Leaderboard

During the first week of May I spotted a 'Silver Hammered Penny King Edward I' for sale as a Buy-it-now' on Ebay, £38 total including Ebay insurance and 48hr Royal Mail Tracked delivery. As the coin was in fact an Edward III florin coinage penny of Canterbury, and quite scarce, I bought it and tracking showed that the vendor posted it on 10th May. Over the next 48hrs or so it tracked to the Birmingham MC sorting office - where it stayed. After a fortnight I spoke to the vendor who contacted RM and received an unhelpful reply and no coin. After 3 weeks Ebay gave me my money back within 24hrs of my claim as suggested by the vendor and I wrote the coin off mentally with much regret. It is noteworthy that with the refund Ebay actually state that if the purchase is subsequently found it can be kept and they do not have to be informed. Well, it was delivered out of the blue by postie on Thursday! Only 8 weeks in transit! The vendor and I have exchanged several cheerful emails and I get to keep the coin for nothing! As far as I can tell the coin is S1547, N1122 (VR) and DIG Obv 1 rev Ai. Jerry

Then a decent 1863 'open 3' , £30 at Midland Coin Fair.

Whilst the interest in collecting from change may fade away, the interest in rarities, especially nice ones, is likely to be subsumed into the general collector desire for quality rarities seen across all spheres. Otherwise, how do you explain the prices paid for hammered coins, none of which circulated in living memory. Their desirability stems from the history and all coins are part of that same history. Not all denominations have a large following, but one day their turn will come when relative rarities are fully appreciated. Take halfpennies. Much rarer than pennies in top grade because alongside farthings, they were the mainstay of the working class cash economy. That means a high grade example is always a good long term bet given they weren't normally set aside and collected per se. It is a common thread throughout history. Look at Roman sestertii as an example. These were the circulating base coinage of the Roman era, and again, not something the rich and famous would set aside. However, the Bolsena Hoard found in the late 19th century in northern Italy provides ample evidence that even 1700 years ago someone thought them collectable. As the hoard contained a large number of top grade sestertii spanning a few centuries, it beggars belief that they were collected from circulation. The hoard only makes sense as a collection. i.e. we are just the latest in a long history of people who collect from interest, rather than as an investment. As I wrote in my testimony to Cope part 2. We 'met' on ebay. He, as my regular nemesis, eventually asking if I was a copper collector. Silly and obvious really. When we had both bid over twice book on a lustrous 1718 halfpenny that came back in the sale as a 65RB, it was clear that we both appreciated the relative quality of the coin, and how infrequently they turn up. High grade modern pennies will also fall into that same collectable category once enough have been melted and are no longer readily available, and this might happen sooner than you think. In the past 20 years, I estimate that I have consigned somewhere near a ton of bronze to be melted of all denominations. Why? Because nobody wanted them, so you melt to free up cash. The odd rare piece will have gone through undetected, but the vast majority will have been worth scrap value. I am not alone in having done this. This will increase the relative abundance of the rarities over time. Every dog has its day, and as far as I can see, always will do so on a recurring basis.

I now have my own New model crown and a total beauty it is to I got it for less than three figures so am really happy its in about EF grade

One of the fundamental rules of collecting is that it is entirely down to individual taste, with no right or wrong. A person unable to see alternative views is too blinkered or has an unhealthy personal interest in the outcome. It is also a given that if someone writes down their research on paper, some people will collect said identified differences. One or more of the latter group will then see anomalies and try to rationalise them, and so the research continues. The logical conclusion therefore is that eventually, we will able to identify nearly all of the coin dies that were ever made. Not 100%, but pretty damn close. As a reference point - great. As a collecting aim - get a life if you want everything, and ask to carry any brownie points into the afterlife, because you will need all the time you have 10x over I can't explain why, but whenever I hear the passionate debates about what is right and wrong and the refusal to back down on a view, I am always reminded of the late Eric Heffer's speech in the Commons concerning the Labour left's hounding of Princess Michael of Kent regarding her father being in the SS during WW2. The basics were along the lines of: I think it important that someone from this side says this. I've never met the woman, have no desire to meet her and I am unlikely to ever do so, but in a democracy, nobody can be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. So if those trying to make political capital from this would kindly sit down and shut up, we can get on with the business for which we were duly elected. He may have been left wing, but living in a democracy topped his political views By extrapolation, a tolerance of conflicting views ensures that life can continue peacefully, with the only likely damage in numismatics being data overload. I can live with that. The views will always be diverse, only the tolerance varies.

Fully functional teapots hollow spouts and removable lids.

Here's one of mine displaying the same die deterioration. A not uncommon feature on farthings of 1675.

I have been giving my unwanted pennies to a charity shop (animal not human they are too greedy) and when I go in to see how they fared they are always sold out, apparently its youngsters going in to buy them, so maybe its an upward trend, hopefully

The problem with spurious Mint emissions is that a deliberate anomalous product commands a much higher price than a random blank picked up and thrown in the bucket for use. i.e. if you could prove it was a striking specifically tied to a certain mint action, such as trying out a regular mix on a different thickness blank, or a test for a new currency contract from a foreign country, you will do better than the unintended oddball. Wrong flans occur regularly, which is not surprising given the billions of blanks cut every year. Clearly even a hundred wrong'uns would be extremely rare, but in the context of mint operations would only amount to a rounding error if checked for weight. So to consider the above point, it is definitely not common, certainly excessively rare (in the context of a currency issue) and maybe even unique. The problem lies in documentation, because errors are by definition, not struck for the records.

I've just formed an end-of-season football harmony group, called Manhattan Transfer Window. You're welcome.

Thanks both, that is helpful. I will report back... P

Why don't you do that and find out as it is a cheap option? The cameras of the new phones are constantly getting better and you could very well be happy with the results.

Not absolutely everyone then! 😂 Still very happy with my acquisition 🖖

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/127945382130?_skw=1696&itmmeta=01KWV68AKFNDSWCKKGPY94SJ64&hash=item1dca2398f2:g:iPYAAeSw35RqQGXn&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAAwGfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xDovThOToFz2ZFPxugPA9XSFNn8ZGWTRKC3MuiLJB2vvvikM48JUeNQ5533R99qzPdpkTJiede8k08e1bKo7QPHnPdYirkor3VFy0FOX2Qdv22cpy62ndLBOphkklDDLEyhg7Dorvm0zathn1pNWUCTsodDHQA6DNvLqugFfUYUWRm5YRDRZiZddbZrVpucvMHW9MCW66Ze6LEzfoQ8w6lGoPt4ne1QgIBCoh6HWU%2FLyw%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR6aqoebmZw

On the plus side, a lot of the flan issues were ironed out during the decimal patterns by using various metal mixes and flan thicknesses. The presence of almost consistent flan lamination for certain varieties suggests an attempt to standardise minting conditions, more importantly on a series which didn't circulate. The engraving wasn't particularly divergent from the normal currency issues, but the minor fiddling with mixes and also presumably striking forces for the mixes will have helped immensely in arriving at the ideal.

Your picture is too blurred for comment but here are my own pictures from my website: Single exergue with waves almost touching the line and double exergue with waves clear of the line.

Just to add a bit more: the first few years of the changeover to bronze saw a helluva lot of repunching of date digits and legend letters. Bronze is a harder metal than copper, and the coins were thinner in size, so dies got worn relatively quickly. As well as that, the Mint is reported to have experienced a lot of problems caused by the change of metal, which the huge number of varieties (major, minor, and micro) in the first few years can attest to.

Just an oddball. Letters and digits on worn/filled dies were often repaired by re-punching, and not surprisingly these were often slightly misplaced. Of little extra interest unless the wrong punch has been used or the misplacement is extreme. As for the ‘4’ it may just be a die flaw. Jerry

Here is a pair of 1/12 queen Anne flintlock pistols I made. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JRH-9o-P6sg

Here is all the dies I made with the different collars.

An 1889 F127 narrow date,13.5 teeth £200 on Ebay.

An 1874H F69, £17.10 on Ebay.

Finally, after a month of challenge getting BT/Open Reach to repair my landline I at last have acceptable broadband and can post some recent acquisitions. First an example F10 new obverse 2*, £20 at Ebay auction.

Yes, most certainly a worn die. And a truly shocking price which would be way too high even for a good strike UNC example. Here's a much better example at a reasonable price: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/157378763239?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338946167&toolid=20006&loc=&customid=4581527531114051_710033490_o.9beeaa501cf11ef92efac014f4958c05&msclkid=9beeaa501cf11ef92efac014f4958c05

For me it would depend on whether the brightness indicated by the one on the left is a result of polishing to within an inch of it life. I can live with faults if the coin is sufficiently rare, but it isn't. Personally, I would bin (sell) both and put the proceeds towards something better, which would be easy given the number extant. The detail visible has been covered by the previous posts.

Definitely the one on the left. As well as @Coinery's comments, the detail on the reverse is far nicer.

Yes in my opinion 100% correct 👍🤦‍♂️ On my phone a caught the 🤦‍♂️picture 😃

If I'm understanding things correctly, to do this you need to use underhand methods - it's not a feature. The presence of such manoeuvres helps cement my belief that the only rational bidding strategy is to decide how much you're really willing to pay (a more complex mental process than many give it credit for) and bid once only, as late as you dare. The only proviso I can think of is that buy it now and make offer options are removed by the first bid, so it may be desirable to place a minimum bid early if someone hasn't done so already.

you must have great eyesight paddy

Yes, that's an attractive halfpenny, and a unique type (the first regal halfpenny since 1775, as there wasn't a cartwheel halfpenny in 1797 sadly; then there was a gap until 1806 when a new smaller design was issued). I've always liked that single year type too.

By the way , its a nice coin well struck and atractive

Currency. Too many things wrong for a proof. Using Peck's arguments for proof examples, the 1 should be clear of the sea, no flaws and should have a grained edge (which both currency and proofs have). The rims aren't good enough either. Peck also states the currency as having a grained edge in a deep groove, whilst saying the proof is merely grained. Normally this means light oblique graining in the centre of the edge, not in a groove. However, if it wasn't in a groove, there would be no reason to mention the other criteria as this alone would suffice. Muddy waters here. Prooflike examples are frequently encountered, but that is normally an early strike using fresh dies. Not surprising if you think about it, as a resetting of the press will probably require the force to be adjusted to reflect the new positions of the dies, which despite being nearly there, are inevitably going to be a few microns out as a minimum. Think physical length and diameter together with the depth of the relief.

I missed it when listed as a BIN which was a pity, Good luck 😀👍.

It has a tiny A+M on the bottom rev exergue which means its a joint effort between Allan and Moore

What size is it?

One mans meat is another mans poison . Here's one I have . There not very sort after but are pretty rare. Also in the same vein this one my interest you , Its a 1940 penny with two filled letters the only example I've ever seen.

extreme /ɪkˈstriːm/ The word extreme generally describes something that is of the greatest possible degree, intensity, or the farthest from the norm. It can act as either an adjective or a noun, with specific nuances depending on how it is used. [1, 2] Pretty much ‘what it says on the tin’ to quote the old advert. Not easy set a reference point as to what any particular individual would consider extreme as there will be variation of opinion but with experience you will recognise degrees of misalignment of die repairs that are beyond the norm. I would for example consider the F10 ‘triple F’ Penny to be extreme, the side by side 1’s of 1861 and similar.

That’s great, Jerry, many thanks for the offer, I’ll take you up on that next time! I can always reciprocate for The Cotswold, Harper Field (Stroud), and occasional Clevedon Salerooms, if you ever spot anything ☺️ Best, Stuart

I've had several rather less than commendable experiences with Royal Fail in the past few years. A couple of them stand out, the purchase of a Scottish square £1 note from 1909 that seemingly took a long detour for four months about four years ago - I worked with seller, filed a claim got refunded and the out of the blue the parcel showed up and I paid the seller for the note. Then about a year ago a parcel with some 19th century banking memorabilia dropped off the face of the earth in London - same thing, worked with seller got refunded and then like six months later it showed up. What a contrast - I frequently get several parcels, even large parcels from Ukraine all the time with complete tracking and despite the fact they are at war with Russia - parcels come through with efficiency. Ukrposhta is an enterprise that tries to deliver despite the circumstances - Royal Fail is a sad excuse. Now auction purchases from the London auction houses have to come either DHL or Fedex.

I engraved some coin dies in 1/12 scale for Dolls house money. I used mild steel and after striking 20 coins the mild steel dies deformed. I dont know but would imagine real coin dies are tempered to a certain degree making them less likely to deform like the dies I made. I tried striking gold, silver, bronze and copper all soft metals compared to mild steel, the fact my dies were not tempered they deformed. I quickly understood a highly polished die and more force when striking the dies produced much higher quality strikes. When I try it again I will anneal 01 tool steel engrave my obverse and reverse then temper them in order to harden the metal so I can strike more than 20 coins. There will be a trade off between a soft of a die that deforms with subsequent strikes and tempering the metal too hard the dies crack rather than deform. If a metal cracks rather than deforms it suggests it is tempered or work hardened and with each subsequent strike the metal is probably hardening itself also. At a guess I would think a pair dies slowly harden over the working life of a pair of dies which may lead to crack dies?? I made a steel tube/collar inserted the bottom die into the collar then placed my metal blank into the collar then presented the other die and struck it with a hammer. Initially I was getting weak strikes, then started hitting it harder which produced much nicer strikes but ultimately deformed the dies.

Agreed! I used to spend time and effort trying to debunk this rubbish, particularly when I was dealing part time, but now I have given up. A fool and his money is soon parted.

This was a recent pickup in a USA auction, I like the condition of the piece, it being much better than most farthings of that era - but I enjoy the additional cuds on Charles II's nose and Britannia's right arm from the die breaking down. Also it appears as though the numeral 1 in 1675 was repunched - almost appears to have been repunched over a numeral 5!

the left hand coin - no brainer

The year shown on the coin (above the wreath being offerred by Tyche) is ΒΚΦ = 522 Seleucid Era so 210/11 CE. As Vologases IV died in 191 CE the coin is not his but instead is Sellwood's "Vologases VI". The month (found in the exergue on these tetradrachms) is off the flan so it's a Sellwood 88.5 variant. Too bad the month is off the flan.

Going to see"he music box" at the bridgewater hall tomorrow well its not really genesis but its very close its 48 years almost to the first time i saw them in 1978 at knebworth for a fiver tickets for tomorrow are £60 but hey you cannot take it with you and life is for living ......... just put some old cds on and enjoying myself

Hello chaps, Please could I ask one of the experts a question or two about my Edward I pennies I won today on the Spink auction? First question... where it say in the provenance ii) Elmore-Jones, Glendining, 10 April 1984, lot 1582 - £65 does that mean that the second coin in the description is ex Elmore-Jones collection? Edward I (1272-1307), Pennies (6), Berwick, local dies issue, 1.35g (S.1415); also, Durham, class 9b1, 1.46g (cf. N.1037.1 {for type}; S.1421); additionally, Newcastle (4), class 9b1 (2) with star, 1.38g; and without, 1.31g (N.1037.1; S.1408); also, 9b1/10ab mule, 1.48g (N.1037/38; S.1408/9); lastly, class 10ab, 1.25g, reading hb (N.1039; S.1409), generally very fine, all toned (6). provenance ii) Elmore-Jones, Glendining, 10 April 1984, lot 1582 - £65 Secondly, please could I have a more detailed ID on coin number 5. It's listed as a Newcastle 10ab, but I'd like to know which one of the subgroups if possible (i.e. 10ab1-6). Many thanks, Descartes

has seen better days but thats 3 whole ones from the same area, along with some cut halfs, and my second hammy this year