Peckris

It's probably a wearing die, or else some grease or something got onto the die. I imagine the 1967 dies got quite a fair bit of hammering, though surprisingly you don't see many 1967 'weak strikes'. It's certainly the earlier issue, not the '1968' issue which used the 1956 obverse dies.

The last Scottish king of this name was Alexander III. He was the last king of the House of Dunkeld and reigned from 1249 to 1286, and was, surprise, surprise the son of Alexander II. So, Mr Salmond would become Alexander IV - sounds better than King Salmond I, with Queen Sturgeon alongside him. Is there a living Stuart claimant to a Scottish throne? They've tracked down the last of the Plantagenets, and the Young Pretender is a good 250 years later than Dickie III, so why not?

It's likely to be a die identifier - they were very interested in die durability just after the changeover to bronze.

I thought the same until I zoomed my screen, then I saw it was definitely an A.

Did you know that 'sulphur' is now OFFICIALLY to be spelt 'sulfur' (and has been for some time) - I don't like us adopting silly American spellings and it feels faintly Orwellian - what next, aluminum??? Loath as I am to jump to the defense of 'silly Americanisms', aluminum was apparently the traditional spelling until the early 19th Century when some scientific committee decided the "i" should be added. The Americans demurred. However, I do agree about sulfur - NO WAY!!

I can't actually see the scratches (the photos are quite dark) but if I was a buyer I would be quite happy with the description "EF, slight scratches on obverse".

I suppose Mel Gibson is now a historical figure - it seems ages since he made a film It has been ages since he has been mentally competent enough to complete a film. Curiously enough he doesn't live but a few hundred metres from Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. Must be something in the water.

Ok, I'll bite. What is it, your 'best ever'? I don't know. Is that the best April Fool ever? I won't be trying it next year! Nor me!

I suppose Mel Gibson is now a historical figure - it seems ages since he made a film

Sic(k)

Yeah, and the rest..

Maybe someone who has coin collectomania, loves coins, but has no coin budget? Though financially strangled at the moment, I did hit Declan for nearly 40 pre-decimal EII coins, which I justify by telling myself I'm collecting the two Elizabethan reigns! This also loosely permits me to pick from change! Incidentally, it was an absolute pleasure to share the first ever scratch-made cuppa with you aboard the boat and talk some coin! Damn nice chap that Declan! An intellectohippy for sure! Great stuff! I remember at the Midland buying Stephen Lockett's box of Unc modern stuff (60s and decimals) for stock purposes - he charged me two-and-a-half-times face for it. Needless to say I made all that back, and more. Quite a nice little earner when you're running a list

Asumel only posted the link - it wasn't actually him!

Like Rob says, this is a random error but because of the poor quality control these aren't as infrequent as you might think. This also isn't confined to the 20p, all denominations would have errors such as this. The 1897 o'ne penny flaw is different to a blob of metal attached to the coin, this is where the die itself has become damaged and when coins were struck the metal raised up into the damaged part of the die to create the dot. It's interesting to know, as you can find examples of it (and the 1946 one' flaw) with a fairly small dot, and then others which are so obviously pronounced and have clearly been struck well after the die was damaged. Matt The alternative point of view is that the 1897 dot was a deliberate die identifier, and the so-called 'progression' of it is in fact the reverse - the dot gradually filling in on the die as happened so often with colons in the copper series.

Just reread this and obviously hadn't read Nordle's reply in relation to Peck's. Nordle is right. My reply was directed at the previous posts. This referred to the OP which is a pit on the die. Cuds are usually flat and featureless. The only interesting cud I've seen is one positioned under Queenie's nose, makes it look like a huge blob of snot. I'd still not pay more than a quid or so for something like that though. Chewing the cud? EUWWWWWWWWWWW

Ok, I'll bite. What is it, your 'best ever'?

The Mint quality control, as Rob says, is pitiful these days. But then, so is the circulating coinage as a percentage of the money supply. There's a technical term for these extraneous lumps of metal attached to modern coins but for the life of me I cannot remember what it is.

I can't see the legend on the bronze clear enough to tell much. I don't recognise the emperor portrait as one of the Constantine clan, but the reverse - two legionaries with legionary standards - is a common enough type.

The silver coin is a Trajan denarius in about Fine grade. The bronze I would need to spend more time looking at the legend (not now, it's bedtime), but my quick first impression is that it looks to be a follis or small bronze (AE3 or AE4) of somewhere round about Constantine's era. It's in decent condition - I'd say GVF minimum.

A penny farthing??? They do look virtually identical it must be admitted ... except the penny is even larger than the old predecimal penny, and the farthing is approximately the size of a modern 1p Yours is a farthing as there weren't pennies in 1850. As to the 3rd digit, it's definitely a 5, though probably the '5 over inverted 5' variety. I'm afraid it is worn - between Fair and Fine grade, so worth only a couple of pounds.

Now that has to be the very worst 'home made' example I've ever seen : dig a hole roughly where the second 3 should be, dig out a 3 from another penny, then take a hammer...

1967 "clear date" halfpennies? Wow.

Confucius, he say "Woman who seek equality with men, lack ambition".

Well spotted - I couldn't see it for looking, even after zooming my screen. Then I finally found it - 4 o'clock