Leaderboard

Just been having a look and it seems to be a soldino of Leonard Loredan minted between 1501-1521 and apparently was brought to Britain by venetian merchants and was of the same value as a half penny but was illegal in Britain as it was slightly lighter than a half penny. Thanks,Luca

Yes your spot on. There will be exceptions and that like varieties is what keeps us interested as if you could find everything easily in a nice grade we would of all got bored and moved on by now. What i meant though was if you want to find something you have thousands of low grade ones to look at but alot less in high grade.The percentage is then stacked in finding a low grade one.You could probably find a couple of hundred of MOST dates today on ebay but the same date in high grade perhaps only a few. One such as Richards (on his site) 1862/1 is a true gem and extremely rare not just variety but grade and again an exception to the rule 😊 Most high grade ones will be in collections and already been checked.The 1864 you use as an example is similar to a variety loads of low grade ones but scarce/rare in EF or better. .With regards finding something such as a new variety and the reason why nobody has found them in the past is that it is much harder to find something if you dont know what your looking for.This is were the forum helps us and sites such as Richards with people good enough to share information and help each other. If you find ten minutes today Mike have a look at 1862 or any common year.......How many EF or better and how many rang tang 😊 Made me remember going to see someone in a macmillan hospital,they had a collection for coins know longer in circulation which was a great big thing.Sitting at the side of it i was thinking what varieties were in it as i doubt they had been checked by the people who were kind enough to almost fill it .I dont think there were any UNC ones though 😊

Maybe the photography detracts slightly on that one @Madness - perhaps a bit too much light on the obverse? Based on screen appearance I'd say VF on both sides.

The quote from the RM site said it was recorded as serviceable in the inventory, so that isn't speculation, but the level of wear, or rather lack of it on the punch suggests it wasn't used extensively before, or even at all after it broke. Hocking catalogued two volumes concerning the inventory of the RM archived material. Volume 1 in 1906 recorded the coins and tokens, whilst volume 2 in 1910 recorded the dies (including punches), medals and seals. This 1711 shilling has the F of FR with an unusually long bottom. The bottom right serif starts to expand as it would on an E punch, and also extends beyond the centre arm which I can't find any examples of where the F is perfectly formed. Whatever, it is not a clean punch.The question is this. Is it a defective E punch, or has the bottom been reinforced using only a fraction of a punch in the form of a partial bottom limb only of an E? It is also possible that they started with only an I punch, with all limbs added subsequently. Up to the 1700s, there is frequent use of composite letters made from a few punches which muddies the water somewhat. In the somewhat chaotic circumstances of the Civil War, there is a defective T or L(?) punch which doubles for T, L, I and the uprights of H. It's movement can be traced around the various mints, helping to establish the chronology of various issues.

It's an old one but it did make me laugh out loud when I first heard it.

father ted rip gone too soon