Leaderboard

Bawbees are notorious for having circulated deep into the 18th century by which time they were barely identifiable - so this rather decent 1679 example is an exception to the beater bawbee rule.

Four Pence Victorian 1840 & 1877 (Maundy) Delving through the hoard today...... and these two I though were worth a show as they are in incredible condition.... which is a bit of a rarity amongst my lot.... 😲

The 'ribbon' on this 1859 is die clashing, explained on Gouby's website, where he now also references Peck 404. The 'overlay' picture below also highlights the 'clash' area.

Found the others today....A fair devil indeed....

You'd need a deep pocket for most of these recent items at Heritage, but not all early copper has sky-rocketed over the last few years - the slab-grades have the main effect of course. There are two Peck plate coins, but none of the coins including theses were provenanced by Heritage. Perhaps the buyers recognised them too, but probably just going on the grades. All are hammer prices: 1694 1/2d - MS61 - $1200. Surprisingly low grade for a coin that retains lustre, this is the Nicholson example that sold for £1,200 (I think) in 2004, if so it's made no money at all over the last 20+ years! This is the exception price-wise. 1694 1/4d - MS64RB - $7,000. Lovely colour though slightly porous detail, this is Colin Cooke's own example sold 2005. 1695 1/2d - MS63 - $9,000 - big rise on this one, though it has been glossed and lost some lustre since previously sold at Baldwin's 2010 Strickland-Neville Rolfe auction. I saw it at the time and wondered if it was thick-flan (there's only one known otherwise) as it did look unusually thick. It was a bit porous though so that can be deceptive. Unfortunately it was sealed in plastic and I couldn't ask Baldwins to weigh it, because if it was heavy weight, they'd have amended the description and it wouldn't have been a bargain! It wasn't very cleanly struck though and It went for £540 back then. 1699 1/4d date in legend - MS64 - $7,000. This is Brook's example and is the Peck Plate coin despite the dark photograph where you had to squint to make out much. The edge variation matched up and it is of course the no-stop between A and the date variety - which was also not mentioned by Heritage. As far as I know, this was last sold in the Shuttleworth collection SNC 2001 as EF £650. 1701 1/2d - MS63 - $7,250. Also the Peck plate coin and Heritage auctions missed (or the slabbers couldn't be bothered to note) it was no stops obverse (P.704). This is ex Nicholson Hopetown House, Peck.

Those prices are quite astonishing. I have Peck's own 636 plate coin (Montagu 3); so now may be a good time to sell.

I don’t like using proprietary products because I don’t know what’s in them, and I believe VerdiCare is difficult to obtain in the UK anyway. After some research on what the British Museum used to use to treat bronze disease and verdigris on large objects, like cannon, I tried the technique for myself on this battered 1799 half-penny. For anyone interested, the treatment was 100 minutes at 90°C in a 2% w/w solution of sodium sesquicarbonate in chlorine-free water. Followed by a rinse in chlorine-free water to remove the chemical and then a rinse in acetone to remove the water. The heat is needed as the reaction is impossibly slow at room temperature.

It's exactly the same - they haven't changed a thing.

It is rough but i think there is enough information to identify it. I can read VND + PIE i think. Which would make it Pieres at London Mint. Spink guide shows Pieres & Pieres M minting at London during class 1 under Henry II. Stu.

This is a fairly common contemporary counterfeit. J015o / I801r in my current system. It's connected to a number of other dies of various groups - it's the 7th coin in this die chain

You were 100% correct Stu and thanks unwillingly numismatist for putting me on to Liz who verified it was a fantasy piece unfortunately 😕 Thanks guys this is much appreciated because it's irked me for some time. Glad it was in a joblot of coins auction and as it hardly cost anything.

1882 were nearly all minted by Heatons and therefore carry the H - a few were minted in London (just to test the new electronic presses?) and are very rare. I'm baffled by the George III coins though - pennies weren't minted until 1797, "cartwheel" type. There's no 1773 or 1775 pennies, but there were halfpennies which are noticeably smaller than bun pennies unlike your 1773. The 1775 looks very wrong and is probably an 'evasion' type, i.e. a contemporary forgery produced in the US. The 1773 "penny" looks more like a genuine halfpenny should apart from the size , but is also probably wrong - REX is wider spaced than on a genuine example.

I particularly like the 1860/59 tie ribbons (plural)............always present in same place + further clashing under Victoria's chin.

Sifting through my bits and bobs and came across this one. Not listed in any books that i can find so one to mark down. Maybe a complete example will turn up one day who knows. Its a 1a4 obverse with the Seriffed X and a 1a3 reverse with a nice square E. Hvnfrei at York mint.

It's definitely a London coin, but not class 1 or Henry II because the N and D are ligated (joined together). If memory serves me right that feature first occurred on class IVa, which was issued under Richard I, but the lettering style isn't right for that. My guess would be class V or VI (so John or Henry III) and judging by the position of the O of ON probably a moneyer with five letters in his name. A bit more research could probably tie the class and maybe even the moneyer down a bit. Edit: you beat me to it Ukstu; I was glancing through my copies of Mass and Slevin for inspiration, but we seem to broadly agree on class 5 or 6.

Obviously this bawbee from King William III from 1697 circulated as a halfpenny deep into the 18th century given it's wear pattern

Not the best example but an unusual pairing. Withers 411 Bradford Workhouse counterstamp on a Samuel Fereday Bilston token.

The verdigris may not show very well in the photo. Below is another "before" photo under different light. Work is in progress on coins with more obvious/stubborn verdigris. I will report back!

Hello all. I am having some difficulties with this halved short cross penny. Specifically I am finding it hard to distinguish between early Class 1 of Henry II and early Class 5 of John. Both have the stop after the S of hENRICVS and a similar portrait structure. The poor condition of the piece doesn't help as it makes the hair not possible to see. I was wondering if anyone here could help to push me in the right direction. Thank you.

Thanks to Chris my old page is now available at https://www.predecimal.com/GIII/

Again, I can only recommend Galata's excellent tome on the pennies of the Edwards. Real research has been done there. All Paul and Bente's writing is of the highest quality by a pair who know their stuff, and as references will struggle to be equalled. Go for it. Splash the cash. You won't regret it. Incidentally, I also have a set of North, vols. 1 & 2, both new. £40 per volume or £70 the pair pus postage. PM me if interested. Thanks.

I have a few colonial coins that are in need of sorting out, today this was fished out of the pot of others, I'm pleased I did as after a warm soapy soak (and it was well minging!!!) all of the circulation hand grease and crud washed off left the coin's details come out. its pretty good for a Victorian Colonial...👍 unsure of the grade but better than just good... 27 berries, W.W. raised.

If that is mm spacing then a farthing. Makes sense given the weights. Old sterling pennies were 1.4g down to 1g ish, so 1/4g =1/4 penny. Do you have any reference books? Just wondering because by Eliz.1 the penny was about 0.5g, but that had declined over a long period. Coin values are determined by the diameter of the inner circle because the outer one is too susceptible to spreading when struck. Rules for the future: 1. Get a Withers small change book. 2. Get a Withers small change book. 3. Get a Withers small change book. 4. Get a Withers small change book. 5. Get a Withers small change book. The surplus suggestions are to cover the 4 periods contained within the volume set, and allow me to book some copy and paste replies without having to make any other contributions. They cover Ed1 - Ed.2; Ed.3-R1; Henry 4-6;Ed.4 - Henry 7 and Henry 8-Commonwealth. You don't have to buy every one at the same time unless they are offering a discount to clear some stock. It is the best reference available and is regularly updated. Worse advise (sic) is available on ebay from some aspiring millionaire who found this in granny's change the other day, conveniently overlooking the moneyer Grunal. Hint. This is Dave Greenhalgh's name for coins he has made, (legitimately for the purpose of demonstrating hammered minting techniques).

Aha..and as I have read.....it came about due to King Charles I was executed for high treason in 1649, after a civil war pitting his supporters against Parliament for control of the country...... 🤔

No problem. I do have a scanner. Hp Evny 4525. Think it's up to the job. I will dig it out and dust it off and scan it for you tommorow. Thank you for taking the time to look at it. Stu.

Another somewhat crude group C die - fairly common - Here's a better example.

Yes, definitely a contemporary forgery (very common) of a silver skin clad onto a base metal core - the core is corroding and bursting through in places which is causing those greyer-looking patches and random protrusions through the silver skin. So, no scrap value at all to speak of, but an interesting bit of social history and probably worth keeping thus.

Seemed as good a place as any as bought the Halfpenny from the last LCA with obverse 1.

Great. Message me and we'll sort out the technicalities.

That's sad. I lost my mum to a brain tumour in 2021. By the time she was diagnosed it was stage 4. Three months she lived from diagnosis to passing away. Affected us all deeply. Thank you for replying. I look forward to seeing your future research when you are publishing your findings. Stu.

Poor Gary, but absolutely fantastic that you’re still around and working with the counterfeit coinage. Nice to hear from you.

Hi Guys! I'm still around but haven't had much time for coin study lately. Gary was about to start a new cancer treatment which unfortunately proved to be in vain. As he knew he might not be recovering, he offered me to buy his collection of counterfeit George IIIs shillings at a very fair price. So I jumped on a plane and spend a pleasant evening with him where we wrapped the coins in rolls with paper and looked at some of his vast collection. Next morning the very day he would start the new treatment, I returned to Denmark - and never heard from him again. I haven't yet had a chance to look at the coins, of which there are apparently over a thousand. Instead, I've been working with my own collection in the hope of being able to refine the group divisions and perhaps arrive at a more correct classification for the whole series. Only when that's finished, I will start classifying Gary's coins.

Starting off, I owe you all a big Thank You...I came here 1 year ago and was recovering from a stroke... my reading and speaking has got better and my chaos has improved as well.... to a degree. Ive attached some photos of what's been paged and has put some order in place.... if the worse happen I'd hate to think what would have happen to these coins... The hammered coins (pennies) still cause problems for me and still there others to follow.... Sorry! 😟 once again a huge Thank You one and all for the support and clarification when assisting my queries, I wouldn't have been able to have got this far without it. Kind Regards "H"

I think people get a bit worked up over the question of cleaning as the topic is somewhat nuanced. Every coin in circulation showing signs of wear has effectively been cleaned because the act of circulation ensures that contact is made with other surfaces which rub against each other. i.e. nothing different to taking a the use of chemical cloth to a coin and rubbing. That just speeds up the process. The only thing that is offensive in the eyes of most collectors is a case of a polished coin, with or without the use of chemical substances. Personally I love toning for the fact it gives added confidence that the surfaces have not been messed about with, but even that has a few caveats because silver dip will leave a residue on the coin which over time will give the piece in question a typically pinkish hue. Any coin in someone's pocket will end up from friction with lots of faint parallel lines, because they were there. Without polishing chemically, I defy anyone to see the difference between pocket rub and a soft cloth, though clearly it would be possible in the case of demonetised coins to use your loaf and conclude that not being in circulation any more, the only option left is deliberate. In the case of the Morgan above, if the surfaces aren't reflective, probably not other than 'cleaning' from circulation, because there is clearly wear to the high points.

I remember a documentary in the 1960s showing the young royals preparing for Christmas decorating a tree. Anne was up a ladder and Andrew was trying to climb up with her. She turned on him and ordered "Geroutovit!" loudly. She obviously spotted a wrong'un early on!

My Grandfather,

many thanks for looking into this, the previous owner was a long time ago before I would have got it circa 1990's so Its great to finally have these looked and corrected, as all that I now have identified live in a page with others and I retain all of the information with the coins...albeit parts of coins .... very well done and much appreciated 🙏

Yes your spot on Paddy, although what about this one 😂

Yes that's the guy .

Generally referred to as "Toy Money". Produced in the late 19th century for play and education purposes.

The darker coin looks to have the Edward II crown of class 11 as imaged (and all credit to the amazing book Rob credited above for this). The other one is too time consuming for me to look into (I don’t have a lot of free time at the moment), though the serpentine/fish-tail S is probably a good launch pad for you to start from. Good luck 👍

certainly yes , in the war years QC was not the same as when we were not at war

I can see the shape you have outlined, but the body of the rider seems to be incuse, which seems unusual? I don't know of many Ancient coins with the thick border rim, not with a blank reverse. No further forward I fear.

Americans love the 'evasions' so would possibly snap up the 1775? As for the 1773, it's worth keeping - I've never seen anything that size before, so even if a fake it's got great novelty value! The 1882H is nice enough to keep though only worth a few £.

No problem.It was only afterwards when i was looking at it thinking how's it been made it dawned on me that it looks like it was soldered on. It looks like the right arm on the figure has fallen off and possibly the E on that side as well or not enough solder was used and it just smudged the E. That would explain why it's unique as it's literally been handmade by someone. I doubt you could make another even similar without adding or losing bits. It's something to be on the look out for in the future. I have seen similar work on fake stycas. Usually though with them they go back to bare metal when you plunge them in acetone as the patina is painted on them. Stu.

I rather like the Princess Anne portrait myself. It's quite a good likeness and she is 75 years young after all. Here is a photo of her taken this year.