Red Riley

I'm quite surprised that anyone's gone to the trouble (albeit not much trouble, given the quality) of faking 20ps when £1s can't be that much more difficult but yield more profit. But then that's nothing new: in a bulk lot I acquired the other day was a lead 1908 1d forgery. It's also not new for forgers to be ignorant of numismatic details, as they are with the numerous mismatches between date, reverse and edge inscription on forged £1s. I have an, er, object that appears to be trying to be a 5th issue Elizabeth I shilling. As well as clearly not being made of silver, it has a date (1578), which unless I've misread Seaby it shouldn't have. Think we've discussed these before. If my memory serves me correctly, the finger pointed to a company in Dover that made this sort of thing not more than 20 years ago.

This could have significant implications for online sellers/purchasers; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10560466.stm

Of course Dave, no problem. You may however find it easier to forego a week's coin purchases and buy Michael Gouby's 'The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1970'. Due to it's arrangement, I actually find this easier than Michael Freeman's own book, and 'F' numbers are included. Can't remember how much it is, but probably no more than an AU Edward VII penny!

The wonky B did it for me.

I hate identifying these! All things considered, I make it F10 even though I can't see the signature on the cape.

Quite the worst strike I have seen is a 1918 Royal Mint obverse shown on p.18 of the grading guide (sorry, couldn't resist the plug!). If it didn't have lustre, you could be forgiven for thinking it was no better than 'fine'. Reverses are often poorly struck around Britannia's right shoulder. The mintage in 1913 at 65m was a record but was succesively broken in 1916 (86m), 1917 (107m), 1919 (113m) and 1920 (124m) so sheer weight of numbers probably had something to do with it. 1921 pushed the record up again (129m) but by then there were probably enough Dreadnoughts in the scrapyards to make as many dies as the mint wanted and the products were of a much higher quality.

The last photo you posted came out rather small, so difficult to tell. The telltale is the fingerprint on Britannia's left. Also, and rather unusually, the last photo you posted seems to show heavy ghosting.

I think this is very plausible. Something new tends to galvanise people into not only putting aside an example of the new design but saving one of the old ones too. Could this be the reason why the easiest bun penny in BU is 1887?

In my wife's family, the tradition was to keep a penny or a larger set of coins for the year of a child's birth. This is something which we have continued with our kids and if a friend has a child, then they get an uncirculated mint set from me! OK, a bit off the subject, but if this was a widespread practice then it would account for a large number of survivals in high grade.

Noted Sir, although I had spotted it. Do we know why the 1917 seems to stand alone among a generally wretched series from 1915-20 as being well struck ? Interesting observation. The 1917 I've got is definitely better struck than the others with the exception of a really good '18H. As to the reason for this, I haven't a clue and it defies all logic. Perhaps a new master die was cut in that year which rapidly wore out due to the unprecedented demand for pennies? As I said, I'm guessing though...

Michael Gouby's site shows a 1920 which seems to suit the bill and a 1928 which is nearly so. 1920s however are frequently very poorly struck.

Hi jd2010, welcome to the site. Starting from the top, your pennies. Unlikely to be very valuable in a worn condition but there are rarities. Look out for 1869 and 1871. Certain, but by no means all pennies of the following dates could have value; 1875, 1895, 1918, 1919 and 1926. British pennies are a complicated series and rare varieties exist from many years but generally, the earlier they are, the greater chance of finding a rare'un. As there are not that many of the earlier ones, you could list the dates and we'll tell you which ones need looking into further. Unless they are in really good condition, all the sixpences, the threepence, the florin and the half crowns will have little value; the 1977 crown likewise in whatever condition. The 1921 shilling though is quite a scarce date and will have some value depending on condition. The maundy set could be worth anything between £30 to £70, again depending on condition. Suggest you describe the large 1819 coin and compare its condition to the coins you have in your pocket. Is it better or worse? Either that or post a photo. Remember that pre-1920 is almost pure silver and from 1920-1946 50% silver, and all will have some bullion value.

I was meeting some friends in an establishment called 'The Cock Inn' (I know, I know...). I hadn't realised my predictive messaging was on and when I re-read the message it was directing my unsuspecting acquaintances to 'The Anal Inn'. Honestly, how does 'cock' become 'anal'?

Both of those coins seem to have heavily doctored images. Did you see the original coin, or was it an e-bay auction?

I guess actually getting an i-phone and learning how to use it will be a prerequisite...?

Something to do with fish? Oh sorry, I thought it said, 'Forum Cod'.

I was given to understand that the oientation of the edge legend was entirely random on both £2 and £1 coins. I may be wrong though!

I have a feeling that with such a rare coin, a genuine auction might be a better bet than e-bay. Check whether anybody has an auction of world coins coming up.

I can't see them all that clearly, but the bun farthing is probably the result of a chemical or even something as mundane as some foodstuff being spilt on it. The 1919 farthing is very typical of it era and if I recall this feature continued until 1921. If brass cartridge cases were used and they contained simply copper and zinc, they could have been added to the furnace without any problems, but why this should make the metal streaky, I know not. Incidentally, this is a picture of the 1875 1d with streaky toning which I have suggested may be a result of mixing copper ores from two different sources.

Opps! Well that will teach me not to guess. For once I think slabbing would be a good idea and in this instance I think you need to go to the graders with whatever provenance you have.

1875H penny springs to mind, better than GVF - £51 including postage and I got it on e-bay too. Something similar with an 1895 2mm. VF+ for £25. Both are excellent coins with good eye appeal, so I don't know whether everybody else was asleep that day. Oh, and I nearly forgot 1918KN not far off EF which I subsequently worked on with spit and sunlight for £35.

I have a distinctly streaky 1875, a pale coin with darker streaks. On the other hand although I have unalloyed copper pennies all shades of brown, I have never to my knowledge seen a streaky one. For me though, the vastly differing colours assumed by 1797-1860 pennies is the clincher and to my mind this can only have been caused by different sources of ore.

I think it unlikely that they will have much value. The coinage of small countries is usually produced in small numbers and collector interest is usually very low as well. I can't think of any way to sell them other than e-bay, but don't be surprised if they sell for a pittance.

Without detailed chemical analysis, I don't think we can prove conclusively why the hue varied, but I'm still sticking to my guns! I have seen much earlier coins (e.g. an 1893 penny) with the distinctive KN colour. My view on this is that King's Norton received all their metal from one source which may have had say, a trace of ferrous oxide in its makeup. Of course alterations in the alloy can make a difference (e.g. later QE2 bronze) but why would Kings Norton use a different alloy from that which the Royal Mint requested? My theory also explains why some coins have a streaky appearance i.e. ores from two different sources were used in the alloy, and were not completely mixed in the furnace.

I have a theory on the tone assumed by circulated bronze coins and did a little historical research a couple of years ago. It is my opinion that varying metal contents is not the answer. Okay, so this is what I wrote on the subject: 'It seems to be the generally accepted view that variations in the colour of bronze coins up until about 1926 was due to slight variations in the metal makeup of those coins, i.e. marginally more or less tin or zinc used in the alloy. This view is underlined by Michael Freeman in ‘The Bronze Coinage of Britain’, but it does have problems, principally that it does not explain the variations in tone of the previous base metal coinage which was unalloyed copper and by that argument should have been a uniform colour. I would like to propose a rather different theory, but to do so it is necessary to take a brief look at the history of copper mining in Britain. This metal had been mined, principally in Cornwall and Wales right back to the Bronze Age. Curiously tin and copper often occur naturally in close proximity to each other, making the conditions in the far west of Britain ideal for the production of bronze implements such as swords and ploughshares. By the middle of the nineteenth century, copper mining in Britain which had traditionally been run on a small scale with a large number of individual mines, was encountering stiff competition from much larger operations in the New World and southern Africa. Simply, the British copper industry could not compete and one by one the mines declined and closed. I have not established quite when the last mine ceased production, but certainly there were a very few still operational during the First World War but none in production on the outbreak of the second conflict, so a date in the early twenties would seem about right. Ore mined in different locations is quite identifiable (and archaeologists frequently use this method) by the level of trace elements i.e. impurities it contains. It is therefore reasonable to assume that British copper/bronze coins were initially made from domestic ore, then a mixture of domestic and overseas and finally exclusively overseas, probably from one identifiable source. All of these would have had their individual characteristics. Early coin, say up until the 1850s used a variety of British ores and would have been quite variable in hue; coin of the middle period, up to about 1920 would have been every bit as variable, if not more so; finally, coin produced from that date would have been much more uniform in colour as the trace elements themselves would have been consistent in nature. Allied to this, technical advances in the smelting of metals during this period would have been able to dramatically reduce the levels of impurities thus tending towards a more consistent product and further uniformity in tone.' Obviously, not being a metalurgist, I have not run any tests but from a non-technical perspective it does seem to make some sense.