Nick

Thanks for the info. I hadn't really thought about the process involved in sufficient detail, especially the fact that the previous character would have been filled before the new one was punched in. I guess that there must be many overdates that are almost undetectable due to the skill of the die worker.

I don't really see it either, but mine does have similar marks - despite me not seeing anything when I looked yesterday. If it were a 9/7, would you not expect to see some remnant of the lower edge of the horizontal bar of the 7 within the loop of the 9? Here's a picture of mine.

Given the large number of 8/7 in existence, a 9/7 has to be a distinct possibility.

I have one each of Davies 984 (small head) and 986 (large head). Neither show any signs of the 9 being over another digit.

You also need to bear in mind that the grading might come back lower than you expect. CGS are very strict graders. I have only used them once when I had 3 coins of the same year and I couldn't decide which one was best. Two of the three were bought from a top London auction house as 'practically mint state' - these came back graded as UNC 80. The third was what I would describe as lustrous UNC and it came back as AU 75. So in my case I would say the resale potential has not been helped by grading.

All of the early (pre 1870 ?) Victorian dates are 'squiffy' to a certain degree. I believe that the 18 of the date comes from the 'master' and the other digits were punched into each die by hand. Hence the variation. Your picture is not a large 44 (see attached), it is a normal one.

I see that the 1828 halfcrown (lot 1024) that sold for £1200 (+ costs) is already for sale on eBay for an eye-watering £2100.

And here is a picture of a ME shilling.

I don't have any pictures of pennies, but the ME was issued on several 1926 denominations. The heads are quite different when viewed side by side and have a number of differences. By far the easiest way to tell them apart is the size and location of the BM initials on the truncation. The ME has the BM smaller and further to the right than the non-ME (which has B.M.) Here is a picture of a non-ME shilling.

True. There aren't too many exceptions in my list. However, I believe that a monarch can choose any name at all. Perhaps Charles will surprise us all and become King Kevin, or Brian or Wayne.

It is usually fairly easy to tell a proof from currency in the brass 3d series. I have one 1950 3d that I'm not certain about. I think it is a lightly toned proof, which makes it look a little like a well-struck currency version. Are there any ways (other than the prooflike quality of the fields) to tell the two types apart?

But then again, a monarch doesn't always use their christian name. Edward VII was Albert Edward George V was George Frederick Ernest Albert Edward VIII was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George Elizabeth II is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Nick

I see that there are two Davies varieties of 1857 sixpence. Does anybody have any pictures of the differences between the two?

In the attached picture the right hand side of the bar below PENCE is missing. Originally I thought it was most likely a metal lamination fault and the affected part had fallen off during or post minting. However, today I have seen another: 1857 sixpence It seems unlikely that a lamination fault would occur in the same place. It also seems unlikely that such a large (relatively speaking) part of the die could be completely filled. Were these sixpences struck from unfinished dies? Or is there another explanation?

I'd agree with that grading - viritually no wear at all. Sound more promising. Here is a picture taken on a sunny window sill. The only silvery hue apparent is from the fields (more noticeable on the obverse) when angled directly towards the light. I will try and capture this in a photo.

I just weighed mine at 56.47g Thanks. This one weighs in at 56.59g which sounds about right.

I can see why you say that. In general the coin looks brown, but at certain angles it has an almost silvery hue - which seems a little odd. Put it this way, if somebody asked me what I thought it was made of, copper isn't top of the list. Unfortunately I don't have anything to compare it to. Anybody know what one of these would normally weigh?

Thanks all. I agree that the pictures don't really reflect what the coin looks like in hand. I think the light source was too strong. I may take some more photos in softer light or natural daylight to see if that helps. Seems like GVF is a fair grade for this. Nick

What would be the approximate grade (and hence value) of this large lump of copper? It's no wonder it got the nickname cartwheel.

Another case of outrageous overgrading? Looks no better than good fine to me. 1908 Halfcrown

Unfortunately not, both proof and currency threepences are plain edged. Nick

Thanks Peckris, I think you're right. Having found a decent picture of a proof threepence on the 'net, the rims are much better defined and uniform all the way round than on my example. Nick

I know that many Victorian silver coins appear to have been struck on highly polished flans and as such are often offered as proofs. Given that there were little over one thousand proof 1887 threepences struck, it is highly unlikely that I have a proof, but I would welcome your opinions. The pictures show two 1887 threepences, both prooflike in appearance. The first picture has the coins square on to the camera, whereas the second has the coin surfaces angled toward the light source. I think that the coin on the left is probably from a specimen set, or just an early strike. It is the one on the right that is perhaps a proof. Nick