Leaderboard

Hi H. Sadly, not a lot to go on here! So, it's Tower (of London) mint, as are the majority. The privy (mint) mark is Tun so it was struck between 14 Feb 1636- 8 May 1638. And it has a cross with small neat ends over the reverse shield, so Group F. If I had to guess, I'd say F3/1 which is Spink 2796. Clipped and worn. People like eye appeal (or at least a clear mint mark and identifiable portrait), so it's not going to fetch much I'm afraid. £10-£20 maybe?

Crowns were not struck for George III until very late into his reign in 1818. The standard of striking of these crows was very high and they were delivered to banks wrapped in soft paper. Pistrucci placed his whole surname on both the obverse and reverse to indicate that he was the engraver for both. This was considered to be self indulgent and he was obliged to use just his initials B.P. in future. The St George and Dragon design became iconic but the garter belt was removed for later use. You won't be able to see it on your example due to wear, but the letters WWP (initials of the Master of the Mint) was put on the buckle of the garter. I imagine your example is worth about £100. The edge dinks would have taken the price down a bit.

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

Reverse looks great but a nice obverse is what people want , I would also say £20 tops . By the way its not a 12p coin

The 1862 plain-edge proof Gothic florin (2849 in Bull, who records it as "not traced") sold for $21,600 (including buyer's premium) at Heritage yesterday. At least we know that it exists now.

Awwwww thats great to hear, I really thought i was on a downward turn with some of the others. historically I was just buying blind and a real magpie, this has been another real great help, really thank you all for the time taken and the input, Rgds "H"

That's the main reason I keep my coins in quadrums - in order to protect them from friction and dust. I do admit that quadrums are not so appropriate for hammered...

They both look like the real things are supposed to - the writing on the edge is the lettered edge that was done when the coin was struck in a lettered collar. It was quite an innovation for the 17th century and was obviously used on higher denomination coins as a safeguard against clipping and counterfeiting. Unfortunately I don't have my 1676 crown imaged - but it circulated a long time - deep into the 18th century as it is also "loved"

When I first started to collect Victorian Copper pennies, I thought that Bramah’s 1843 and 1844 DFF (varieties 3b and 4b) must only occur on a single reverse die. Several years ago, however, I managed to obtain a decent example of an 1843 DFF; this allowed me to see that the colon positions on this 1843 DFF were surprisingly in slightly different positions to the 1844 DFF which I already owned. Since then, I have been left wondering how the minting process has repeated such an exact defect in 1844 as had occurred on the 1843 issue…..but on two different reverse dies. On closer examination of my own collection, I now find that I seem to have two different 1844 DFF reverse dies. These two 1844 DFF’s have die flaws running through FID which appear to be slightly different. I attach pictures of these flaws, note in particular the point at which the flaw exits the right hand side of the I of FID. The flaws are very similar, but not exactly the same, and I think must prove they are struck from different reverse dies. Again, there are some slight differences in colon positions, which further confirms they are two different 1844 reverses. I would be grateful if any member can shed some light on how this particular ‘blocked die’ defect could appear on at least 3 different reverses, and look exactly the same on all of them? Is it possible perhaps that a Master die had this defect and that it was transferred to working dies? I am not an expert in that area, so would appreciate thoughts please.