Accumulator

Ok, so, basically Proof is Proof, so no curve balls in there...............Spelling.................weekly stuck? Weakly struck............strat, should read start?. Sorry, just making srue People who live in iPhones shouldn't throw scones Particularly those from Snotland when discussing 50p poofs

I would take these figures with a pinch of salt. If they were arrived at after a survey of coins in circulation, the accuracy would depend on the date at which the survey was done. The reason? Our fathers and grandfathers removing them from circulation as they 'may be valuable one day'. You only have to look at e-bay to see how many are still out there waiting for collectors to buy them - hundreds of thousands maybe. I was inspecting every penny I could get my hands on from 1969 to 1971 and didn't see any, not one! Clearly a survey conducted in 1920 would be more accurate than one in done in 1970, so if this was performed closer to the latter date than the former, you will need a great deal of help from your condiment set. I think we can reasonably put the condiment set to one side, as Court understood the potential pitfall you are describing. I quote what he says about arriving at the relative mintage figures: In the case of the 1918 and 1919 H and KN varieties, a slightly different formula has been adopted to arrive at the respective estimated mintages. For each of these years, an official mintage figure is available for the H and KN types together, and although the incidence of these coins in the sample must have been considerably affected by collectors, their frequency relative to each other would probably have been comparatively unaffected, so that the total official mintages for these coins have been divided in the proportions in which they were found, and without reference to the numbers of coins of 1918 and 1919 without mint marks.

Snap!

Like most, I hate polished or obviously cleaned coins but occasionally one comes along that just doesn't seem that bad. Here's an example which hasn't photographed well but looks quite nice in hand. One day I might upgrade, but for the moment it doesn't sit too badly in the collection.

Fully struck is probably one of the hardest of all to locate. The obverses (for reasons well documented already) are always very weak. My own is VF to the eye whilst the reverse is a well struck UNC. Mine is also a fully struck reverse with virtually no detectable wear. The obverse legend has absolutely no flattening whatever, but the hair is almost completely lacking. How you'd grade it? Nightmare! My 1919H is in a grotty slab, from which I really must free it! It's fairly well struck and has much more lustre than the photos takenthrough the plastic suggest.

If I had that cash to spare, I would. That's one of the best obverses I've seen for it. Nevermind that the 18KN is very much commoner than the 19KN, it's still a beaut. I'd give it houseroom!! Now you're making me wish I'd gone higher. I've missed out on several coins that I'd really hoped to acquire in the last week and have that frustrating serial underbidder feeling! You could always go for this one only £700 Those proof pennies with the mirror finishes are a bugger to photograph The seller is right, "G-BU" is indeed a "very scarce condition".

Hi, I've never seen the flaw to the date area before. To my knowledge it's not a known variety and would probably only prove of interest to collectors if other similar coins are found. It's certainly worth holding onto though. The ONE' flaw is, however, a well known variety and considered collectible. Typically these sell for £40-£60. In high grade! (I'm certainly in the market for a minimum EF, but would prefer GEF - UNC). However, in the grade illustrated it would be no higher than around £10. BTW Gouby rates them one order of rarity higher than the 1926ME. I actually meant £40-60 at the grade shown, based on recent eBay sale prices. I've not seen a GEF-UNC example but would expect such to achieve £200-£300! Bronze prices are crazy. I was watching a 1918kN in GEF-UNC that sold on eBay last night for £1340. They're not that rare! That's crazy! I've got about three which I got from change in the late 60s. Perhaps I can yet swap them for a high grade, with a cash adjustment (he said, murmuring his pipedreams out loud..) Has anyone ever done a study as to how rare the 18KN is in relation to the 19KN? My own guesstimate is that it's at least 3 times commoner, maybe 4 or 5. In fact, I'd say the 18H and KN weren't so very far apart from each other. Unlike the 19H and KN which must be at least an order of ten apart, if not more. If you put one on eBay and get less than £40 I'd honestly be amazed. Equally if you can show me an UNC example I will give you £300 tomorrow. V R Court did a study on this and came up with the following: 1918H 2,465,658 1918KN 1,195,142 1919H 4,787,556 1919KN 422,044 If these figures are correct, the 1919KN is 2.8 times as rare as the 1918KN. You're right about the ratio of 1919 H to KN being around 10 (actually more than 11).

If I had that cash to spare, I would. That's one of the best obverses I've seen for it. Nevermind that the 18KN is very much commoner than the 19KN, it's still a beaut. I'd give it houseroom!! Now you're making me wish I'd gone higher. I've missed out on several coins that I'd really hoped to acquire in the last week and have that frustrating serial underbidder feeling!

I mentioned this sale in another post elsewhere. I was prepared to go to £1k, but not above. Especially as I couldn't see it in the hand first and the seller admitted slight scuffing despite the lustre. I'm still in the market for a full lustre upgrade on mine.

Hi, I've never seen the flaw to the date area before. To my knowledge it's not a known variety and would probably only prove of interest to collectors if other similar coins are found. It's certainly worth holding onto though. The ONE' flaw is, however, a well known variety and considered collectible. Typically these sell for £40-£60. In high grade! (I'm certainly in the market for a minimum EF, but would prefer GEF - UNC). However, in the grade illustrated it would be no higher than around £10. BTW Gouby rates them one order of rarity higher than the 1926ME. I actually meant £40-60 at the grade shown, based on recent eBay sale prices. I've not seen a GEF-UNC example but would expect such to achieve £200-£300! Bronze prices are crazy. I was watching a 1918kN in GEF-UNC that sold on eBay last night for £1340. They're not that rare!

Hi, I've never seen the flaw to the date area before. To my knowledge it's not a known variety and would probably only prove of interest to collectors if other similar coins are found. It's certainly worth holding onto though. The ONE' flaw is, however, a well known variety and considered collectible. Typically these sell for £40-£60.

Not that I saw. I only logged in for that one item as there was virtually no quality copper/bronze in the catalogue.

Today's auction... 1860 1/A penny in GEF/AUNC estimated at £400-600, sold for £1150 + commission. So I missed out and perhaps wish I'd gone higher in hindsight, though a couple have sold through London Coins in the last few years at much less. Bronze is clearly popular. Anyone here the buyer?

:D He later advises, 'Please see photo for condition'. He can't have it both ways! Needless to say, he also adds the obligatory 'thanks for looking' twice and a the essential 'happy bidding' for good measure.

Extremely Fine according to this dealer. I love this: This coin is in lovely condition apart from the counterstamp like dent in the middle of the head but it only adds to the charm. Yeah, right!

Who actually falls for this? Mirror finish UNC

I'm happy to take the credit for foresight, but dumb luck would be a better description!

Even in my couple of years I've seen several members who were very active for a while and then disappeared. What happened to 1949threepence or the other Rob (I forget his exact name but he reached a thousand posts in record time)? And what about the whirlwind that was Gollum? I'm sure there are many others too.

That's strange. I'm sure I only have the one name, which is the same as my visible username. It's not saved on my computer so I do have to log in again from time to time using it, and my password.

If you look at the poll I did regarding who has literature, there were just over 30 people contributed. Some regular names were missing, but many were there. A couple of these appear to have stopped posting, but we have added others. A core of 40-50 therefore seem appropriate bulked out by a similar number, possibly slightly fewer, who post intermittently, but have done so over a long period of time. A lot of members have never posted, but register just to add their contact details with an email or website address. This is almost never coin related. Chris will have to answer the second question. This link should answer the first question. And this link the second. It's interesting to see that some previously active members appear to have completely disappeared from the site (and possibly from collecting?).

That'll be "collectable" in the sense of putting the bins out for collection.

Oh, it was something to do with her female house mate and I asked if she may be a lesbian and never heard from her again. I was just making conversation, it wouldn't have bothered me. Nice pussy by the way. You do have a way with the ladies Chris. Are you gay?

Thanks for all your input. I've put my order for a case of '79 Chateau Margaux on hold

Don't know if this photo taken through the slab will help, but it should show that the "inverted Arabic 1" is indeed a properly formed numeral overlaid completely on the I below and standing well proud of it. Where's a microscope when you need one?

I appreciate the input and actually consider the hammer price worthwhile for a good specimen of this date plus curiosity value, if nothing more. It's certainly a good coin for sparking debate! The problem is arriving at a reasonable explanation for the manner of the die repair. If it is a re-punched 4, where is the evidence of the remaining 4 below, other than on the vertical upright? There's no 'shadow' to the serif or on the remainder of the number. In fact, prior to repair, the damaged die would appear to have read something like 1871, but with the serifs at the top of each figure 1 missing. The repair was then to punch a full 4 and add the missing serif to the 1 using the lower bar of an Arabic 1. I know that sounds contrived, but I'm not sure what else fits the physical evidence. And don't worry about my parade, Chris. I bought it for fun as much as anything.