nice piece.

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-middlesex-young-s-penny-token-nd-c-1790-s-ms65-brown-ngc-/a/241445-15038.s#1191511915906 Look at that... 1798 eh? Wonder what they were collecting back then... "'Ere you are guv - I've got 5 UNC Cartwheel twopences. You can 'ave 'em for just a shilling" "Nah. Not interested in modern rubbish. Any news on that Petition Crown?" I could happily collect only the stuff that came out of the Soho mint. I was tempted to go after this token but just saw the estimate, I think best left to an aficionado of things Conder. I'll take those 5 cartwheels 2ds please Peckris. • Me too, really. • When I get 'em, I'll let you know - oh, and as we're talking 1798, that shilling I was talking about? Dorriens and Magens..

That's pretty much what I thought. Spink's grade? "very fine". I kid you not. Have a look and see for yourselves. It's not the only case of wild underestimate at that.

I think it's your Aye Phone Dave - I can't even see the lions' tails bottom right, on a 21.5" Mac screen! But you're right about the picture - it's the supplied size unfortunately, so I can't give you a larger one.

How do you come to that conclusion Dave - where do you see wear, especially on the reverse?

It sounds like you came out overall on the plus side. Those 3 overestimates are quite absurd IMO, especially compared to the ridiculous £5 they rated the 1787 6d.

Considerably less common, yes - but neither is rare. And the LT shows up quite often in high grade as it was the first issue of a new monarch and more were therefore put aside.

Talking of the Spink catalogue, how would you lot grade this?

My birth year... Yay!""""" Me too!! Fight you for it...

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-middlesex-young-s-penny-token-nd-c-1790-s-ms65-brown-ngc-/a/241445-15038.s#1191511915906 Look at that... 1798 eh? Wonder what they were collecting back then... "'Ere you are guv - I've got 5 UNC Cartwheel twopences. You can 'ave 'em for just a shilling" "Nah. Not interested in modern rubbish. Any news on that Petition Crown?"

Reading some posts on this forum while chewing on your dinner can prove to be a choking hazard You can always rely on Peter for a bit of off-topic entertainment! I think he should be a panellist on that brand new TV series 'Shock Factor'! The real scary thing is that through Peter's eyes, it's not off-topic at all...

If you can ask that, you can't afford it

The price of a 1918KN (or any such scarcity) is not really relevant, especially as you seem to have plucked a single price guide 'out of the air' so to speak. A coin like that will go for whatever someone is prepared to pay for it, and if that someone has deep pockets then what it says in price guides can be safely ignored. Yet on a different occasion, the same coin may go for half the amount as on the first. Your strategy - if bidding - is to bid up to the maximum you are prepared to pay for it, and to hell with the price guides.

Not from a die at all, I'd say - looking at the other raised bits all over the reverse, it's simple corrosion.

My understanding (not a scientific response!) is that the authorities were fairly relaxed about the base metal currency. There was a real chronic shortage of small change in George III's time, so if you counterfeited halfpennies with their face value of actual copper, what would you gain by it? The forgery was to meet demand, I'd guess, not to make a personal fortune as with the silver-washed forgeries from 1816. At a guess, that unfortunate woman was a forger of higher denominations than base metal. (The page doesn't say - probably just a piece of lazy research to make the facts look more sensational).