DaveG38

Thank you for this. Yours is the same as mine and as such has no little lines above the queen's eye. This means that it can't be Davies 3+B type because obverse 3 according to Davies does have the incuse lines. Since ours are of the only known type for 1969, then clearly Davies' book is wrong. My guess is that in the production, obverse 2 and 3 got flipped somehow, which would explain the error. Davies is the author of a book entitled 'English Silver Coinage since 1816' and is something of a bible for silver collectors since it does contain a large amount of info concerning varieties. However, he's not the only cataloguer of silver, but he is an important one.

Yes, I know the boring old early 10 pence series! I have a basic question that I would be grateful for help with from any members who happen to have decimal in their collections. It goes like this: According to Davies, the 1969 ten pence has a single type with the 3+B die pairing. Obverse 3 has, according to Davies small incuse lines above the eye, forming an eyebrow. My own specimen doe not have this feature, nor does it have the incuse lines to the hair behind the ear. I've had a look at the best specimen I can find on the net for comparison and that too seems to be like mine. This would imply that Davies is wrong. The alternative is that I have an, as yet, unrecorded type, which given the work done on this in the 1970s, seems unlikely. So could you check your own specimens and let me know what types you have, so that I can settle this properly? Thanks. DaveG38

Not necessarily, it may be the case that dies were prepared but in the event were not used. This makes overdates more likely, why throw away perfectly good unused dies just because the year is wrong? Simple solution... change the year. I think you are quite right that the dies were prepared in readiness, but simply weren't used for 1847 and then were recut for 1848. My guess is that the coin I saw in Coin Monthly, which was only in fair/fine condition at best and had obviously been in circulation, was some kind of trial striking to see how the dies stood up and was simply dumped into circulation by the mint - after all they weren't there to engineer a rare date for the collector, and they probably saw this as a useful way to get some use out of the trail strikings. For me the interesting thing is whether there were any more, whether they all eventually got melted down, or whether there are others out there. also, of course, where is the example from CM?

Hi all, I have just been reviewing some old coin monthly mags from the1970s - sad isn't it? And I came across a couple of what were referred to at the time as 'reader's rarities' and I wondered if any body knew what happened to the actual coins and if any others have been discovered. One such was the 1671 Charles II crown with the quarto edge date, of which I have an example, and I have come across a couple of other examples over the years, but I have never seen another 1847 sixpence, nor have I found a 1903/2 penny. These last two seem to be as rare as the 1954 penny or the 1952 halfcrown, but have never had quite the same hype. Does anybody know anything about either of these? There are other coins, but these are two which stood out for me.

Currently my constant companions are Dave Grooms Bronze coin Varities and Dereks grading British Coins, probably in that order. Gary Gary, Thank you very much for the free 'plug.' However, I really don't see my book as well written as its aim was always to just layout all the indicators for collectors, more a case of extensively researched, I feel. From some of your 'finds' lately, I get the impression it's done you well as a source book, for which I'm pleased. I don't know if you are into silver as well as bronze, but if so, then watch out for the sister book, 'The Identification of British 20th Century Silver Coin Varieties.' I've just about finished all the pre-decimal material and am just stating the research for the decimal series. Should be ready in a few months and contains many varieties either not described in Davies or which are just given a passing mention. As in the case of the bronze, I have tried to include all the features from all the sources, so that it is easy to unambiguously distinguish the types.

I'm still having trouble finding and example of the dot to dot 1992 10 pence and the 20 pence of that year with the earlier (smaller) effigy. I am beginning to think that the only way will be to go to the bank and search through bags full of change to find them. They certainly don't turn up in the pocket!!

Here's the reverse.

Hi, Any views on what I should expect to sell this Philip silver coin for? Its 1732, 2 reales (I think) and is really quite nice, albeit probably only Good fine. Obverse on this post, reverse on the next.

Help, I'm confused dot com! My latest version of CCGB is 2007 (I buy one every few years) and I have been checking out the details of the 1911 shilling. According to Davies, there are 3 obverse and 1 reverse for this year giving 1+A, 2+A and 3+A types. According to CCGB2007 (and earlier issues e.g. 1998 and 1990) the 1911 shilling comes as 2 obverse and 2 reverses all fully meshed to give 1+A, 1+B, 2+A and 2+B. However, the differentiator for the reverses is the pointing of the 'I' in 'GEORGIVS.' The problem is that this inscription appears on the obverse NOT the reverse, so my questions are: 1) Are there 4 obverses based on the combinations of hollow/flat neck and 'I' to a bead/space or just the 3 reported by Davies? If Davies, the non-existent one is the flat neck with 'I' to a space combination. Anybody got one? 2) Are there any reverse die types other than A that anybody knows about? If so what are they paired with? 3) Is this error put right in later CCGBs? DaveG38

Hi Everybody, Does any body know when the Coin Monthly mag ceased publication? I know when it started and I have got most of the 1970s issues plus plenty from the 1980s. When it comes to the 90s, I have a few from 1991 and 1992, but its pretty obvious from the contents that they were getting very thin and were obviously running out of steam. So can anybody help with a final date or volume/issue number? Thanks.

A final thought. It looks like there 's an Obv 2a for 1903, 1904 and 1906, so logic says there might be one for 1905? Anyone willing to check theirs to see? PS: Thanks to Gary D for confirming the 1905 Obv 1 type.

1949 Threepence, Thanks for this. I followed the link to Michael Gouby's website, but didn't scroll all the way down the page. Smack on wrist and write 100 times 'I must look more thoroughly in future.'

Hi all, At the risk of going into anorak mode, can I just clarify our collective understanding about these Edward VII shillings? As I see it there are: 1902 - Obv 1 1903 - Obv 1 and Obv 2a (as newly defined) 1904 - Obv 1 and Obv 2 1905 - Obv 2 with Obv 1 reported by Davies but unconfirmed. 1906 - Obv 1, Obv 2 and Obv 2a (the latter as found by Onewebby) 1907- 1910 - all Obv 2. Somewhere in this thread there is mention of a 1904 with Obv 2a, but no reference to where this came from. Its not on the Michael Coins website, so I wondered if anybody can enlighten me as follows: 1. Is there an identified Obv 2a for 1904? 2. Can anybody confirm an Obv 1 for 1905? 3. Does my list above represent the known state of tis series or is there anything else lurking about? Thanks.

Reference the 1940 penny, it certainly looks like a double exergue line type, but it may be the way the light strikes it that makes it appear so. The other test that you can try in hand, but isn't visible in the picture, is to check whether the waves above the line actually sit on the line or are slightly above it. If on it, then its a single exergue type. If above it then its a double. Now the 1939 is interesting, but not for the reason you have posted. Basically, there are two minor types of 1939 penny, one where the second '9' tapers to a point and one where it has a rounded end. Yours appears to be rounded, as it seems to differ from the first '9' which is pointed. Assuming my interpretation of the photos is correct, then yours is a rounded '9' type which is rather scarcer than the pointed '9'. However, it may just be that wear makes it look thatw ay - you need to judge it in hand to be sure.

Whilst I agree entirely with the general principle of not cleaning coins, for fear of doing irreparable damage to them, I guess it really doesn't matter too much with decimal bronze. After all none has anything much other than their face value, so a bit of cleaning probably won't do too much harm. I don't have any particular product that I would recommend. However, for cleaning brass/copper in general Hydrochloric acid is extremely effective, but real care is needed to handle it. A 10% solution in water works well at removing surface tarnish - its VERY important that you add the acid to the water and not the other way round. You also need to make sure that you don't breathe in the fumes for the concentrated acid as this is dangerous to your lungs. It's also important not to get it on your skin, or you won't have any!!! Hydrochloric Acid is available commercially as 'Spirits of Salt' from ironmongers. I use it for cleaning brass at home e.g. door furniture, prior to polishing. If all this puts you off then there is an ad on TV for Cillit Bang, which shows a decimal penny being dipped in the product and coming out brightly cleaned. I've never tried it, so I can't say how accurate the ad is, but might be worth trying.

Ah, I see what you are getting at. The gaps you are referring to in the Freeman number scheme are the special bronze proofs for those years. For me, these are not strictly varieties but different strike qualities using different dies for the same year.

I can't see any reference to varieties of the 1954 and 1955 farthings in Freeman?????? CCGB has 1954 665 1955 667 1956 669 and i know of the 2 ruim thicknesses in 1954 I don't wish to be pedantic, but I don't think that Freeman mentions any varieties for the 1954 or 1955 farthings. The rim thickness types for 1954 were mentioned recently on this forum, but I can't see any reference to any 1955 varieties. Can you say what the identifiers are?

I can't see any reference to varieties of the 1954 and 1955 farthings in Freeman??????

I too find Rendel's prices (and grades) a little beyond my expectation. However, don't let your fantasies about Megan go too far. (S)he's actually David Mason, who used to be World Coins in Canterbury, but who took himself off to Spain a few years ago. I think he called himself Megan after his daughter. and here was me fondly thinking Megan was a tall leggy blonde female....... .....curses, foiled again If she's his daughter then she might be a tall leggy blonde. However, David is ginger haired, so maybe strawberry blonde is nearer the mark Keep up the fantasy!!

I too find Rendel's prices (and grades) a little beyond my expectation. However, don't let your fantasies about Megan go too far. (S)he's actually David Mason, who used to be World Coins in Canterbury, but who took himself off to Spain a few years ago. I think he called himself Megan after his daughter.

I too have one of these so called '1' 20 pences. Attached is a quick scan of mine - apologies, but the quality isn't that good. What you can't see, but is absolutely clear under a glass is that there is a die crack running from the apparent '1' through the design to the point I indicate with the arrow. Also, when you examine the '1' it is obvious that its just an elongated splash of metal and isn't in any way a design feature. The '1' is also in very low relief with weak edges which is what you might expect as a result of a die flaw or crack. Incidentally, this example also shows the so-called bump on the lion's knee. The mint do seem to have had problems with the 2008 20p don't they?

Personally, I can take an interest in design errors or overdates etc. as these are part and parcel of the minting process. So I can appreciate the error 20p etc. However, I do draw the line at one off errors where the planchet is clipped or where the wrong blank was fed into the machine or whatever. To me these are akin to 'seconds' quality goods. But everyone to their own - whatever turns them on.

When I was researching varieties for my book on 20th C Bronze, I too tried to find any identifiers for these types, but I am afraid that only Peck seemed to make reference to them in any detail. A couple of other points that may help. Firstly there is also a sharp/rounded pair for 1949 - not mentioned by Peck. Secondly, all the sharp corner types are reported to have a slightly thinner rim than the rounded ones. However, on worn specimens this may not be easy to spot. The only other differentiator is for the 1941 where there are two minor varieties of the sharp corner type, one where the inside corner is sharp and the other where it is rounded.

Freeman doesn't say very much about this coin. You are right that its Obv 3 Rev B. According to Freeman there are two types, one in copper and the other in Cupro-nickel. The copper is rated as R17 whilst the Cupro-nickel is R18. R17 is defined as 16-50 existing, whereas R18 is 6-15. Otherwise nothing else. I don't have a copy of Peck at the moment, so can't say what it says about these coins.

I've just been reading an older version of 'British Coins Market values' that I own, came across the following paragraph and wondered if anybody can shed some light on what it means. Alternatively, tell me what is so obvious that I'm missing it! The article I am quoting from is about the Royal Mint and the minting process. 'A high-energy burnishing machine was also installed to improve the quality of blanks, as was equipment that implants security devices in coins.' What security devices? Are they all chipped?? For dating purposes the article is talking about new equipment installed in the late 1990s.