Peckris

Yeah. I shouöd of done

You've ignored the fact that 99,999 of them are 1967 pennies, 1981 or 1965 crowns, or "ultra rare" washers...

Hi Chris. There are plenty of examples of this one in the archives, so not simply a 'clutter' anomaly. London Coins sold a ropey fine one some years ago. C Cooke had one. Our fellow member who has the farthing site lists it. So very much a recognised variety. It's true it may not be that the G is over an O (but it certainly looks like it is), however it certainly is over another letter. I must admit, I hadn't spotted evidence of a serif. I'll have a look and report back. On your photograph, the top right of the G curves down, like a C - however, there's another feature behind it that continues straight on; that to my eyes looks like a serif. Then if you go down from the top right, to the horizontal cross-stroke of the G, between the two there is a down stroke that exactly matches the vertical on the left, that probably has been thought of as the left inner of an O (but it may not be?).

Except that sterling silver is also an alloy. Yes, but 1) it's over 92% silver, and 2) it had been used for centuries.

A certain degree of misalignment is neither here or there, but 90º is quite a lot. It would certainly be rare but as to value, you'd have to find someone interested in such things. My guess is that there aren't too many unfortunately.

No. Enlighten me. April issue. Answers by March 15th…. Not a typo at all - bear in mind that November's issue of MOJO will drop onto my doormat before the end of September 'Twas always thus. If you look at any January edition of Coin Monthly, it will be full of Xmas gift ideas. As to the quiz, the only one I'm certain of is that A is Victoria

There's no rule about it. If the Mint decided there needed to be some re-punching, it could be just one character, or nearly all of them.

Ah ok, that's a little more credible. Otherwise, I have a couple of very nice 1902 proof crowns that anybody can have for the bargain price of just $4k each. I'll have one! Oh, wait...

Behind the top right of the G it looks like the top of something like a U - a horizontal serif and a downstroke; this would make the curve of what is thought to be the O somewhat of a problem. Perhaps it's no more than a blob of metal unless it occurs on more than one example? However, there's definitely MORE than an O behind that G.

The Mint had major problems with the alloy (the first silver alloy since medieval times), and there are variations in colour, strike quality, and who knows what else. I think that's also a good theory about people hoarding the pre-1920 silver and spending the first couple of years of 50% issue instead. For the same reason, it's why 1944-1946 silver coins - the final years of silver - are so common in high grade. (As for there also being so many 1948s in high grade, the mintages were massive, that's why; 1920 mintages weren't massive compared to the height of the inflation during WW1).

Presumably you will upgrade that Filler when something better comes along?

I think that was the point!! (British humour...) [Apologies to AardHawk for quoting another post. I'm not going to stop, however. ]

Isn't there a United club of green and yellow fame heading slowly towards the League? (I'm still hoping that AFC Wimbledon overtake those usurping Dons..) [Hey, how about this for a coincidence .. I've popped in here and guess what's playing on my iTunes (shuffle mode)? "I Collect Coins" by Mercury Rev from Deserters Songs!]

Thanks Pete & most definately not !! lol.... YAY. That's the North-West sorted out with a slew of anti-Stinky folks (my pet name for the 'orrible 'united). Watch out for scott though - he's that rare beast, a Mancunian AND a red.

That's exactly what I was saying. What's the biggest joke outside Manchester? It's where all the United supporters come from! Hence Roy Keane's 'prawn sandwich' swipe a few years back...

Less than 200 posts? Newbies! I post and post and post and post and post, so how can I possibly be a spammer?

Oh come on - he says he's FROM Manchester!

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't. Despite the relative rarity of the 1860 bronze compared to the next year, the 1860 coppers are still much rarer than you might expect for a normal issue, even for the pennies which are the only relatively common denomination. I think you are seeing a lot fewer than might be expected for even one month's production. On the assumption that most coppers struck in 1860 were dated 1859, it is surprising that they would go so far as to change the date for what must surely have been a single run, or two at the most. You don't see many 1859s with disintegrating dies, which you would expect if they HAD to make 1860 copper pennies. But that's exactly what I said, Rob... that an 1860 copper issue was a rush-job, as they thought the bronze might not get issued in time. When it was (albeit in smaller quantities than anticipated) they might have felt able to melt down what was a very much larger copper issue which was being held in reserve, but then not needed. The precious few 1860 coppers that DID get issued might well have been souvenirs that evaded the meltdown, perhaps as thank you's to everyone involved in getting the bronze out just in time?

True, but if the issue was done pending the possible postponement of the bronze issue due to complications / delays, then there would indeed be utilisation of old dies - especially undated reverse ones - to make up an 1860 'emergency' issue. A small number did get issued (though I wonder how many of them were either official or for general circulation?), but the rest of this putative issue was then melted down when the bronze finally made it just under the wire. We know that the bronze for 1860 was year-end stuff, as the 1860 mintage was way lower than the necessary huge mintages of 1861-1863 to replace copper with bronze. This is an absolute fact - had the 1860 bronze been on time, or done in advance, the mintage would necessarily have been vast; it wasn't.

Thanks for the links and photos Ok, here's a theory : - the inverted die axis coin was intended as a proof (hence the inversion), which would explain the fully-formed teeth and the presence of double incuse lines on the fillet; however, it was kept by a "proud" owner who rubbed the coin rather too much thus imparting the wear we see, and the evidence of cleaning. - the other coin was collected as a currency coin, obviously from the same die, but was not subjected to the same treatment and has therefore survived in better condition.

Shillings are a good denomination to collect - not too small, yet not SO popular that prices are out of reach.

I am not suggesting for a moment that their is any suspicion of "undue preference or 'special treatment' ", but London Coins do have a lot of CGS graded coins for sale on their web site (not through auction, so they are dealers not just an auction house), including well over 100 'finest knowns' ... Well, true. As long as they make it clear what the relationship is, I don't see any harm. But if they don't, then there is definitely a 'conflict of interest'.

Welcome to the forums Russ

Anyone with any ideas on this? Given the anomalies and the hefty price tag likely, I thought there might be some interest. You see, this is what happens when people post a topic like this and don't include a link. I have Googled in vain and the only reference to LCN pennies auction is this thread which is first in the Google list. Nothing else. PLEASE people, if you're going to post things like this, POST A LINK WITH IT.

In a way, there ISN'T a conflict of interest between CGS and London Coins, as they perform two different functions : 1) as a TPG, and 2) as an auction house. The conflict would arise if CGS slabs were given undue preference or 'special treatment' in their catalogues, but AFAIK that isn't the case.