Peckris

I'm not sure. There's considerably greater wear on C1 than on C2 which COULD account for all the minor differences you see. It's not conclusive of course, but I would estimate they are the same reverse.

I wonder if that's what it really is? I only ask because the 'curve back' (which is clearly there) is extremely thin, which could be a die crack between the strong downstrokes of the R. If you look carefully, there's a similar thin 'connecting rod' at the bottom of the adjacent A.

I have a 1934 that's even better than that (sharper hair) - cost me a fiver from the Midland in the late 90s! At that rate I'd get £200 for it if entombed!!

My God, you'd pay more to entomb a 1930 6d than the coin is worth!

Couldn't determine by the bridge of the nose (scratch) so I went by the bulging forehead and shorter thicker nape hair.

Ever thought of being a salesman?

For me, it's 15 but see what others say.

That's very true, but it's a result of (1) NICE and their ludicrously delayed judgements on whether to licence a new drug, and it's so often "No", and (2) despite their - I would say criminal - assertions to the contrary, the government cuts in real terms to the NHS budgets. Far from failing, I think the staff who are there do a heroic job in the face of their greedy bungling paymasters. There will always be tragic failures, that's for sure. But if you look at how many people are treated by an understaffed, under-budget health service, you have to feel nothing but admiration. Add to that a population who are getting ever more like the States in matters of obesity, drink, drug abuse, lack of exercise, poor diets etc, and really we should give out medals to the health professionals.

Wear would probably account for most of the differences (the left hand coin is even more worn than the right hand one). As for the convex vs concave, I would venture that it might be die wear rather than coin wear?

As a frequent user (I have advanced MS) I can say that I have never had these experiences you speak of. In fact, the lamentable skills shortage will get much much worse after Brexit, and I've yet to meet an NHS professional who says different. We have QUALIFIED staff in the NHS from all over the world, but as soon as someone does an Enoch Powell (Nigel Farage, to name but one) look what we end up with.

Don't believe everything (make that "anything") you read in The Daily Mail!

Was that a member of the same tribe that Spike Milligan reported on?

Agreed. The LibDems proposed penny on income tax purely for the NHS seems like a bargain - especially now that personal allowances are £11k and rising.

"ka doka ma tui"? Sounds like Bill Bryson's rendering of someone speaking to him in Glasgow!

It may or may not have been for photographic purposes. Nevertheless, it was a specimen strike prior to its becoming the new obverse halfway through the 1921 issue, and being the only example of its kind dated 1920, went into the Museum. AFAIK it never went into circulation until the 1921 issue. However I take your point, and unique specimens have been identified in more recent times, for example the 1953 penny with George VI reverse, and the 1952 proof penny. Bun varieties are still being uncovered.

Not a minor variation - it's the new obverse and quite possibly unique for 1920. As the known example is in the (?British?) Museum, it has never been overlooked.

Just for education purposes - the 1951 sixpence is in a high grade. That doesn't make it worth very much unfortunately (a couple of £?) but it's worth keeping to show the minimum condition that modern coins (certainly post-1937) should be in.

I'd agree. Mis-strikes are interesting but not worthy of cataloguing except perhaps in a very exclusive and specialist publication. They are unique but not valuable as other collectors can't acquire another example. The only ones I've seen that are noteworthy are brockages, though there are also those who regard strikes on a different metal / planchet as collectible.

EF used to be defined as "very slight wear to the highest points only visible under magnification or close inspection" - the difference there being that VF was immediately visible while EF required some degree of peering. But one person's "slight wear" was another's "noticeable wear", so pictures - as in Derek's book - are everything.

If the 1935 crown can be, anything can!

You're Prince Philip?

PROBABLY not worth anything much (if it's the average accumulation of predecimal coins). But any silver coin dated before 1947 is 50% real silver, and before 1920 is sterling silver. (Best to start a new thread than piggyback on an old one).

Same with iCloud on Macs - though I do find Apple a tad less 'snoopy' than Google.

I very much doubt if a coin would degrade to VF through being stored in a folder. If handled significantly, then it could go down to EF+ but pictures would help us. VF is a comparatively misunderstood grade that has actually changed over the years. Back in the 60s it was defined (I paraphrase) as "visible wear only to the highest points of the design", and it was strictly interpreted by the top dealers. However, there has to be a clear divide between EF and VF to account for difference in values. I would say that VF shows the complete design but can appear a bit 'blurry' due to the wear to - e.g. lions' faces, garter motto, monarch's hair, etc. If you want pictorial guidance, then invest in Derek's book on grading British coins as shown in the banner ad, top.