Test Jump to content
The British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/02/2025 in all areas

  1. I think all these alterations add to the history. A plug means someone thought it interesting enough to use as a medallion or touch piece, then someone later felt it was interesting enough to repair. Engravings are often love tokens or claims to ownership. A split or fragment means it has been in the ground for some time. I think that is why I find perfect proof coins a bit dull.
    5 points
  2. 5 points
  3. Hi all! I’ve been collecting on and off for a few years but only recently decided to try and take it up seriously. Came across this Henry VII plugged groat at a fair which after some deliberation I decided to buy as apart from the plug I thought was a really nice example but just wondering what people’s views are on plugged coins generally - do other collectors avoid them altogether and do they hold any value? I thought the price was reasonable given the plug but wonder what others views are. Would others buy a plugged coin to fill a gap or go for a lower grade, non-damaged, coin instead? Thanks!
    4 points
  4. Not the best of pictures but here's the edge. It reads * SERJEANT WILLIAM GRANT , 1ST BAT 92ND HIGHLANDERS. I bought it online from a dealer in Glasgow who had omitted the edge details in the description of sale. I was a bit miffed at first until i did some research. He is Roll number 51 on the Waterloo medal database. He also composed a poem about the battle that was on a manuscript that was sold by Noonans in September 2006 (lot 1100)
    4 points
  5. some that I have picked up ages ago......
    4 points
  6. I guess most "serious" collectors would avoid plugged coins, or any other damage. But if that is the only way you can fill a gap within budget, then go for it! I have a number of damaged coins in my collection - some with engravings in the field, some ex-mount, some hammered even missing fragments, but they will fill the gaps until and unless I can afford to replace them with something better. Here, for example, is my William I penny. I would love to have one without the missing chunk, but until one comes along at a price I am happy with, it will stay with me. Your Henry VII, by the way, is a lovely example apart from the plug.
    4 points
  7. Dont know if this is any interest to anyone. Although i have posted in pennies, it also covers other bronze. These were amendments freeman made after his first bronze book, showing some that he had estimated to be less rare than he originally thought or at the time of print didnt know existed, such as the 1860 Halfpenny mule, 1870 Dot penny etc.
    4 points
  8. I'd say definitely 1735. This is what the 1733 date looks like:
    3 points
  9. Get in quick for this one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/187859014593?itmmeta=01KCWD3RSPGS13XT0BRGS6G0P9&hash=item2bbd4513c1:g:jDsAAeSwnv1pRbEi&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA4FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1fvsd0HwSoi3YVy3fEVKmzOU8EzcZuz8p%2FWljDDMPKaHkCqMoBVOUyU20uY%2Fk16edJXx5F6RDVCUVj8YBpZ0bcKH4TvJgCIt53fO1P%2BB7p7IPC3zyoGCpItoclwOlycCLt6syNuMKQL398SvgN%2FRbMQ5CT6ipDKzZzuKktdX4sH%2B8qBURpxXSMEif7ItzhiHxh%2FixUe1Ps9LJIKs31ia1sUwLyxkzevXuUrmv51nI5KQUj9qzfXRVg2jy%2BvtCqCJgBBXqOe%2Bv5PwAVO1oJdvZ50|tkp%3ABk9SR4aNj43nZg
    3 points
  10. The manuscript of the poem he wrote was sold at Noonans. https://www.noonans.co.uk/archive/lot-archive/results/131481/
    3 points
  11. It was the basis of the updates, subject to his future decisions. He later removed the milled penny (that I recently sold) from the catalog after receiving an assessment from the Royal Mint that it was a post mint alteration. Just as his 1970 edition was an extension of his several updated versions of his penny studies expanded to include half pennies, farthings, patterns, trials, etc. There are ALWAYS corrections, updates, modifications, etc to a work of this magnitude. There have been many new discoveries to add to Peck, Braman, Freeman, etc. No guide/catalog is a final authority, it merely contains information known at the time. They grow, mature, learn, make adjustments and corrections, expand as a living being.
    3 points
  12. Maybe it's me, but it's only a short time ago that members were talking of the lack of activity on the forum, as if it was stagnating, and now we have a pile of new members turn up recently.....good to see....
    3 points
  13. So do I. It will get the wife off my back telling me to stop doing all the things I enjoy. Rest assured all will be fine. I'm not giving up the ghost yet. I haven't yet created a box for Rob Pearce 1958-2026 to tick yet. Eventually it will be filled, but family history suggests I might be around for a while yet. My father's eldest sister was 96 when she died. Never married, ran a smallholding on her own, then had a sweet shop in Wells, rode a motor bike until she was 70 and refused to go into a home to the day she died on the grounds they were full of old people. The interesting bit was the bike. At 5'3" and weighing 5 &1/2 stone, one that she rode was an Ariel square 4. I guess she didn't want to conform to the insecure female model. By the time she stopped after coming off on ice one night, she was down to a 250, but was collecting her pension. I liked visiting her sweet shop.
    2 points
  14. Hello, I bought this coin and the seller said it was a 1733 farthing, but it doesn't look like 1733, maybe 1735? Can anyone provide some insight?
    2 points
  15. I'd not call it professional but for my three main obsessions, er, collections (shilling date run 1663-1970, Irish coins 1928-2000 & French 3rd through 5th Republics) I have a four ring binder and bunches of coin safe plastic sheets that hold anywhere from 42 (shilling sized) to 30 (half crown sized) or 12 (1870's 5 franc sized) and that suits me nicely. It's easy to show them to friends and easy to take it along when I go to coin shops or shows. Easy to find on Amazon, couldn't tell you elsewhere. Hope this is of some use.
    2 points
  16. 2 points
  17. Hey, H, I personally think both the coins are pennies tbh! You have been majorly misled by the idea that one is a farthing, it’s ridiculous! As for myself I feel really uncomfortable with you setting ‘expert’ against ‘expert’ to attain provenance/identity, etc.…it all sits very uncomfortably with me, personally, especially when you can’t even provide a basic weight, at nothing beyond the cost of around £15. Speaking only for myself…I’m looking for your personal, and financially minimal commitment of weight in the future!
    2 points
  18. I am pleased to discover how scarce the Farthing is too! I have this one in my collection. No idea when or where I picked it up.
    2 points
  19. This is the Nicholson example, was later in the Pywell-Phillips Spink sale Oct 2018.
    2 points
  20. Agreed. It is the Anchor mm which is class IIId in the Spink guide. Auction houses are not always correct with their identifications. When i was researching my type IIIa groat i was looking at old sales. I was frequently finding type IIa coins listed as type IIIa & IIIb , the Pansy mintmark was also frequently mistaken for the Cinquefoil mintmark. Edit added information. On the older documents on groats of Henry VII type IIId did not exist. It jumped from IIIc to IV. Its possible the auction has just used the old classification where type IIId was included as IIIc. I am not sure when they created the type IIId class but on older 1960s documents it was not present. That could also be the reason it was listed as IIIc.
    2 points
  21. Aha... re discovered these....convict coins was mention some years back I believe one is George II 1727-1760 the coin is engraved 1749....the other engraved but unable to decipher any details..... anyone able to offer up more details would be most welcome....
    2 points
  22. That’s stunning, @Ukstu I’ll try and look the thread out @Sword it was in a conversation about Maundy money, as you guessed.
    2 points
  23. I'll also take plugged/edge loss etc hammered coins, especially if it makes them affordable (eg my Richard III in the name of Edward IV/V groat), I try to avoid actual holes and coins that have been broken and repaired unless extremely difficult to get otherwise (eg my Matilda 1d). I woudn't take a milled coin with any of these defects, although I've got a couple that have been cleaned/polished.
    2 points
  24. I don't tend to buy them now but when i first started collecting i bought holed / plugged coins. I have a milled sixpence of Elizabeth I that would of been way out my budget at the time if it wasn't for the plug in it. Don't mind counterstamped stuff so much as it's an interesting field that you can research sometimes. I picked up a cartwheel penny last year that had an edge engraving in the same style as the waterloo medal. When i researched the name on it i found out the guy had actually been at Waterloo. I only paid £10 for it as well so wasn't expensive.
    2 points
  25. No sorry but they are just scrap. The best thing to do with any Bronze coins post 1901 is to buy the David Groom book " British 20th Century Bronze Coin Varieties ". Its only about £10-£15 posted on Amazon and will help you get familiar with any varieties for Bronze Pennies, Halfpennies and Farthings. There is a seperate one for silver coins also, should you be interested in those.
    2 points
  26. I suspect so, and while close I don’t think it’s an actual die match with H’s. Potentially a very rare coin, especially as the one illustrated is the best Dave Greenhalgh could find! Jerry
    2 points
  27. Hi Stu, here is the pic. Very similar crown. Jerry
    2 points
  28. That very distinctive ‘stalked’ central fleur looks pretty much identical to the illustration of the ‘Edward III Pre Treaty Series E York Episcopal’ Penny on page 70 of ‘The Galata Guide to Mediaeval Pennies Part 1’ though I cannot see a quatrefoil after ‘ANGLIE’ on H’s specimen. It is an interesting coin, and I think Dave Greenhalgh is the man to give an opinion here, if anyone is a contact. Jerry
    2 points
  29. wow, the penny has been Identified to be .......😲👍 Edward III, York. Quatrefoil in centre of reverse, CIVI TAS EBO RACI
    2 points
  30. The article mentions "Norman" and "dates to just after the Battle of Hastings" so I'd have thought more likely William I. The few I can read seem to bear the legend +PILLEM, which would indicate that to be the case.
    2 points
  31. That's not a bad price to be honest. All the Charles III sets seem to be expensive. I'm not sure there's much better available in the UK to be honest. I picked up one for £46 last month, that's the cheapest I could find.
    2 points
  32. I thought it worth reviving this one to show another 1698 halfpenny recently acquired. As has been previously mentioned here, these are very difficult to find, particularly in decent grades, having been struck for three months only. It pays to keep one's eyes peeled…
    2 points
  33. I do also really like the Shilling but my favourite British silver coin is the crown.
    1 point
  34. Saving for a new front door is indeed practical 😀 Seriously, I think it depends very much on the number, grade and value of the coins you intend to collect. If it is say a date run collection of UNC-EF 18 /19 century halfcrowns, then they would look fantastic in a quality cabinet. But if the priority is to make date runs of lower grade or common coins, then an album / flips/ 2x2 coin holders /quadrums would be much more practical.
    1 point
  35. I have a rather nice 1736, 3 over 5. These are much harder to find.
    1 point
  36. I hope that everyone had a most enjoyable Christmas, I certainly did with the concomitant lashings of Christmas comestibles for which I paid for in a regrettable surfeit of calories and post-festive penitence😂..... Haven't "been on" for a while and noticed this interesting post by Mr. Tye, so I thought I'd have a stab at it... You are quite right to point out that the observed weights of surviving 1351 nobles cluster very closely around what we would now express as c. 120 Troy grains, and that the variation you cite (for example, 7.75 g) is entirely consistent with normal medieval tolerances, including the remedy at the shear. On purely numerical grounds, the metrology is remarkably stable. Where I would differ is not on the arithmetic, but on the historical inference drawn from it. There is no evidence¹ that the Troy weight system as such—that is, explicitly named, formally defined, or administratively adopted—existed in England in 1351 or was used as “Troy” to regulate coin weight. At that date the Tower mint, producing the noble, was still operating explicitly in Tower weight, and continued to do so until its formal replacement by Troy weight in 1527 under Henry VIII. Expressed in Tower-weight terms, a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble corresponds to 112½ Tower grains (120 × 450⁄480), which fits comfortably within contemporary Tower-weight reckoning. What your figures do demonstrate, however, is that the grain employed in England in 1351 is effectively identical to the later Troy grain, and that the regulation of the noble’s weight is entirely consistent with what we would now describe as Troy-grain-based measurement. In that limited, practical sense, the Tower system behaves exactly as Troy would later behave. In this respect, Tower and Troy weights did not derive from one another but descend from a shared metrological ancestry, which is precisely why the English transition from Tower to Troy in 1527 was arithmetically seamless. The difficulty, then, is one of nomenclature rather than metrology. To describe the 1351 standard as “Troy” risks importing a sixteenth-century administrative label into a fourteenth-century context. In short, the numbers are sound; what is at issue is whether it is historically accurate to call them “Troy” before the name, the system, and the administrative framework had yet been adopted in England. ¹Should anyone be aware of a fourteenth-century English mint ordinance that actually uses the word “Troy,” I would be delighted to see it; until then, the numbers seem stubbornly unimpressed by nomenclature. With that, may I wish everyone a very happy New Year. May your grains be stable, your scales honest, your tolerances forgiving, and your anachronisms few — and may 2026 finally deliver that elusive coin we all hope to find. 🥳
    1 point
  37. In recent years it has been on the 1st of January. I think there may have been some preventative technicality concerning making circulation coins available with a date in the future.
    1 point
  38. Many Thanks, its a nice grade, I have a younger relation who's kinda interested in some Ive shown, passing on to him some of the nicer pennies may inspire him to show more of an interest, once again, many thanks "H"👍
    1 point
  39. If i can dig anything more up about him i will do. Be interesting to see if i can find out what year's he was in the service as you can then research the unit and find out where they got put on active service and what place's they fought in. I love this sort of stuff myself , i was able to research my grandads naval history off his WW1 naval logbook and find out about ships he was on that got sunk while he was aboard them. I never got to meet him as he died in 1935 when my dad was 3 so we never really knew much about him. It was fascinating and i was able to fill in some blanks for my dad about his father's family history before he passed away in 2019.
    1 point
  40. lets hope he never ended up as a pair of falsies
    1 point
  41. That's amazing! Superb engraving too. It would have taken some thought to work out what wordings would fit neatly around the edge.
    1 point
  42. That's fascinating. Well done for finding it out and keeping the story alive. This is the sort of item I would buy; but for the story and history rather than as a coin.
    1 point
  43. Just seen this on the BBC website. First picture is too distant, but further down is a closer shot of what seem to be mainly Edward Confessor coins, if I have got it right? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c623g74zj6vo
    1 point
  44. Another randomly found lurking at the bottom of a cardboard box... "Ivan The Terrible" Horseman brandishing sabre on galloping horse to right Silver (.960) Lettering: КНSЬ ВЕЛIКI IВАН Translation: Grand Duke Ivan interesting find for me 👍
    1 point
  45. I have a Royal Mint issue mint collection with 1, 2,5,10,50 cent plus 1dollar . These are in a Royal Mint illustrated folder . Any interest in acquiring these . Dave Allan UK
    1 point
  46. This is what my garden looks like in the cold and damp!! Cycad, Musa, Echium, Canna, Hedychium all wrapped up. Soil heaters in the pots if it gets very cold. I fit a translucent tarp across the veranda, and we get a small room full of plants to play cards in in the winter! Lemon/lime cross full of fruit this year- gonna do some lime pickle....!!
    1 point
  47. How much coin would, say, Elizabeth Tudor have given out as Maundy coinage, and how much of that coinage would’ve actually been handled by, or been in direct possession of, the queen? How would the ceremony have worked/happened? Would it have been mixed denominations, or just pennies? I’ve recently learned that pennies were given out as Maundy, would there be others? Many thanks in advance!
    1 point
  48. Again a comment on a familiar topic. Attached are two PCGS photographs from their PGCS's verification web site, both 1933 half crowns. Coin # 37007246 is a coin I own, while coin# 45189418 is a coin I saw on Ebay that has been graded by PCGS. On looking at both coin's photographs on the PCGS verification site IMO coin # 3700246 is a better coin although being graded by PCGS as MS 62 as against MS64 for coin #45189418. I understand that the coins were submitted at different times but the whole idea of professional coin grading is to provide a consistent result that collectors and investors can rely upon. Have PCGS grading standards fakken? To digress some coins submitted to NGC and PCGS are declared as cleaned and described as AU features etc. with out citing any examples it can be hard to se why they have made this opinion while other coins that seem to have obvious cleaning marks on them indicating some form of cleaning seem to receive a grading while coins submitted PCGS that have been dipped are deemed by PCGS as not cleaned Your comments are invited
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...
Test