PWA 1967

Why these are still here and probably not suitable for the forum a forum member has kindly offered to put them on ebay for me 🙂 Thanks again. Pete.

Might be some use to someone who wants to re sell them on ebay / Faceache or something 🙂. 1983 ,1985,1986 x 2 , 1987 x2 ,1988 & 1994 So 8 sets for........Whatever your happy to pay without me going to the post office for nothing . PM me please. Pete.

Thats the one that Loose bought and then sold , i mention it as he found that in a mixed Lot at a major auction house 🙂

The other thing to remember is people often spend a couple of hours looking and find nothing of any value ,its much easier when the sale price has brought it to peoples attention

Some people are looking at them all day Jon and you cant bid with as much confidence only seeing one side in a picture or missing out on something that is hidden. Hat off to the buyers especially if they took the time to go and have a good look and are happy , its the same as looking at something and knowing its crap on the side that is hidden and not going to high.They may well of bought others we cant see in the picture 🙂 There was obviously something or some in the 1860 Lot selling for over £3K with commision.

Scarce ones at DNW not attibuted today in mixed lots 🙂 I thought i may of been in with a chance especially when one lot i was interested in opened at £20 All good fun. Pete.

Brilliant and thank you so much for your reply ,i should of again looked in the book and not spent as much time on the 1874. Quick easy exp[anation ...Hat off and dont get to sunburnt today 😎

Maybe you can help me please Terry are Paddys two coins the same reverse or different ? I am confusing myself now and probably wrong as usual but would just like to be sure 🙂

Trying to learn as i have looked at a few of this reverse ( 1874 ) on the two pictures Paddy put up the second one is as i thought Ja. The first picture of Paddys though i am still not sure and maybe i am getting it wrong and still think its J The single plume on Ja is straight / thinner and falls downwards but on Paddys first picture it is slightly curved ? I had also looked at both helmets and the hair and thought the first one was J ,only because the first picture the helmet looks off set rather than more upright and straight.

I dont think you are getting confused Cliff and think your right to say they are two different reverse with the second one Ja. Although that may mean we are both wrong

Yes Terry you may well be right about the first one although it still looks messed about with and they are just the ones newly listed ,there are plenty others and didnt want to put them all on . One of the reasons i mentioned of not buying this particular type from a photo and better looking for an UNC one . Pete.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1946-King-George-V1-One-Penny-Coin/333139589766 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1946-One-Penny-1d-Coin-King-George-VI-Great-Britain/254218876981 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1946-KP-King-George-VI-Penny-Lighthouse-High-Tide/133011747161 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1946-King-George-VI-Penny-Lighthouse-High-Tide-KP/133042119208 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/King-George-VI-Penny-1946/293076506981 A few new listings on ebay that are quite fascinating . I think maybe these are cleaned although i may be just guessing.

The problem is Gary ,when i typed in Slavish the words they used to explain the meaning i didnt know what they meant either

Slavish seems to be the IN word at the moment ,i will have to try and find out what it means. Slavish ..........

The F177 is the most common of the 1913 Ian and IMO often well struck ,should not be to hard to find a really nice one. Pete.

I thought it better to use another fact as you may be interested to know. The graders at cgs have been looking for years ,well before cgs started and have obviously looked at the coins in hand. Although you may not agree with there opinion it is know doubt better than mine. On there data base they have six 1944 pennies submitted as NOT MT and only one 1946. The part you may find fascinating is that out of six submitted two of them were rejected. I will let you guess why. Pete.

Take it easy and i am really sorry about the language if i offended you , my problem is that i stuggle to write things down and am what may be called thick and of low intelligence. I wasnt at school from being thirteen and did not have much education before ,so my posts may appear childish or daft as i find it hard to put words into writing and obviously cant spell. I dont know what slavish means that you described me as being but if its bad then you were probably right . I dont and cant make excuses for my stupid posts but feel maybe you would see a different Pete should you ever meet me or speak to me on the phone ,.if you could understand me 😊 I wont start going on again and have said or atleast tried to say what i thought at the time. Keep smiling. Pete.

I only wish i had kept the cleaned ones now However i bought a 1948 off an ebay picture that myself and another forum member were undecided about ,as to weather it was MT ,i cant find the ebay picture anymore but still have the cleaned coin and am happy to post FOC to anyone who may be interested. Pete.

Thought i would check the 1946 to see if i had been missing something as logic does say that 1944 would be scarcer of the three to find. The private message i sent you was wrong looking at the list ,only two were described as NOT MT 1944 & 1945......NO 1946 . Dave Craddock has not had a 1946 on a list for two years but had the others ,i dont have the lists going back any further. There wasnt one in the Crocker sale and cgs have only graded one although more for other years. . Not much else to go off ,but as i said to find one in a couple of days you did really well.I have been looking for a lot longer and only ever found one one for sale ,which is the cgs one. Also with regards looking at pictures. Terry says he wasnt sure and was it cleaned untill it arrived 🙂 Groom says in his book "Care in identifying light specimens is needed once they become worn " ...rubbing is sometimes from a picture similar to wear and the reason i said its better to look for an UNC one. Also its not only pictures and even in hand that people edge on the side of caution. The Crocker sale............Possibly a bright finish ? The workman sale.........Appears to be a bright finish. Neither of these two give me a lot of confidence and looking at the pictures i again cant be sure. . You say "Its all guess work on your part isnt it " i probably can have a quite an educated guess after looking for a couple of years ,two of which i have sold 1944 & 1945 on the forum about eighteen months ago.The picture i put up was with another to compare as i knew its hard to tell from a picture even back then. I stand by what i say ,hard to tell from a photo ,some that look NOT MT have been cleaned and 1946 is the hardest to find. i will always admit to being wrong as i am often ,although i feel on this occasion i might actually be right for a change. Have a good day and why your finding them STAY lucky 😊 Pete.

The Large picture ,you were not sure about and from the picture neither was i but thought it looked cleaned , i am often wrong and its how i learn. The ones you have in hand you have the benefit of being able to see properley and more so than in a photo. I am being honest about throwing some away and wish i had kept them now as would of sent them you 😊 As i mentioned earlier i was just giving my opinion for maybe others to double check the picture. I cant say anymore without repeating myself ,so will let you have your own opinion on them. Enjoy the rest of the weekend. Pete.

Yes it may well be guess work (being honest ) as can only go off the ones i have bought from pictures and had in hand Some of the ones that have been messed with / cleaned leave some of the lustre that may look like it has not been fully toned. at the mint.. We are not talking about the removal of all of the toning. Only by having them in hand can you be really sure and i have looked at pictures for the last couple of years. I would think (guess ) probably 1 in 100 of most denomination have been messed about with and cleaned on ebay and in this instance we are looking for ones that are the base metal colour that the MT ones are not. Coins are cleaned Not in this case to remove the MT but to get rid of anything on it so in the sellers opinion it makes it look better. The result being in some instances part of the mint toning has been removed as well.This then has the appearance in a picture of the toning not being complete and having some lustre.I do feel i am able to tell if a coin has been cleaned but am the first to admit i may sometimes be wrong. Looking at the one Terry bought ,i would have doubts (guessing again ) looking at that picture also ,but again in hand Terry says its ok. The large picture is another ,so that is a couple looking at photographs just on this thread i would be....... guessing 😊 if i did not have the benefit of both you and Terry having them. I did not mention your own coin was cleaned and just that some others may not be right looking at a picture.. Maybe the ones i have kept were much better and are not partial toning but full 100% NOT MT just like a 1947. A fully NOT MT coin there should be know doubt at all ,its the ones that are partial were the problem is in telling the difference from a picture. I have had a few good ones but have had a few that were rubbish , so although i may be guessingi have learned not to be sure from a picture and i cant be more honest than that.. Pete.

You got the spots off though

No Mike i probably havent explained very wel. If anyone looks at a hundred pictures of 1944 pennies only a few will look like they have no mint toning.Should you buy the few one may be ok ,one maybe cleaned and one just worn. So maybe only one has been cleaned out of the hundred . Petrol was just an example it could be a brilo pad or anything else that has took the surface dye off. Anyway as i said glad you got them and you did really well to find them ,sometimes we can only find out by having the coin in hand.

Just some cleaned and worn ,i dont mean all of them and just much easier to tell a good one from a photograph if its UNC. The ODD one that has been cleaned or the worn ones are more likely to look like a Not MT one in a picture.Otherwise they would just be normal which the majority are and have not been cleaned. If it looks bright which few do.........Is it natural with no HYpo or cleaned /worn 😊 More that its better to check the pictures and try to find them in UNC to be sure. If you have a pile of them they will all be different colours but a true NOT mt one should just look like a 1947 otherwise its still MT and just lighter. Made me smile........Warm soapy water 🙂 ,that wont do anything give it a scrub and clean it with something like petrol to get the hypo off. You need to put some elbow into it 😂 joking aside you know what a cleaned coin looks like and dont need to mess about with one. Again i think the large picture is a good example. If it nlooks bright.it may be cleaned 🙂

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1946-George-VI-1d-One-Penny-Coin-Good-Grade-/303022267179?hash=item468d88db2b%3Ag%3ANVgAAOSwohVcM6hV&nma=true&si=RoK94v15yq838hgYv7cnTr69aSs%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 This is another having a look at completed listings that IMO is also cleaned and partly worn off ,although shows the base metal and a couple of others are to worn to be convincing. 1946 is the hardest one to find and dont have a clue if there is any reason why 🙂