Michael-Roo

I have a really nice, clear, example of this variety. Commonly referred to as 'G over O'. I've read in the past there has been some dispute as to what the G is actually punched on top of. No doubt it is over something. Do other members have any views they would like to share? The coin is listed in the Cooke collection as 'extremely rare'. I'd also be interested to hear your estimates of how rare it is (numbers known etc). Thanks all

There are also identical rim nicks seven teeth before the centre of G in Gratia.

Here's one of mine which looks remarkably similar. Long, well defined, teeth on the reverse. Short, bead like, teeth on the obverse.

No one could argue it isn't as described!

I've had a fair bit of fun with them, at a time I could do little else! It's the only opportunity to 'feel' what it was like for all those 'boys' on here who collected from change ions ago! Second only to squatting in rubble and playing machine guns in the early forties. Good fun, mostly, for the kids at least!I believe Christmas was better appreciated back then too! http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm

I've had a fair bit of fun with them, at a time I could do little else! It's the only opportunity to 'feel' what it was like for all those 'boys' on here who collected from change ions ago! Second only to squatting in rubble and playing machine guns in the early forties. Good fun, mostly, for the kids at least!I believe Christmas was better appreciated back then too! I first became interested when 'check your change' was all the rage in 1969-71. As a kid of 11-12 I was fascinated to be finding coins in my pocket which were anything up to 110 years old. Worn almost flat, obviously, but, at that age, precious to me nevertheless. I still have them. Even though I now have coins in my collection worth several £100's it is those first humble kept pennies and halfpennies which I'd be most likely to hold on to.

So still quids in on his £22 punt.

I find modern decimals so aesthetically unappealing. I'm sure many will feel differently about them in the future. Probably some, seeing the new copper of 1672, or bronze of 1860, for the first time thought those equally unattractive too!

Hi Mark. Can't read your attachment very well (too small) but, most likely, the mint hyping up on behalf of their sales department? Others will be better informed than I am…

Sticking my neck out here, but….. not that I'd want to invite flak or anything….. For hammered this looks tremendous Dave. EF obverse. GVF reverse. ?????

Very nice obverse. There is a bit of wear evident on the reverse (lions faces, crown at 12 o'clock etc.). Chris is correct. Overall GVF, or a tad better. Attractive colour too!

P is right. A lion. It features on the silver coins of George II too.

Who's this MP bloke, then?

I wonder what best offer would secure it? The 'buy it now' price is a bit rich. I'm not considering making an offer (just in case you thought I was!). As P says: Fancying? Yes! Affording? No!!

Are the penny collectors fancying this one?…. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1869-VICTORIA-ONE-PENNY-VERY-RARE-HIGH-GRADE-EXAMPLE-A-UNCIRCULATED-/161397918412?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item259410cacc

If you can get EF for 2 grand or less, scoop them all up!

Its like someone had chucked molten metal across the obverse field. 1690s action painting!

This got me thinking. Would it be fun to ask members to upload images of their most unusual cud/die clutter coins? Here's one for starters. Plenty of extra metal on both obverse and reverse. Britannia sporting a backpack, on her way to a lacrosse game, in 1674? Ooparts!

Me too. I was interested to know if anyone else had seen the same thing. An unusual, and rather angular shape, for die clutter.

Very nice Si. Maybe one for the Unlisted Varieties thread?

Here's a 1694 1/4d. Normal type, apart from what looks like an extra letter A placed behind Britannia's head. Most odd. I'd be interested to hear what other Forum members may think. Anyone else seen this anomaly before?

PS: Re: the left leg being thicker if it were an A: Would it not also be thicker if it were the upright bar of a T or an I?

'Tumbled T'. Wasn't he one of the Whitechapel Murders suspects? I agree. The oblique leg on the right should be thicker if it were an A. It does remain though, there is a corresponding left oblique leg too. Its foot gives the effect of an elongated foot to the foot of the overlying T. Could the underlying letter be an inverted or mirrored V?

Who knows? I suppose, most likely the price of a currency piece in the same grade plus a bit of a premium. William & Mary proof halfpennies and farthings turn up in everything from FDC down to VG, and they all seem to sell ok. It was sold to me simply as a 1717 halfpenny. It was me who noticed it could be a proof specimen. I've no intention of selling anyway. It was just something I thought fellow Forum members might like to see

Good point P. Worth mentioning though that the appalling quality of original strike has to be considered when looking at this series. I have some examples which would grade as VF or better yet some areas have been so weakly struck as to leave those parts of the design less visible (rather than as a result of wear). Did you notice my coin and the Nicholson good fine/fine example both have the exact same little bit of extra metal/die clutter near Brit's arm in the reverse field? Not important, just interesting. They must have been struck quite closely to each other. Any thoughts regarding the underlying oblique bar and extension to the foot of the T on the lefthand side?