Colin G.

I agree very nice tone on that one!,

You have mail!!!

Welcome to the forum, if you are a regular at the Midland coin fair, then there is a good chance we will bump into each other at some point in the future...I am normally the guy struggling to the exit with a big box of catalogues from Rob

Rob, I can sort out scans of the The Mint - Sir John Craig, but it will be later today.

I was thinking 1820

Hi, It would appear that you have a contemporary counterfeit of a George III shilling or sixpence. The silver wash has come off revealing the base metal. We have a user on the forum Seuk who specialises in these and may be able to give you more info, but the condition is not the best.

Someone has been busy

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, but I have been trying to locate and information in mint reports relating to proofs, I have managed to get copies of early annual reports but they are from 1870 onwards. Does anyone know whether something similar was in place prior to 1870 and what it was called?

John, If you drop me an e-mail I will respond with some library images I have and images of mine It will be nice for me to assist you for once

Certainly one to put on the "to be confirmed list"

The distance between the back of the head and the B in BRITT seems a very clear indicator, as does the lower colon stop after the G in D:G: On Obverse 5 it is virtually equidistant from the forehead and the wreath, on Obverse 6 it is much closer to the forehead and much further away from the wreath.

I would agree, seems to be a 1675

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs. No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike. Now I understand.... I am a bit slow but I get there eventually

I am not doubting the fact that they are in someways superior to a circulation strike, and are more akin to a proof, but in the examples I have seen there does seem to be a difference in the consistency of the quality.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs.

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality. http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

I don't know I only got to see about 15 of the coins, and there were some decent coins in there but nothing that warranted that sort of cash...but it is possible that there may have been a gem hidden away...or two people with bidding fever!!

Clearly someone does'nt know a thing about coins. Thats 4000 quid with commission. They'd have to sell each one at 32 pounds clear to just break even Or there was something tasty in there

The 125 farthings went for £3,300

I think you can get that difference across different dates anyway. Obviously I will caveat this with the fact that I am again talking farthings, but 1861 and 1868 proofs tend to be higher quality than many other years that I have seen. I just can not always convince myself that other years (including the Heaton dates) are the same thing. They have proof-like qualities, but are not totally convincing to me. Your picture above is a scan, which makes it more difficult to call but shows quite a bit of contrast and a clear difference in quality to the currency strike. Whether that is a proof for that particular year or a specimen of some sort I doubt we will ever fully establish. This is an 1875H farthing that showed that prooflike, rather than proof quality IMHO http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=141&l=1480&f=r&s=l

I think there are some proofs that immediately scream "proof" at you when you see them, and others that are prooflike, but just don't seem as convincing. For me that 1876H looks to have that contrast and crispness that says proof.

Actually having looked at a few other 1863 Pennies, they do seem to be generally very well struck, I am used to looking at farthings with dreadful rims!! Still a very nice coin, but you will have difficulty establishing it as anything other than a very nice strike, unless it has the mirrored fields associated with proofs, which I am not really seeing in your photos (although it is not always apparent in photos) I will leave you in the hands of the resident penny experts

That is a beauty, very "prooflike" in appearance, the border teeth look much more defined than in AC's example, and the transition between border teeth and rims is also a lot more defined. That has to be some form of "specimen" strike, I know some coins can just be photogenic, but this surpasses just eye appeal ....surely.

Derek that is what I was going to say, I think you would be correct

I guess there's a good-sized market for coins outside of those who study and collect - for example those who can afford to buy lavish art and then spot this and can't resist: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1899-Great-Britain-Queen-Victoria-Penny-Nice-visible-necklace-on-the-queen-/221165087813?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item337e776c45 Compare the amount of hair in the queen head to see the quality. Take a look at the scans and the beauty of this note will shine your eyes wanting you to own it, nice as good as the the day it was made. Beautiful condition. That note coin isn't really in high enough grade for me though so I'm inclined to buy this more modestly marketed piece: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1899-UK-Great-Britain-Large-VICTORIAN-Penny-BEST-YOU-HAVE-SEEN-/321188574108?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4ac854b39c Bargain!!