Peckris

I'm afraid it looks like a clear fake to me.

Nice. I've always liked the first type 1911-13 better than the 1913-21 type. A well struck up example is a handsome coin though worn ones have shocking reverses due to the virtually non-existent rim.

Probably it was much easier to cut away the matrix die which, like the finished coin, has the details in relief unlike a working die which is incuse. It's always easier to remove by cutting away than by filling in.

Couldn't happen now... (I'm looking at you, VISA)

The matrix for the obverse dies could have been used over and over again until 1874, as the obverse didn't change unlike the reverses where a new date numeral required punching for each year.

The normal 1863 is one of the most common early bun pennies, as are the common varieties of 1861 and 1862. They were new so many got put aside. From 1864 they start getting scarce especially in top grades, but there are also squillions of different varieties - some extremely rare - between 1860 and 1861. It's a specialist subject in its own right - very complex.

Very true. But never forget, "You're born with nothing, so if you die in debt, you've made a profit."

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.