Martinminerva

I now attach close ups of the b in brit and the v in 1858. You can see a subtle difference in the font with a little cross-piece on the genuine b which is lacking in the v. Hope that helps!

They are gothic font v's, not b's, but with the ornate script, the large serifs on the font, and with flattening caused by wear they can look a bit like b's to the untrained eye. There are no variants of these two dates apart from various die numbers - tiny little numbers - below Victorias's bust on the 1875 piece, and so no additional rarity values. Have a trawl of eBay and you'll see exactly what I mean about the font style and the v's getting flattened to look like b's. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but hope it helps...

I have also now come across one of these with the small inverted 8 over a normal upright 8 (and forked tail to 6), but in pretty decent condition. Are they recorded anywhere? Not on aboutfarthings.com, I see... How rare are they, or indeed how worthy of note?

Think I am now getting somewhere: have been directed to this part of the Royal Mint website (below). These would appear to be the samples issued to the coin operated equipment industry so as to prepare for the changeover. But they are not being released to mere mortals, and reference to "terms and conditions" makes me think that they don't want them getting out to the general public, though clearly they are! Anyone on here actually got one? I wouldn't mind one just as a curiosity!

Here's a few other photos of similar pieces culled from eBay in better resolution. They do seem very believable, especially the obverse with the micro lettering of ONE POUND in the sloping angles, which I have read about somewhere is going to be a security feature. Has anyone on the forum got / bought one, or can offer further information? I find it curious these have started appearing but there is nothing about them on the net... All I have seen is George Osbourne (remember him?!) holding a trial piece up for the cameras when the forthcoming new shape pound was first announced in the press a couple of years ago, and it does look like the same design. I am very suspicious that these may not be the real deal, but intrigued at the same time.

Ok - so what's the story behind these? They have been cropping up now on eBay and the like for a month or so, selling in the £200 region, but often with curious statements like "found in my change" or "won in a fruit machine" which makes me suspicious. They look good and 'genuine', but I haven't been able to find any information about them on the net. Where are they originating from? How many are there? Are the Royal Mint selling them off, but if so, how and where? Is there another source?? Or are they very clever replicas/copies? If the latter, then perhaps the real ones to be issued next year are not so counterfeit-proof after all !?

Paddy is exactly right! The Battle of Britain coin was issued in sets and folders only initially (last year I think it was), and that was before the change of portrait. The circulation pieces issued more recently all have the new portrait. So it's not an error, but it is a valid variety! Regarding the lines over the face swimming 50p, that too is not strictly an error but a (very rare) first issue before a change of design. The coin once minted proved to be too indistinct, so it was hastily redesigned with the lines removed and then issued in big numbers. Not sure how many first issue rare ones there were released, but certainly doesn't seem to be many. They tend to go for £800 plus.

Indeed, the edge writing is put onto decimal blanks first by being squeezed through rollers, then the lettered blanks are hopper fed in a totally separate process into a normal coining press with a plain milled collar. As the letters are incuse, the milling doesn't tend to obliterate the letters, though some metal flow can result in those very common "pemember" type 'errors' with missing serifs and the like. But since they are hopper fed, there is a 50:50 chance as to which way up they land in the coining press! So all those eBay "rarities" are anything but - there will be the same number of each!! Just check out a handful of pocket change, and you'll have examples both ways up. Has anyone actually paid hundreds to an eBay seller for such a coin?? Doesn't it cost them money to list them if they are buy-it-nows? Surely these sellers will soon learn that these coins are worth just a pound! Or two, if it's a two pound coin!! Anyway, welcome indeed - going through change is a great way to start into coin collecting, and then with a bit of reading up on things, including this forum, you'll soon get into the swing of things and start to push your collection back into pre-decimal lines.

Can you or anyone post a picture of the 1843 groat with 4 over 5?? I have been looking for one of these for ages, and have never even seen a convincing specimen!! Yet in the catalogues very little premium value is suggested.

It is most definitely a die number 4, and therefore one heck of a find. Michael Gouby in his latest penny book reports that 15 of this die number are known (so now 16, I guess!), which is the most "common" of all the die numbered 1863 pennies , but nevertheless there'll be a lot of people on this forum well impressed - me included. He values them at £600 in fair and £1250 in fine, so I would think this one out of the ground and in about fair condition might be worth £500 or so. But if you put it into auction, you never know what might happen if two ardent penny collectors battle over it - and there's every chance of that given some previous auction results. Well done!!

Looks very much a 9+M to me. Diagnostics are the CONVEX - actually - shield (yes, Freeman has got it wrong here) and the seven border beads inclusive between the 2 colons in D : G : - Obverse 11 which is the usual one paired with the mint mark has 8 border teeth here. The H mint mark only occurs for 1881 on reverse M, so unless it has been doctored ( just occasionally H 's can be cut off other coins and stuck on new ones - London Coins sold an "1875H" narrow date penny last sale where that was exactly what had been done, as genuine 1875 H pennies always have a wide date), you have made a very rare find indeed. Gouby (yes, a brilliant book and well worth getting, even if I say so myself (I get a quick credit in his acknowledgements!)) records it as number BP 1881 Ga and his die pair is M + p, and states that only 5 are known, so yours will be a sixth - well done indeed! He gives a value of £120 in fair, which actually seems a little low to me given its rarity. Just check out the H with a good eye glass first!!

Can anyone paste in what it says, out of interest? I don't have that Feb issue...

I'm now attaching a bigger and better resolution image of 1853 groat a from my previous list (attachments were in reverse alphabetical order for some reason!). Do people really think it is a proof? The border beads are significantly doubled in many places and some of the legend letters are doubled/ghosted too. I would have said this was the best bet for a currency specimen due to the dodgy standard of strike. It is milled edge, upright axis like currency specimens (though some proofs have this too of course).

Here are the four 1853's that I have culled pictures of from ebay over the last 10 years or so (reverses only, I'm afraid). 1853 groat a displays that same "bulbous" 5 and damaged/repaired 3 as I mentioned above, yet would appear to be a currency specimen: some of the beads are heavily doubled - and indeed so are some of the letters. I suppose a proof die could then be put into service afterwards for currency strikes? 1853 groat b certainly looks currency! But I guess both of these first two could be heavily circulated proofs? c and d would seem to be proof, albeit c rather toned. Does this help, or confuse the issue?! (by the way, they seem to have been attached in reverse order d, c, b, a. !!)

Very interestingly, the last one of the three examples has a markedly diiferent font for the digit 5 from the other two (with an 'indented' top bar, squatter shape and more bulbous loop, exactly like the 5 in the rare 1852 groats), and also the 3 seems to have been repaired/repunched extensively, especially in the top loop. Would a proof display such a poor repair?

And for that matter, has anyone ever seen / got a picture of a definite 1843 over 53 (or 4 over 5) groat?? Catalogues suggest not much premium over the standard date, but I've been looking out for this overdate for ages and am yet to see a convincing specimen!

Here's another angle which I think shows the D and G curvatures better; there is a distinct change in the width of the curvature about two-thirds of the way down the "G", perhaps a sign of where the repair punch was located? Additionally, I have just noticed that the lower colon (or "top" one, the way the picture is orientated) has clearly been re-entered. This is clear on all the pictures, so would suggest to me indeed is is a blundered repair. If it's not a G, what is it?!

Here's a new one to me: an 1842 shilling with the D of FD repaired with an inverted G punch. I know of the rare 1857 inverted G variety with a similar repair, but have never seen it on another date. It seems to be a repair, rather than an error: it is not very clear from the pictures, but the underlying curve of the D can be detected beneath the new curve of the G, and the "top" serif of the G (ie. the original bottom serif of the D) is much thicker than the original. Anyone seen one, or got a picture of one in better condition? Shame this one is so worn, esp. on the reverse!

London Coins Auction 128 (Jul 2010) Lot 1738. Thanks for that info, Nick! £140 hammer price for the Unc specimen there sounds like quite a bargain someone got! Anyone got another??

In Peter Davies' British Silver Coins book, he declares that all 1898 Victorian sixpences have the date in larger figures than all the other veiled head years. Indeed, until now all those I had ever come across had the larger figures, though I do vaguely remember reading somewhere that at long last a specimen with small figures had turned up (anyone remember where that was?) Well, another one has turned up - please see the images. Interestingly, as well as the smaller digits, the 1 of the date is over a bead, rather than a space as is usual on the larger figured specimens. Worth recording?

Getting quite common now lol.....Your example has some old cleaning MartinP, or do we call you Mr Platt? Not convinced it does, actually - in the hand it seems more like just genuine circulation wear and thus rubbing to the high spots. I don't understand the Platt reference at all, I'm afraid... Who's that?? Ain't me!

?? Dracott, not heard of this reference before David Coin News, April, May and July 2004. Quite interesting and detailed study! Cheers.

I have since tracked down and obtained the Dracott articles and can now spot reverse C# with ease! (narrower lighthouse, P and E of PENNY in particular closer to the linear circle etc.) I have also recently obtained a specimen of the pairing 7+C#, which makes two of them known now, and it is in pretty decent condition - pictures attached. I also know of 4 more examples of the 8+C# pairing, which brings their total to at least 9. Do both pairings now warrant some sort of official recording somewhere? I wonder how many more specimens of either pairing are out and about, but as yet unidentfied?

I am afraid I am showing my ignorance here, but how does your Reverse C# differ from Freeman's Reverse G? Can you give me any specific pointers for me to be able to use your two detailed scans to differentiate them from what I believe I have in my collection which is the common Reverse G? Thanks.

I have recently come across this 1855 groat on which the final 5 seems quite clearly to be over a 3. As far as I can tell, it is unrecorded. I am aware of specimens on which the final 5 is double entered over a lower 5 (indeed I have one of those too), but this specimen seems unequivocally to be over a 3 as the diagonal down-bar is very evident. The lower "bulb" of the 3 is clear too, and different in shape and position from the double entered 5 that seems more common. Do you think this IS a 5 over 3?? Does anyone else have one in better, clearer condition? Does it merit being recorded as a hitherto unknown variety?