Leaderboard

Here is one, that is kind of hard to find, a 1922 Penny, with "Dot" on center trident.

Another quick update: been to the house and checked out the lawn. I identified the 'hollow' where I expected the coins / seals to be, then scanned the area with my metal detector. The wold lawn returned some cracking signals, so where to start.... The owner allowed me to dig a few test pits... but unfortunately, these did not bring up any coins... just other junk my father must have buried over the years... brass bed knob, lump of lead, large copper pipe and a large mangled aluminium plate.... so no luck this time. Good news is, the couple are now hooked on the story as week and are keen to explore further - maybe a further survey, and maybe with Geophys... watch this space Andi

Although I can't shed any additional light on this topic, I too would be interested in hearing more about these pellets! There was certainly no relevant information in the Galata Guide to the Pennies of Edward I & II or in any of my other hammered books.

According to Withers , “The Galatea guide to the Pennies of Edward I and II”those with terminal stops at the end of the legend are all 10cf

not the greatest pictures, not the greatest condition but i love the one year only design, a shilling or half crown would be nice 1821 sixpence

I’m not Irish you know,😂

Ohhhh....chest straps on St.George!!!!! And there was me thinking you meant Victoria.....

Cheers. If you've any idea let us know. I suspect its a class 10 just can't tie it down precisely. The Edward Longcross series isn't my strongest area. If anyone knows why the pellets are put there and for what reason I'd love to know. Seems odd why some have them and others don't and also back to Richards original question "Are they rare"

When it comes to the mark up on a coin ,it is the dealers coin and he can ask whatever price he wants for it (If someone is happy to pay over the odds,thats up to them).over generous grading and wrongly attributing of varieties etc is different That's false advertising (lying).If they can't grade the coin fairly or can't attribute it correctly , then they shouldn't .

Loving it, make plenty of notes and pictures, it could make a great write-up somewhere

getting more interesting by the day

Sorry i cant see it at all on the picture and the tiny white mark (if thats it) is in the wrong place. My opinion is the coin has been cleaned. Pete.

Cache problems certainly sounds most likely. Have you cleared your cache recently as part of a clean up? Or maybe manually deleted some of it? The web pages could be looking for the avatars in the cache and not finding them. If you haven't flushed the cache recently, try that. Webpages will be slower to load for a bit while the system replaces all the components, but you will have got rid of a lot of junk too. Try as a quick fix, when you have one of the broken avatars on the screen, hitting Shift-F5. That does a "hard refresh" (or at least it used to in older windows and hasn't been superceded). The webpage should refresh ignoring the cache and reloading all components, and that may fix the problem.

I suspect that the answer to this puzzle may be something running in parallel to what is known for the 1848 half crown. The article in the 1958 BNJ (p.191-193) using information supplied by Stride refers but the gist is as follows. At the time it was thought that all 1848 2/6ds were 1848/6, but in 1957 two 1848's appeared which were unambiguously not over anything. (The 1848/7 was unknown at this time.) It was known that there were 4 obverse matrices from 1845-1853 and the number of punches was increased from 6-7 in July 1846.Based on the numbers of known dies that were in stock according to the mint records, it was possible to assign the numbers of variously dated dies at the year ends. Year end 1846 there were 35 obv. dies, all of which would have been dated 1846, 28 were sunk between July and December. Jan & Feb 1847 16 obverse dies were sunk but it is not known if they were dated or not (thought unlikely at the time of the article). During the year, 22 of the 35 1846 dated obverses were destroyed. It is thought the remaining 13 were used to strike 1847 coins but without the date altered. 347,488 2/6ds were struck in 1847, though none dated 1847 are known. Only 91,872 were struck in 1848 with the bulk being supplied by recut 1846 dies. At this point in time there was a sharp fall in demand for 2/6ds, so the 13 remaining 1846 dies would have been sufficient to strike the small issue at just over 33000 per die if all were used. All of the 1848 dies examined appeared to have a misplaced E in DEI, but the plain date 1848 is from a die without the misplaced E which ought therefore be one of the 16 dies sunk in 1847 from the new punch, but completed in 1848. The matter is then complicated somewhat by the 1848/7 die which also has a misplaced E in DEI, as do some but not all 1849 and 1850 dies, so the conclusions of the above article need to be revised. For about 5 years from 1847-1851 there was a considerable reduction in mint output with halfcrowns, shillings, sixpences and even small silver having gaps in the dates or very low mintages - probably related to the proposed decimalisation given the large output of Godless florins. Unfortunately, Hocking is not clear on this point as the only things listed are : two halfcrown punches dated 18-- (item nos. 1263 & 1264), plain fillets, one with w.w. on the truncation and also a matrix (item 1250) as for the 1839 proof but with 18--. It is therefore unclear where Stride got his information from. However, the existence of an 1847 sixpence is quite feasible based on the inferences that could be drawn from the half crowns. All that would be needed would be an undated die or one dated 18--. This would be in keeping with a misaligned date and from known pennies etc and retained mint material we know that dies were kept with either none or a partial date.