Paddy

That was the conclusion I was coming to. Seemed unusual to see one dated so early - I usually associate the contemporary counterfeits with the late 18th century but I see some of the evasions are dated much earlier, so that makes sense.

Here is the reverse:

Any thoughts on this? Vendor's picture, so please don't ask me for better ones. Described as 1739 Halfpenny, and size and reverse seem about right but this bust looks wrong to me. Is it a contemporary counterfeit, a modern forgery, or just unusual deformation of the portrait?

I use Chrome and am having no problems at all. The address bar does show "Not Secure" but it always has done in the forum area as far as I know. It might be worth checking/comparing your Chrome security settings. Click on the three dots in the top right corner of the browser window and select "Settings" and then "Privacy and Security". Under "Safe browsing" I have "Standard" rather than "Enhanced" selected. Further down under Advanced I have "Always use secure connections" turned off. I am not necessarily suggesting you change your settings, but if they are different it may explain where the issue is. Further - I just tried putting https before the predecimal address and got a "Not allowed" message where previously it said "Not Secure".

I usually rely on others to sort these out for me, but as no one seems to be replying, I will add my thoughts: I think the 1* obverse is clear - the lack of knot with the beaded border is clear. Not so sure about the reverse. The halfpenny website mentions A and A# , not A* - was it A# you meant? See https://halfpennyvarieties.wordpress.com/victoria-reverses/ A close up of the shield might help - looking for the extra incuse line for A rather than A#. Variations in the position of the 0 in the date are mentioned for both, so that alone is not an identifier. In any case the website suggests that in either case they are not that scarce. Or maybe I have missed the point with the A*?

... and I did not dispute that "fact" though I have seen no evidence to support it. If it happened 50 years ago, it was wrong then and remains wrong today. I doubt that it was as wholesale and targeted in the past. I was at university 45 years ago and I recall very little of what you describe. My fact, supported by current evidence, was completely discounted based on left wing bias against any media that does not support their narrow viewpoint. What really gets me is that the Labour party, supposedly champions of the working classes, for which I laud them, has now become the puppet of wealthy, privately educated and privileged trendies from London.

... and are you not also ignoring facts - as displayed in the Daily Mail - simply because of your bias against that paper? As @oldcopper puts it, much better than I could: "when you put the Daily Mail clipping to Peckris, he pulls out the cliched lazy get-out clause so beloved of the Left". Before you say "Why hasn't the BBC repeated the story?", that organisation has become so woke, left wing and anti Brexit it has ceased to publish any news that contradicts their viewpoint. I am wasting blood pressure again - I'm out of here.

I think it is best we just agree to differ. Neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint substantially, so there is no point wasting blood pressure on the debate.

... and as if by magic, this headline article today. I know from the Daily Mail, so there will be a good deal of bias in choosing to run this topic, but the basic facts are still extraordinary:

That's not a smile - it's a smirk!

Fair comment that I would place my political views to the right of centre, but I would say well short of extreme. Just as I am aware that your position @Peckris 2 is well left of centre, but presumably would object to being called "extreme". I think it is the lengths some of the woke supporters go to suppress any view that does not concur with their own that I find most disturbing. Universities "cancelling" any speaker whose viewpoint is not up to date with woke culture smacks of extremism. The essence of a free democracy is freedom of speech, and that seems to be being undermined.

We all have our views as to what would be "extreme" in the woke crusade. I would say the idea that a biological male, possibly even one convicted of sex offences against women, can one day declare that he now identifies as a woman, and immediately earn the right to hang around in female changing rooms - is extreme. Or that someone who has passed through puberty as a male, and so gained all the muscular advantages of testosterone, can then declare transgender and thereby be allowed to compete on equal terms with biological women - is extreme. Or that in some parts of the NHS they are no longer allowed to use terms such as "woman" or "mother" and are expected to use some complex phrase such as "child-bearing capable person" - is extreme. I am all for the fair treatment of all sexualities and genders, but that should not be at the expense of fair treatment for those who fit into the more traditional gender classifications. I have probably opened Pandora's box by expressing those views and will incur the wrath of the woke brigade. In their usual form they will seek to silence me as they despise any view that does not concur with their own. Reminds me a bit of the Catholic Church through much of its history.

Anything that undermines the resolve, strength and morale of your enemy is useful to your cause. If Russia decided to invade across Europe now, how many of our present population would actually volunteer to resist them? Compare that to the situation in the last 2 World wars. Putin is well aware that the British have been the most resolute in resisting tyranny in the past. By taking us out of the equation he makes his ambitions much easier to achieve.

This from the BBC this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-66594076 I think this case has been discussed here before. It is sad that he let his greed/ambition take him so far off the legal track.

Does anyone else think that the extremes of wokery that are undermining the Western world's entire ethos are also emanating from Russia? It would be so easy for them to stoke the crazy ideas through social media and stand back to watch the ensuing chaos in glee.

Greggs particularly annoys me - they seem the darling of the London social elite, but I won't use them after they tried to tell me that a pasty filled with minced mush was "traditional"!

Not necessarily - many of the mobile phone operators add the +44 to the beginning of UK numbers even when communicating entirely within the UK. That doesn't mean everything else is OK though! 🙂

All sounds a bit odd, and I can't add anything except that the +44 is standard identification for a UK phone number, so that at least is not suspicious. If it was any other two digits, then you would be calling overseas, and that would be odd.

A more positive report of coins found metal detecting. Nice Quarter Noble shown: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66386477

Yes - I have had a very informative email from Matt. It seems that it would cost me about £50 to get it slabbed - based on a guesstimate retail value of £500. Conservation is extra - 4.2% of value - any thoughts on whether that is worthwhile/a good idea?

Yes - I know. That is why I am in such a dilemma! I dislike slabbed coins and would never buy one for myself - unless I planned to break it out. However if spending £50 getting it graded would turn it from a £400 coin to £1000 coin, it makes sound business sense. The profit I could then use to buy more coins for my own collection! 🙂

That's kind. Please PM the contact the details. I suppose the question I don't know is whether on the Australian market slabbing will make enough difference in the value to make it worthwhile? Personally I hate slabbing, but one has to go with the market.

Thanks for that - very helpful. I will think on it for a bit.

I am posting this here in the hope that anyone with knowledge on Australian coins can comment. I recently picked up at auction this 1967 silver one dollar coin. I have found it easily enough on Numista - see: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/exonumia78083.html It is a "Fantasy" Swan dollar, issued in 1967 by the editor of the Australian Coin Review because the government had declined to create one when they went to the dollar system. It is apparently quite scarce - only 1500 issued at "currency" standard, and sought after by Australian collectors. Of course the Chinese have produced fakes, but I am pretty sure it is not one of these - it passes the tests suggested at https://www.australian-coins.com/collecting-coins/1967-australia-1-dollar-pattern-crown-goose-dollar-90-silver-copy-coin-counterfeit-fake/ and also I saw it arrive at the auction house, kicking around in the bottom of an old tin with a Victorian Crown and a few other silver coins, straight from a house clearance. I can see a couple on Ebay, typically listed in the £1500 bracket, but both slabbed. One has sold at an offer, presumably a bit lower than that. I do not plan to hold onto mine. It goes against the grain, but should I get it slabbed? If so, with whom? How best to go about it - I have never had anything slabbed before and baulk at the cost! What grade and value would it make (roughly) slabbed or unslabbed? Thanks for any advice.

Thanks for that @Coinery - mine is certainly a different die and mintmark. All those seem pretty much the same, not matter how much the forger has tried to make them look different.