Sword

Bronze? You meant copper plated steel 😀! I would be surprised if that's not the case since the farthing has been demonetised for nearly 60 years now. "The Royal Mint had revealed 60% of 1 pence and 2 pence coins are only used once, while 8% of pennies are thrown away." This is so wasteful and it is just tradition keeping these coins alive.

Contactless payment doesn't necessarily mean a surveillance society. For examples, there are cities which use contactless stored value smart card that are anonymous. These card were originally used for transport payment but has grown to be used in convenience stores and supermarkets.

I find low denomination coins from 20p downwards fairly pointless these days. They worth little and have a habit of accumulating in the pocket or jar at home. I like contactless payment for low amounts just to avoid having to carry the weight of loose change. I would rather think it is a good idea to scrap the 5p, 2p, 1p coins.

£1 reverse. It was quite well advertised at the time that a 15 year boy's won the competition and we had a tread talking about it.

Let me guess, "How many different portraits of the Queen have appeared on UK coins?" 😀

I got to say the buyer was gutsy (or more likely just very rich) to pay a million for it considering it only sold for £516,000 in 2014.

Absolutely. If the Royal Mint can't be bothered with a design, then simply the words "Commemoration of Brexit" would be far more direct and unpretentious. It has been reported that they have all been melted down but I think it is rather likely that a few examples have been saved. I wouldn't be surprised if the odd examples will make it to auctions later on. The 1945 silver 3d comes to mind. Indeed. A £2 would be more appropriate. I still think some crown-size pieces would be nice if they can come up with a decent design.

One of the must have 2020 coin must be the Brexit 50p. Am I alone in thinking that the proposed design is just exceedingly poor. "Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" is just some sort of incredibly lame and meaningless sentence. Surely, the Royal Mint could have produced a "British" design that is tasteful, encouraging and can be admired by both Brexiteers and former Remainers, Remainers etc. They really should leave out the date as well - that's not necessary in my view. My top choice would be a detailed engraving of the Parliament and the Thames. Something looking like: A crown size piece is needed to do it justice. One of my regrets is that we never made a cityscape coin. This would be the ideal time to make one. I did also thought about the merits of bringing back a classical design like the Gothic crown reverse. However, it is important to look forward and not back and so I think we should do something new. Any ideas on a design? (Let's not get heated discussions on the pros and cons of Brexit since it is definitely going to happen later in the month. And no more shooting in the foot design since we had seen them already. 😃 )

And considerably better struck than even a top currency I think.

I have some interest in silverware and am aware that it is not uncommon for silver pieces to lose value because the hallmarks have been blurred due to excessive polishing. The advice "be careful when polishing around hallmarks" is frequently given.

Eric's recent tread on the subject. The genuine 1928 proof is so much more impressive than the merely proof-like currency examples. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/13508-heritage-nyinc-sale-1932-proof-wreath-i-think-not/?tab=comments#comment-188788

The George III crown were struck by a series of graduated blows even for the currency. They were indeed wrapped in paper before being delivered to the banks. ESC made the comment that it is almost impossible to distinguish a proof from a perfect ordinary specimen. Hence the proof is only included in ESC with "hesitancy" However, Eric has convinced me that proof Wreath crowns have superior strike and sharper edges compared to proof-like early struck examples.

Limited die use certainly, and I assumed that is the reason why the early struck examples are proof like. But I am not aware that the planchets themselves were specially prepared for the currency issues.

I think the Royal mint has been particularly unfair with regard to the old £2 pieces. They minted over 30 million such coins (over 8 million for 1986, 7 million, 5 million etc for other years) in total and it is hardly surprising that some got into circulation. I remember paying £4 as a teenager for a 1986 coin housed in the usual packaging thinking that it will always have an intrinsic value of £2. The Royal mint site currently states "The commemorative £2 coins were issued to mark special occasions rather than for use in general circulation. They are legal tender but contrary to popular belief this does not mean that banks and retailers automatically have to accept them. Indeed you will probably find that most banks and retailers refuse." My feeling is that every piece of junk the Royal Mint make these days is marking some special (or not so special) occasion or event or cartoon character. The mintage of some of the old £2 coins are so much higher than the so called circulating Kew garden 50p for example. I would be surprised if they had told anyone in the 80s that such coins are not for circulating and so will not be accepted in banks. Since the £2 coin is a current denomination, I think The Royal Mint should do the decent thing and ask banks to let people exchange the old pieces if they wish to. An episode of the Simpsons come to mind: Woman: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money? Homer: What's that? Woman: Well it's money that's made just for the park... And it works just like regular money, but it's, er..."fun". Bart: Do it, Dad. Homer: Well, OK, if it's fun... let's see, uh...I'll take $1100 worth. (gets the money and he walks in and sees all the signs that show places prohibiting Itchy and Scratchy Money) Awwwww!

My only example is a 1927 proof too and it is also a better strike. I think mrbadexample is just saying that a proof is generally better struck when compared to a non-proof currency and so this is expected. A currency flan has only been struck once but a proof had been struck multiple times (4 times being common) to improve the sharpness of details. Fakes of wreath crowns can be very convincing and it is sometimes very difficult to tell from a photo. I guess checking if it is the correct diameter / thickness / weight and if it rings like 0.5 silver would be good indicators. Like others, the coin in the OP could have just been once cleaned.

I am now more convinced that the very worn Wreath pieces (and for that matter the 1935 Rocking Horse) have wear due at least in part to manual polishing. 0.5 silver coins were not minted from 1947 and I understand that the public were keen to hoard pre 1947 coins once they realised that new coins no longer contained silver. Hence those crown pieces probably only "circulated" till about 1947 at the most and I find it difficult for coins to get to Fine or less in such time scale. However, I still believe that a small number did circulate (in the same way that the old style £2 pounds have circulated) for the reasons I already mentioned.

It's really difficult to find an UNC Old Head crown with St George's chest, strap and helmet all fully struck. There is nearly always a flat spot on the strap even on the top examples.

I think the old style two pound coins were more acceptable for spending until 1996. Their style fits in well with the then one pound coins. People were quite likely to accept the odd ones thinking that more will enter circulation soon. However, the introduction of the bimetallic version in 1997 gave most people the defining image of what a two pound coin should look like. Hence I imagine the old two pounds would be refused from that year onward.

I agree. In the case of Old Head crowns, I think with the exception of 1893, it is difficult to get UNC examples for any of the other dates. I also think that UNC crowns are harder to come by than UNC halfcrowns. UNC Old Head crowns (with the exception of 1893) have really got expensive.

Sounds like some shopkeepers did accept these crown pieces but they had to take them to the bank afterwards. Hence, they were "money" in a sense but I wouldn't say they have "circulated" in the 70s.

I think it is a very pleasing design too. It has an ornate garter chain and crown but the large amount of space allocated for the legend ensures that the design is not overcrowded or appear fussy. The pointed Norman style shape shield is soften nicely into a round shape by blending in with the garter chain.

It's indeed a very nice example. The rim is particularly good.

Both the 1893 and 1896 have the long teeth (A) and short teeth (B) varieties. For the 1893, the long teeth (A) is for the currency and B for the proof. The rarer currency variety is the obverse 2. For 1896, the obverse is 2 and the rarer reverse is the long teeth A. Photos below are from Davies, (which gives prices in 1982.) Unfortunately, the prices in Davies has never been updated as a second edition has not been published.

Not being in business, I don't come in contact with £50 notes. Yet, I know what it looks like as I have seen the adverts when the note was introduced. I would have no problem in accepting them if the occasion arrives. Come to think of it, cashiers in many large shops would also accept Scottish banknotes despite not being familiar with their designs.

The only things I can laugh at are the name of the seller "cvdrfhykj" and the standard of his English! "High-quality craftsmanship, just for watching and playing, to make your collection more abundant! It will be your best collection![Let you love it]"