What can you tell me about this coin? 0

[OUTCAST]

What can tou tell me about this coin?

Edited September 12, 2019 by OUTCAST

[VKurtB]

1957 British pre-decimal threepence, or "thruppence". It was demonetized at the time of decimalization in 1971. It was worth 1/80 of a pound sterling, or half a sixpence, or 1/4 of a shilling. So a little over a current penny. Plated, they make awesome cufflinks. I own a pair. If you can find a really nice 1959, that's the ugliest one in my set, and I'd buy it from you in a heartbeat.

Edited September 12, 2019 by VKurtB

[OUTCAST]

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

1957 British pre-decimal threepence, or "thruppence". It was demonetized at the time of decimalization in 1971. It was worth 1/80 of a pound sterling, so a little over a current penny. Plated, they make awesome cufflinks. I own a pair.

ok thanks.What about this one just do not tell me the dots its corrosion.Can you recognise matte proofs?

[OUTCAST]

9 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

1957 British pre-decimal threepence, or "thruppence". It was demonetized at the time of decimalization in 1971. It was worth 1/80 of a pound sterling, or half a sixpence, or 1/4 of a shilling. So a little over a current penny. Plated, they make awesome cufflinks. I own a pair. If you can find a really nice 1959, that's the ugliest one in my set, and I'd buy it from you in a heartbeat.

I have got 1940 1946 red dated 1945,1955,1957,1965

[VKurtB]

There were no 1965 proofs, matte or otherwise. You have corrosion. Sorry. There were 1953 proofs, then not again until 1970. ISSUED FOR THE PUBLIC.

Edited September 13, 2019 by VKurtB
Added the last shouting line.

[Greenstang]

Why are you posting this coin in two different sections? You got the same answer there and yes that is corrosion. What else turns copper green.

[OUTCAST]

3 hours ago, VKurtB said:

There were no 1965 proofs, matte or otherwise. You have corrosion. Sorry. There were 1953 proofs, then not again until 1970.

This specimen was lot 23090 in Stack's Bowers NYINC sale (New York, January 2018), where it sold for $660. The catalog description^[1] noted, "GREAT BRITAIN. 3 Pence, 1957. NGC PROOF-65. Struck in brass. A common coin that is RARE in proof. Deep bronze toning with hues of blue and purple.Are you sure there is no proofs after 1953?

[coinsandmedals]

6 hours ago, VKurtB said:

There were no 1965 proofs, matte or otherwise. You have corrosion. Sorry. There were 1953 proofs, then not again until 1970.

Although VKurtB is correct about the corrosion on this coin, he is mistaken about no proof coins being struck between 1953 and 1970. Proof 3 pence coins were struck from 1954 thru 1967 and then again in 1970; however, only a very small number were made. The proof strikes were not to be released. Yes, these coins do exist; however, EVERYTHING you have posted pictures of in this thread so far has been an ordinary business strike. It may be helpful for you to review the difference between a proof coin and a business (circulation) strike. Click here for more information about proof coins.

Edited September 13, 2019 by coinsandmedals
Added the link

[VKurtB]

3 hours ago, coinsandmedals said:

Although VKurtB is correct about the corrosion on this coin, he is mistaken about no proof coins being struck between 1953 and 1970. Proof 3 pence coins were struck from 1954 thru 1967 and then again in 1970; however, only a very small number were made. The proof strikes were not to be released. Yes, these coins do exist; however, EVERYTHING you have posted pictures of in this thread so far has been an ordinary business strike. It may be helpful for you to review the difference between a proof coin and a business (circulation) strike. Click here for more information about proof coins.

The Spink catalog (think Red Book for U.K.) shows no proofs listed between 1953 and 1970. To the extent they exist at all, they are synonymous to the 1974 aluminum Lincoln cent. Unreleased may as well not exist, for the collector market. Even the Cuhaj and Michael World Catalog offers a value for them, but nary a word about mintages. None were made available to the public.

Edited September 13, 2019 by VKurtB

[coinsandmedals]

15 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

The Spink catalog (think Red Book for U.K.) shows no proofs listed between 1953 and 1970. To the extent they exist at all, they are synonymous to the 1974 aluminum Lincoln cent. Unreleased may as well not exist, for the collector market. Even the Cuhaj and Michael World Catalog offers a value for them, but nary a word about mintages. None were made available to the public.

I primarily collect English coins so I am very familiar with Spink. Much like the Red Book, it is really only good for a general reference. I find some of the earlier specialist books to be way more helpful. These particular coins are entirely too modern for my taste so I must admit I haven’t devoted any attention to them until I read this thread. Your point about the 1974 aluminum cent is interesting, but I disagree with the sentiment that it might as well not exist. Some of the early English pattern pieces were never meant to be released and yet I’ve been able to acquire them within my very limited resources. To further this point, the mintage of some of these pieces was likely less than a dozen (with an estimated survival rate in the single digits), which is far outscored by the over 1.7 million of the aluminum cents produced before being destroyed (not sure of the survival rate and really don’t care). Also, the lack of mintage information is not uncommon when it comes to world coins. Just because it is not listed does not mean it does not exist.To any extent, you did make the claim that none were made; however, based on facts and not an opinion that statement is incorrect. 

[VKurtB]

9 hours ago, coinsandmedals said:

I primarily collect English coins so I am very familiar with Spink. Much like the Red Book, it is really only good for a general reference. I find some of the earlier specialist books to be way more helpful. These particular coins are entirely too modern for my taste so I must admit I haven’t devoted any attention to them until I read this thread. Your point about the 1974 aluminum cent is interesting, but I disagree with the sentiment that it might as well not exist. Some of the early English pattern pieces were never meant to be released and yet I’ve been able to acquire them within my very limited resources. To further this point, the mintage of some of these pieces was likely less than a dozen (with an estimated survival rate in the single digits), which is far outscored by the over 1.7 million of the aluminum cents produced before being destroyed (not sure of the survival rate and really don’t care). Also, the lack of mintage information is not uncommon when it comes to world coins. Just because it is not listed does not mean it does not exist.To any extent, you did make the claim that none were made; however, based on facts and not an opinion that statement is incorrect. 

So then offer me an opinion on this - if these are around in extremely small quantities, like single or even double digits, what are the chances some new collector just happens to stumble upon one by accident? That's what we're talking about here.  

[coinsandmedals]

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

So then offer me an opinion on this - if these are around in extremely small quantities, like single or even double digits, what are the chances some new collector just happens to stumble upon one by accident? That's what we're talking about here.  

I think you missed the point of my response. I am not arguing that the OP's coins are proof. They are not. I am also not arguing that a new collector has even the remotest chance of stumbling upon one. What I am arguing is that nonexistence and practical nonexistence are not the same things. These coins do exist; however, as you have already pointed out they are so rare that they have little practical existence in the hobby for the average collector. You and I have the same opinion on this point, but an opinion is not fact. I am trying to make this abundantly clear for someone who might read this thread several years down the road. 

[VKurtB]

9 minutes ago, coinsandmedals said:

I think you missed the point of my response. I am not arguing that the OP's coins are proof. They are not. I am also not arguing that a new collector has even the remotest chance of stumbling upon one. What I am arguing is that nonexistence and practical nonexistence are not the same things. These coins do exist; however, as you have already pointed out they are so rare that they have little practical existence in the hobby for the average collector. You and I have the same opinion on this point, but an opinion is not fact. I am trying to make this abundantly clear for someone who might read this thread several years down the road. 

Thank you, and I agree with every word. What MY goal is is the stopping of this mania about newbie collectors finding extremely rare pieces just lying about hither and yon. NGC discussion boards are becoming "YouTube Lite" and it is annoying the bejabbers out of me. The idea that when these DO pop up that they only bring about $600-$700 or so IS astounding. This OP does have some highly suspicious "luck" with ultra-rarities.

 

BTW, I'm glad your U.K. package finally made it to you, even if it DID have to gain so much time over the Atlantic.

Edited September 13, 2019 by VKurtB

[coinsandmedals]

8 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Thank you, and I agree with every word. What MY goal is is the stopping of this mania about newbie collectors finding extremely rare pieces just lying about hither and yon. NGC discussion boards are becoming "YouTube Lite" and it is annoying the bejabbers out of me. The idea that when these DO pop up that they only bring about $600-$700 or so IS astounding. This OP does have some highly suspicious "luck" with ultra-rarities.

 

BTW, I'm glad your U.K. package finally made it to you, even if it DID have to gain so much time over the Atlantic.

I completely understand what you mean. There were a few newbies that showed up before your time here that were a complete nightmare. It can be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to bring someone to reason. The amount of misinformation out there is astounding. I suppose the only way to combat that is to spread true and accurate information. 

You and I both. I was seriously worried about that package. It had some stuff that I wasn't sure I would be able to replace in the near future if it were lost. Your comment about the ricochet biscuit made me laugh pretty hard. 

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, coinsandmedals said:

I completely understand what you mean. There were a few newbies that showed up before your time here that were a complete nightmare. It can be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to bring someone to reason. The amount of misinformation out there is astounding. I suppose the only way to combat that is to spread true and accurate information. 

You and I both. I was seriously worried about that package. It had some stuff that I wasn't sure I would be able to replace in the near future if it were lost. Your comment about the ricochet biscuit made me laugh pretty hard. 

Your experience with that package had me reliving (having a flashback?) about a Royal Mint shipment.

 

All my Elizabeth II thruppence have some nice mint luster except my 1959. It's not as bad as "Spot" upthread, but it's no beauty either. My whole brass thruppence set is complete, both monarchs, but it's upgrading time. I'm also working on a shilling set by Spink number, not date.

Edited September 13, 2019 by VKurtB

[OUTCAST]

3 hours ago, coinsandmedals said:

I think you missed the point of my response. I am not arguing that the OP's coins are proof. They are not. I am also not arguing that a new collector has even the remotest chance of stumbling upon one. What I am arguing is that nonexistence and practical nonexistence are not the same things. These coins do exist; however, as you have already pointed out they are so rare that they have little practical existence in the hobby for the this coinaverage collector. You and I have the same opinion on this point, but an opinion is not fact. I am trying to make this abundantly clear for someone who might read this thread several years down the road. 

You don`t understand anything guys.I am the last member of forgotten ?? familly.It`s impossible for you,or other people to know this coin.I am not new collector as you might think.I showed you uniqe example that you considering as a scrap.Designer did it perfectly. Hard work to look like this.Toning process isn`t finished yet, the dots change the colour at least 3 times.I`v got other coins with yellow or purple dots I watch the process since long time.I don`t understand the way of your thinking,if you see blue dots on reverse wchich is not considered as corrosion,you are saying that green dots on obverse it`s corrosion.Didn`t you think this is not coinsidence?

[coinsandmedals]

7 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Your experience with that package had me reliving (having a flashback?) about a Royal Mint shipment.

 

All my Elizabeth II thruppence have some nice mint luster except my 1959. It's not as bad as "Spot" upthread, but it's no beauty either. My whole brass thruppence set is complete, both monarchs, but it's upgrading time. I'm also working on a shilling set by Spink number, not date.

Although I hate to hear of your similar struggle, I am glad that you were able to relate to concern on a personal level. I have actually had pretty good luck with international packages (knock on wood). This was really the first package that had me worried. 

It seems as though there is always that one coin that ends up being the odd man out. Good luck with the shilling set! 

 

[coinsandmedals]

3 hours ago, OUTCAST said:

You don`t understand anything guys.I am the last member of forgotten ?? familly.It`s impossible for you,or other people to know this coin.I am not new collector as you might think.I showed you uniqe example that you considering as a scrap.Designer did it perfectly. Hard work to look like this.Toning process isn`t finished yet, the dots change the colour at least 3 times.I`v got other coins with yellow or purple dots I watch the process since long time.I don`t understand the way of your thinking,if you see blue dots on reverse wchich is not considered as corrosion,you are saying that green dots on obverse it`s corrosion.Didn`t you think this is not coinsidence?

 The reason why we are dismissing this coin as "scrap" (not sure why you used this word as the intrinsic value of the coin is so minimal) is because it is a damaged coin. Being from a "forgotten family" or you being an "experienced" collector has nothing to do with my evaluation. The spots are corrosion. The mint does not intentionally produce toned coins as you imply. If you have other coins with yellow or purple dots I would seriously consider changing the way you store them. Also, who in this thread said the blue or green dots are not corrosion? They are in fact corrosion. Even if the dots were not (which just to be perfectly clear they certainly are) the coin is not a proof. A novice with a basic understanding of the minting process can determine that. I think you have a classic case of seeing what you want to see as opposed to remaining objective and looking at the hard facts.

[ColonialCoinsUK]

As a collector, also based in the UK, I thought I would contribute to this thread - my Dad used to call the brass threepence 'shrapnel' as it was very heavy to have a pocket full of change and much preferred shillings and pennies instead, as a result we always had bags of brass 3d's which went back to the bank so people didn't have to carry them around!

Proofs were issued in sets in 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953 (plus special proofs from sand blasted dies) and 1970 which were available to the public, there are proofs for the other years but these are very rare and are often referred to a 'VIP proofs' although the term 'proof of record' has been used alot over the last couple of years, the Stacks example in this thread is one of these. Coincraft's Standard catalogue of English & UK Coins 1066 to Date has a full list, including the 'VIP Proofs'. It is only worth collecting Elizabeth II issues in Brilliant Unicirculated and these later dates are usually available for a $/£1 or so at the most and some coin dealers here in the UK will sell them by the bagful which would work out at about 10 pence each which is why there are very few graded examples of these coins - the rare 1946 and 1949 issues being the exception.

The 1965 example in this thread is a circulation issue and damaged resulting in verdegris on the surface (which can have slightly different colours and change with time and the conditions the coin is kept in) and is effectively worthless. I can recommend 'The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' by Derek Allen as I have found this useful of the years - now seems to be available in paperback.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Standard-Guide-Grading-British-Coins/dp/0948964561/ref=asc_df_0948964561/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310977525294&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4689948517733290315&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006659&hvtargid=pla-628664944557&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

 

[VKurtB]

22 hours ago, ColonialCoinsUK said:

As a collector, also based in the UK, I thought I would contribute to this thread - my Dad used to call the brass threepence 'shrapnel' as it was very heavy to have a pocket full of change and much preferred shillings and pennies instead, as a result we always had bags of brass 3d's which went back to the bank so people didn't have to carry them around!

Proofs were issued in sets in 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953 (plus special proofs from sand blasted dies) and 1970 which were available to the public, there are proofs for the other years but these are very rare and are often referred to a 'VIP proofs' although the term 'proof of record' has been used alot over the last couple of years, the Stacks example in this thread is one of these. Coincraft's Standard catalogue of English & UK Coins 1066 to Date has a full list, including the 'VIP Proofs'. It is only worth collecting Elizabeth II issues in Brilliant Unicirculated and these later dates are usually available for a $/£1 or so at the most and some coin dealers here in the UK will sell them by the bagful which would work out at about 10 pence each which is why there are very few graded examples of these coins - the rare 1946 and 1949 issues being the exception.

The 1965 example in this thread is a circulation issue and damaged resulting in verdegris on the surface (which can have slightly different colours and change with time and the conditions the coin is kept in) and is effectively worthless. I can recommend 'The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' by Derek Allen as I have found this useful of the years - now seems to be available in paperback.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Standard-Guide-Grading-British-Coins/dp/0948964561/ref=asc_df_0948964561/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310977525294&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4689948517733290315&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006659&hvtargid=pla-628664944557&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

 

Do you suppose I will be able to pick up a copy of this book while I'm at the Bloomsbury Coin Fair in December?

[VKurtB]

On 9/13/2019 at 7:52 PM, coinsandmedals said:

 The reason why we are dismissing this coin as "scrap" (not sure why you used this word as the intrinsic value of the coin is so minimal) is because it is a damaged coin. Being from a "forgotten family" or you being an "experienced" collector has nothing to do with my evaluation. The spots are corrosion. The mint does not intentionally produce toned coins as you imply. If you have other coins with yellow or purple dots I would seriously consider changing the way you store them. Also, who in this thread said the blue or green dots are not corrosion? They are in fact corrosion. Even if the dots were not (which just to be perfectly clear they certainly are) the coin is not a proof. A novice with a basic understanding of the minting process can determine that. I think you have a classic case of seeing what you want to see as opposed to remaining objective and looking at the hard facts.

This last line may as well be considered the official visual disease of this entire forum.

[VKurtB]

For those who do not know, doing business with the Royal Mint from the U.S. is a pleasure. It's the mail personnel that sometimes mess things up, but the Royal Mint treats its U.S. customers like VIP's.

[ColonialCoinsUK]

6 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Do you suppose I will be able to pick up a copy of this book while I'm at the Bloomsbury Coin Fair in December?

You should be able to if Predecimal.com/Rotographic(coinpublications.com) are there, other dealers do stock their books too so, particularly the price guides, but it may be worth asking beforehand as they may not bring everything with them!

[VKurtB]

33 minutes ago, ColonialCoinsUK said:

You should be able to if Predecimal.com/Rotographic(coinpublications.com) are there, other dealers do stock their books too so, particularly the price guides, but it may be worth asking beforehand as they may not bring everything with them!

I'm more interested in a good U.K.-specific grading guide.

[ColonialCoinsUK]

22 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I'm more interested in a good U.K.-specific grading guide.

Apologies for any misunderstanding, 'Predecimal.com/Rotographic(coinpublications.com)' are the publishers of the Standard Guide to Grading British Coins.

[VKurtB]

21 hours ago, ColonialCoinsUK said:

Apologies for any misunderstanding, 'Predecimal.com/Rotographic(coinpublications.com)' are the publishers of the Standard Guide to Grading British Coins.

I’ve ordered a used one in hard cover.