Leaderboard

This is bad enough to elicit a moan as it is precisely things like this that lead to ever higher numbers on slabs. Overgraded items languish in their slabs to the end of time, whereas those with a chance of receiving a higher grade are broken out and resubmitted. How this got anywhere near a 60+ number escapes me, but it only encourages the resubmission of a less bad example to try for a 64 or 65 label. From the next DNW sale, a 63 slabbed P1051. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=507&lot_id=50957 And my EF example of the same type, which I would contest, wins every time.

Hi, I found this coin a couple of weeks back but have only just recently spotted that it reads Henrics and not Henricus. So far I haven’t been able to find any parallels and was hoping you guys might be able to help, thanks. Richard

Thanks - useful info. A different one I tried

Glad you liked it. It's so worth the wait for the ridiculousness to really build, and everyone is on top form. You would also like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfawvs5PouA

I deleted the images to stop clogging up the thread. I originally added them to prove the upload facility was functioning properly.

This whole thread should really be in the Hammered forum

Any effort is better than none. Here's a couple to get you started. 1887 £2 & £5 known as 'Beirut' copies, as they came out of the middle-east in the 1960s. The degree of misalignment is as indicated. The weight is marginally down on the genuine article and the edge milling count is appropriately wrong. The mint analysed them in the late 60s and established them to be approx. 0.890 fine. Apart from that, there is nothing wrong with them.

Edward I 10cf2 for me, Paddy 👍

In a email conversation I had with Michael Freeman he stated the following with regard to issuing Freeman numbers versus Footnotes. I had a firm rule that I would never include in my catalogue any coin unless I myself had actually examined one. and If I were to write the book again, I would still not assign a catalogue number to any "dot" variety; but would still be consistent, and mention it in a footnote. I have a feeling he must have examined the 1897 dot however.

It's just that - having no interest in hammered - I ignore the forum completely, so it's good not to see hammered in other forums!