Red Riley

OK Scott, if my scanner was working properly I'd send you photos, but it's one of those where you need a ruler and the two coins side by side. 1) On the variety usually known as the '1895 2mm', the angle of the trident and the P of the word 'penny' are 2 mm. apart whereas on the standard issue they are 1 mm. apart; 2) The variety has a slightly lower tide, but on neither type is the tide a particularly prominent feature and on worn examples it may have disappeared altogether. This is what gives rise to the variety's other name of '1895 low tide'; 3) The word 'penny' is much more scrunched up on the variety and has noticeably smaller spacings than the word 'one'; 4) Britannia is actually very slightly smaller and neater on the 2mm. making her look slightly more elegant. Hope that answers your question.

I think we really ought to consider the 1902 low tide as a minor variety; trouble is that 20th century varieties are few and far between so it obviously got noticed. In the 02's defence though, I would say that the difference is much more evident as the tide has moved up to where the legs cross whereas the 97 has just moved a bit further up the shin. I guess the '97's shield is a bit more noticeable but perhaps not in worn condition. Who said coin collecting was logical! There are several dies throughout the series that appear briefly and then vanish again but I have no idea why this is.

Now that is a very minor variety and no mistake.

Photographs can be deceiving but it looks EF to me, especially the reverse. Is that wear on the beard or perhaps a slightly fuzzy strike?

The thing is the guy probably has a nice car and a nice house and a supermodel girlfriend; either that or he's a really sad recluse called Ralph... I could never defend £23k on a beat up minor, minor variety even if I were Bill Gates, but I could defend a four figure sum on that 1877 that London Coins have up for auction. Incidentally, is anyone going to their auction at Bracknell? I think most of the best stuff is on Tuesday. I might mosey on down and check it out, keeping my hands firmly in my pocket.

I think we are. A very rich one with no sense of proportion perhaps, but a coiny nonetheless. The chances of making any money on that 1863 are negligible having paid what, 15 times the estimate or whatever it was. No investment adviser would take that risk, if it went wrong the chances of them being sued would be close to 100% so it really can't be anything other than a collector. Sorry you're in the firing line this morning 400 must be last night's ESB taking its revenge!

But 400, you are a self-confessed 'grading Nazi'. There are other fascists out there who get their kicks from rarity, and personally I tend towards the latter. Dunno why, something to do with my genes I guess. Michael Gouby estimated 2-10 of these 1877 narrow dates in existence and Freeman 6-15. It is to my mind a fairly major variety and unlike the ridiculous narrow 3, the differences don't end there - the reverses are as different as the standard 1926 obverse was from the ME. For some reason - and I've never seen any explanation for this - between 1874 and 1879 the mint seem to have been using two master dies concurrently. Rob, I have studied two 1874s, one narrow and one wide. It may take a better eye than mine to determine whether different punches were being used, but I don't think so. As I said however, the differences don't end there. I wouldn't splash out more than a grand on that coin because I haven't got the money, but if I did, I just might. I am sure somebody will.

Freeman reckons it could be unique but Gouby doesn't mention it at all. This doesn't mean that he was unaware of its existence, but possibly that he didn't consider it to be of sufficient significance, on which point I agree with him. Clearly somebody begs to differ!

I'd be surprised if you found anybody on here that wanted to buy it Eduards, it just doesn't work that way. I would grade it slightly higher than Mat at perhaps NEF based purely on the photos and about £1000 but a coin is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay and I don't want it!

A sane price would be in the low thousands. It is what I call a genuine variety and should be sought after. I reckon the guy that went apeshit with his money last time is now satisfied and the market will return to normal levels, but if he's not... It's an interesting question why there were narrow and wide dates which occur every year from 1874 to 1879 (bar 1878), but of course the width of the date is only the tip of the iceberg with many other differences (e.g. thick/thin lighthouse) also in evidence. I don't know what the reasons behind this were, but if anybody knows I would be fascinated to learn.

Going off at a complete tangent, I inherited a lot of masonic paraphernalia from an uncle some years back including a book of complete gobbledygook. I took the latter to work to show to a known mason. It was gobbledygook to him as well, apparently he wasn't high enough up the hierarchy to understand a word of it. Shhh, they're all around us...

Interesting question. Given the current state of the market I would guesstimate well into six figures. If I could persuade the bank to help, I might even have a pop at £70k!

Very useful information Azda. This fits the bill for the type of forgery that would have appeared pre the current glut of Far Eastern fakes i.e. it is a key date in the series and is likely to be sought after. Many collectors would even turn a blind eye to its dubious origins. In the same vein, forgeries of 1831 and Gothic crowns have been doing the rounds for many years. £400 posted a link to a forgeries website a few weeks ago (http://www.forgerynetwork.com/Default.aspx,) which I have now bookmarked and it may be worthwhile contacting them about this coin.

As do I, but I just felt sorry for Gary. It was however, what I was taught at school. Going back to the initial topic, the last few items I have sold on e-bay have gone for way below what I expected. I just wonder if people are beginning to abandon it, perhaps because of the impenetrable mountains of utter crap that nobody would buy in a million years.

Now, what did I do with that trombone...?

NEVER start a sentence with a conjunction (chortle!).

Hi, just come back from holiday, so have missed a lot. My suggestion, is one that I have made before when this topic has come up. Simply give them to any kid you know who has shown the faintest interest in coin collecting. They may be worth next to nothing but the acquisition of some old, albeit extremly worn coins can set a youngster's heart racing and can plant a seed for the future. If you don't know any likely candidates, just have a word around, I'm sure you will find some willing takers.

In that one sentence you have opened up a can of worms. Let's look at George IV first because it's simple, yes they are all what we would understand as maundy i.e. they were not intended for circulation. George III is much more complicated as those from 1762 and for several years afterwards were effectively circulating coins (as were the 1d, 2d and 4d). At some point the system changed and their main function became a ceremonial one, but I have seen various suggestions of when this might have been, some people suggesting that even the 1800 dated coins (which were used for the ceremony right up to 1816) were somehow issued into circulation. The whole thing is complicated by the fact that the deserving poor who received what amounted to the princely sum of 10d, promptly went out and spent it, so from that point of view all maundy coins, probably into the mid-Victorian period, circulated. Once again, who knows where you draw the line. And one more complication. Until 1908 it was possible for anyone to go into a bank and effectively ask for and receive maundy money. Although we generally accept that there were roughly 9000 sets produced every year from 1893 to 1908, the numbers of their individual constituents varied, so the mintage figures that we see are in fact either the 1d, 2d, 3d or 4d whichever had the lowest mintage. From 1909 the system changed and only the poor beneficiaries and various dignitaries (I still can't get my head round why there were as many as 1,000 of these) received the maundy sets and at this period, by and large kept them as sets. I'm sorry to complicate your life, but who ever said numismatics was simple!

The second coin you refer to pre-dates Victoria by a year and is in fact her uncle William IV. These are quite common and in view of the fact that the obverse (heads side) is very worn, its value is likely to be negligible.

Yes, as a date run collector it wouldn't matter to me, especially as I couldn't tell. I wouldn't want a 1927 silver 3d in my date run though, so as long as some were issued for currency, Maundy would count. The problem with 1927, well not really a problem, the maundy and currency split and became a different design. The problem with 1927 is that the currency was only issued in the proof set so go for £80-100. Gary 1927 is obviously an exception as there were two different types of proof, neither of which were issued for circulation. Date run collectors will obviously have to make up their own mind on this one.

Yes, Dave and Julie are very decent sorts, and we've had many very satisfactory dealings with them. Perhaps we should have a "Decent eBay Sellers" thread as well as eBay laughs? Good idea, Declan. I am always in favour of the stick and carrot approach and if any dealer shows themselves to be honest and helpful beyond the call of duty, then I think this should be made public. I don't however think we should restrict it to e-bayers.

Perhaps | am just going to reveal myself as an absolute philistine here, but aren't we heading down the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' road. I just can't get my head around why it matters, especially since the higher quality coin is actually cheaper! If you are intending to put together a maundy set then yes, I can see why you would want the genuine article (although distinguishing maundy from early strike could also cause problems). But the other way round? Sorry, I just don't get it. It also strikes me that to get the most out of their dies and hence save money, the mint may at the end of the day have used the maundy die (I guess there was probably only one in any given year) to produce currency threepences which can only further cloud the issue. I apologise if I have trodden on anyone's toes. All in the interests of a 'lively debate' you understand...

Although it's worth zip, still fascinating to try and figure out what it is. Won't be Duke of Wellington - too late for that. My guess is some kind of cheap medal to commemorate something Gladstone did early in his second(?) term. Irish land reform fits the bill, but maybe not in Yorkshire...

Bits of it may be EF (would need a much better photo to tell) but it seems to have been struck with the worst pair of dies ever. Forget grading, I think the mint's machine minder had gone to sleep when they made this one!

Could be very difficult to identify but it may help to say where you found it, as it may have local rather than national significance.