Red Riley

I have taken thousands of coin photographs with a Cannon 400D and Sigma DG Macro lens in conjunction with a stand/tripod, mostly in natural sunlight but I still have problems in a few areas; 1) Worn copper/bronze where the combination of tone/contour 'confuses' the camera and the results can frequently be disappointing. George V heads are a nightmare! 2) Any coin with mottled toning. 3) Highly polished proof coins where the reflection dazzles the camera. I have had some moderate success by using sunlight but shielding the coin with my hand. I doubt the experts do it this way though! This isn't cheap equipment, but I made the mistake of telling my son (who considers himself an expert) what I wanted and sending him out to get it without enquiring as to the likely cost. I dare say you could get equally good results with a cheaper camera, but I'm hoping this will last me out. Does take very good images of overdates though.

There are others more knowledgeable than me, but my understanding is that blobs of weld are laid into the die and then ground down but this does leave a couple of problems in my mind; 1) When patching the bodywork of a car, a skilled automotive welder can lay blobs of weld into the interface between old and new metal in such a way that you have no idea there is a patch there. That being the case, why couldn't the mint make a better job of it? 2) When did they invent welding anyway?* * Just searched the internet. In the Bronze Age apparently...

Some overstrikes are clear, but that one isn't. You need, and quite reasonably requested, a close up pic of the date, and it seems a bit unintelligent of Cookes to simply send you the existing pic. From what I can see, it does look like all (all?) the other 1882/1s I've seen i.e. just the merest fragment remaining of the 1 appearing above the diagonal stroke of the 2. Small wonder that this, one of the last date overstrikes to be issued by the mint, was not discovered as a variety until comparatively recently.

1882/1H - but you need very good eyesight to spot it!

I can't wait!

That's certainly fascinating information but it seems just as likely that the contract had been placed with Heatons beforehand as they had produced coins in 1874 and 1875. As the production was split between Heatons and the Royal Mint in both of those years, the controversy over missing H's can't possibly arise but interesting to see that government funded organisations have been grumbling about under-funding as far back as that. No doubt, when the new machinery was finally installed, the Daily Mail or its then equivalent had a good old bleat about wasting the taxpayers money...

Yes, pretty much what I'd heard. Although the history of maundy sets seems to be a little bit clouded in mist, if you took maundy money as we know it to be an early 19th century invention you wouldn't be far wrong. Many so-called maundy coins are immensely common and far exceeded the numbers required for the ceremony; 1763 3d pieces are amongst the most common coins of George III's reign and turn up quite regularly.

They would, I would guess, have had a pilot plant on which to produce small runs for testing, proofs etc. and as this was likely to have been in another part of the building from where the main presses were being installed it is quite possible that this operation continued. From the Times extract, it seems likely that each of the new presses had its own steam engine and that of the pilot plant would have had its own, smaller engine, if it was not manually driven. Also, the production of dies is a completely separate process and I can't see why this would have been affected by the installation.

Of the three, Michael Gouby rates the 1869 as scarcer than either the 1875H or 1871, which he sees as being roughly equal. Michael Freeman sees 1869 and 1875H as equally rare and considerably rarer than 1871. Impossible to tell really from any of our limited experience, but all I would say is that 1869s seem to create a bit more of a 'stir' than the other two.

I read an interesting article about Chinese coins in the 19th century. Apparently some of the coins then in use had been in circulation for upwards of 1000 years which would be like going down the local for a pint and getting an Ethelred the Unready penny in your change. Fascinating place, China.

You're giving your age away Mr P.

Germany was very much frontier country for the Roman empire and as that frontier kept changing location with people hiding their dosh one minute, coming back to fetch it the next (or not as the case may be...), I would imagine that the south and west of the country would offer very rich pickings for a detectorist. On the other hand parts of it may also be awash with unexploded ordnance...

Perhaps this is a flagrant breach of auction etiquette, but I did manage to clock the name of the guy that bought the 1877 narrow date penny at the June London Coins Auction from his bidding card. I've kept my own council up to now, but what the hell... Didn't get the first name, but the surname was Davies if that means anything to anybody.

I think as you have already guessed, you will not be able to retire on whatever these will fetch. A few pointers though. 1) Check the 1919 penny for tiny letters (either 'H' or 'KN') to the left of the date. In normal circulated condition this will give it a (small) value whereas the standard Royal Mint version is worth no more than its metal content; 2) The 1937 crown is likely to be by far the most valuable of this little lot but even then is only likely to be worth a tenner or so; 3) Pre-1947 silver is actually 50% silver and can be sold for scrap on e-bay or wherever if not in collectable condition. Pre-1920 silver is 92.5% fine but you only have 3d worth of that which really won't amount to a lot... 4) The rest is probably valueless.

I'd go VF obv., GVF rev.

Incidentally, the last genuine one I noticed on e-bay (last week) went for the princely sum of £51. 'Ah but how the mighty etc...'

I love these sort of statistics and it just confirms what I thought that later gold really didn't circulate for long. When writing the 'Standard Guide...' I had real problems in tracking down any late-Victorian gold below VF. It is, I suppose, quite possible that this type of article raised a hue and cry about 'underweight gold' and the mint sharpened up its act. With the passing of the Gold Standard, I guess people didn't worry about whether the coins in their pocket were underweight or no...

This seems to have been a popular(?) theme. I remember seeing a pre-war George VI penny in which the entire union jack had been re-cut into the shape of a swastika; went for quite a few quid on e-bay. George VI had hardly been popular with a section of the populace who wanted Edward VIII back. Given his reputed Nazi sympathies, it could well have been inspired by Moseley's National Union of Fascists.

My thoughts entirely.

Something to do with outraging the puritans as I recall. In common with most men, the only feeling I get when looking at the Cerne Abbas Giant is envy.

I'm very impressed that you remember it was precisely £5/17/9d. Can you tell me what albums you sacrificed it for and how much they cost?

I would agree with you. Something to do with the postures adopted by the figures. The Victorians had a thing about Charles I. Me? Give me Oliver Cromwell any day.

Mixed thoughts about this... mainly because just before reading Dave's post, I put an identical 1914 penny on e-bay for £25 'buy it now'. I won't complain if I get it though. Could this one not be a case of two people going in with way over the top snipes and somebody coming a cropper?

You're right but this medal overstepped the mark and foreshadowed the Nazi regime and all its horrors. Despising all it stood for goes beyond political correctness; it represented at best unpleasant xenophobia and at worst an attempt to stir up racial hatred.

Crikey, you must have some time on your hands, it's full of junk!