Sylvester

It could be a 'Hand Heller' or something similar, from the German states. Not a series I know anything about. They do have the sunk in square look on one side, but the cross on the other side doesn't look the same. There could be other types though. But as I say, I know nothing about German/Holy Roman Empire medieval coinage.

There are five types. About 1.5 billion coins struck so most types are excessively common. Type - Edge - Obv. L/I point... / Rev. 1 points... Type 1 - Wire edge - Between / At Type 2 - Flat edge - Between / At Type 3 - Flat edge - At / Between Type 4 - Flat edge - Between / Between Type 5 - Flat edge - At / At Type 1 = 40% of the mintage (All released to circulation). Type 2 = 40% of the mintage (Almost all released to circulation - some issue in 'Farewell to the Florin' first day covers). Type 3 = approx. 20% of the mintage (Released to circulation and also included in all mint/proof sets). Type 4 = < 1% of the mintage (All released to circulation). Type 5 = much less than 1% of the mintage (All released to circulation). The first 3 types are excessively common, ubiquitous you could say. But also, as they were the first types out when the 10p was shrunk, a fair few were put on side by people who kept the new coins. Type 1 and 2 can be got in UNC with some effort to find, they're not too common in mint state. Type 3 is readily available in BU, nothing rare there. Type 4 and 5, as pictured in my first post, can be found in change with a lot of searching. They are out there, but the highest graded Type 4s (Between/Between) I've found were VF grade and the highest Type 5s (At/At) were EF. I don't think they exist in UNC any more.

I'm looking for BU/UNC 1992 small ten pence coins of Type 4 and Type 5. Type 4 has L,I pointing between dots on obv and 1 in 10 pointing between dots on rev. Type 5 has L,I pointing at dots on obv and 1 in 10 pointing at a dot on rev. I only have VF specimens, I would love some UNC specimens.

I seem to recall an abundance of Aethelred II and Cnut coins in the early 2000s - probably from some hoards in the 1990s. I got sick of the sight of every coin from the period for sale being an Aethelred, so I swerved them. I did pick up a cracking Cnut penny though for about £145. It seems they've gone up in value somewhat since. So have no fear, should the Harold's go on the market, they will be absorbed readily. It's always a consideration though if buying ancient to medieval era coinages, rarity is somewhat more fluid.

Groats normally have two circles of writing on the reverse, an inner circle with the mint info, e.g. CIVITAS LONDON (City of London) and an outer circle that states: POSVI DEVM ADIVTOREM MEVM (I have made God my helper). Then the cross and trefoils in each quarter.

The first picture looks like the reverse of a King Stephen 'Watford' type penny. Cross Moline is the official designation. Struck in the 1130s-40s.

Try http://historyincoins.com/ I've bought some fantastic stuff from him over the years.

A gorgeous Edward I coin though, such a superb strike.

Type B

Out of interest, how many of you out there have managed to find the Type A reverse on the 2006 10p piece? These seem very hard to find. The 1 in the 10 points at an edge dot. These all went into circulation and seem to be a mere fraction of the mintage. All the mint sets and the vast bulk of circulation issues are Type B (between dots). See photos below. Thus far I've found 2 Type A's out of change and bought a third from eBay last week. A pretty low result rate for 17 years of searching for them. Rarer than the Kew Gardens 50p? Type A below.

This is my feeling too, but I thought the question worth asking. It'd be nice to find them when they do come out. I don't want to be having to pay £50+ for one from eBay in the months to come.

Has anyone found any 2023 ten pences in circulation yet without the privy mark?

Well it's a paradox of sorts. I believe the coins without the privy mark have higher mintages comparative to the mint set issues. However, with the full mintage of non-privy marked issues going into circulation, it means they will be hard to find in true UNC/BU condition, hence the need to get them out of circulation as quickly as possible.

It certainly looks so. Type B reverse as well.

The privy mark is the small Tudor crown behind the king's head. The 2023 mint sets all have the privy mark. The ones that are due to go into circulation, about 600,000 mintage, will not have that privy mark. I want to get a few out of circulation as soon as they appear, before they become all scuffed and scratched. I've yet to see any. I have noted that the 50p, £1 and £2 coins have turned up on eBay without the marks. I even pulled a £1 coin out of change myself. Still no sightings of the 1p, 5p and 10p coins yet though.

Well we all know that Britain went decimal in 1971, and that after August 1971 the only pre-decimal coins to be encountered in active circulation were the sixpences, shillings and florins, mostly from 1947 onwards. These three denominations each met their end in 1980, 1990 and 1993 respectively. The question that has been puzzling me for years though is do any of you recall seeing anything other than post-1947 coins actively circulating at any point from September 1971 to June 1993? I remember all too well the abundance of George VI and Elizabeth florins even to the very end. I missed out on the sixpences being born after they had been withdrawn. I recall the odd Liz shillings but seldom so, and no George VI ones in the run up to 1990. I have an inkling that I may have encountered some silver George VI florins, but very few, I seem to recall a 1930s one once - sometime in the early 90s. I was also shown by the local post office owner a George V florin that had been used for payment, this would have been sometime around 1992, after the small coins had debuted. Can't recall ever seeing any other George V coins in circulation. Interested if anyone has similar unusual sightings that they remember.

Looking at it from the present (oh how hindsight in the future may change this), but it seems to me that the Tories and Labour are finished - notwithstanding a major shift in policy from either of them. The whole mess reminds me of what happened to the Liberal Party of old at the turn of the Twentieth century over Home Rule in Ireland. Both parties are split, with politicians within each either falling pro or anti EU - This appears more marked in the Conservative party than in the Labour party. The biggest problem Labour has is in its heartlands. Its core voters are split between the Remainers in Scotland and the South, and the Leavers in the Midlands and North. The latest election results saw an almost complete wipeout in Yorkshire, particularly so in Barnsley as much a strong Labour heartland as if ever there was one, where Brexit Party cleared about 23,000 votes and Labour came second with 7,600. Pretty decisive me thinks. In all across the whole of Yorkshire and Humber the Brexit Party won every area with the notable exception of York which the Liberals took. So if Labour back the remain horse, then they have lost most of their voters in the northern areas (which the Liberals will do a better job at representing being less divided), if they back leave then they've lost their remain voters everywhere else. Either way I think the party is pretty much up a creek without a paddle. There's a quiet revolution going on that the media, mainstream politicians and champagne socialists et al. haven't quite figured out. The new forces of British politics are the resurgent Lib-Dems versus some kind of grouping around the embryonic Brexit Party (as Farage has said, six weeks old and it has swept the rest by the wayside, pretty remarkable really). The Tories and Labour offer no solutions and are too fractured to ever resolve the issue and whichever path they choose be it, remain, leave or as Labour have tried to straddle both, from the current viewpoint they're pretty much screwed. Have no illusions, the Brexit Party's victory was resounding. The remain dominated media are trying in vain to spin it that remain won, yeah by adding all the votes of the remain team together. I'm not sure how that is helpful, that's like saying the 2nd, 3rd and 4th runners in a race won because cumulatively they ran further than the quickest athlete.

Well that was pretty much as I surmised! I had an inkling that there would be a significant drop off as the 70s progressed to the great price rises of 1980 and then pretty dormant until the early 90s when the larger coins were being phased out, the sudden last dash to get rid of old coins - probably spent by those that didn't realise that the pre-47s contained silver. I can't say I'm surprised about the lack of pre-20 coins, the mint were actively withdrawing these throughout the 1930s, much in the same way as the silver replacement program of the 1940s, when the half silver coins were being culled by banks and returned to the mint, (the exact same thing that is happening now with the pre-2011 5p and 10p coins in the cupronickel recall).

I always have my fingers crossed when they discover hammered coin hoards that they are from the 1140s, but with gold present probably more 1300/1400s. Still maybe it'll drop the price of nobles for a while? 😁 Harold and William coins, that sounds interesting. Suppose it depends how many make it out to collectors though, probably no so many if they are rarer types and we are talking Harold here, so not exactly common.

To be fair though, isn't that what most media outlets are doing these days? In fact in the run up to the referendum and ever since there has been a very obvious policy of what I like to think of as 'erosion', keep wearing away at people by telling them it is doomed and the voters were misguided and misinformed and if a referendum was to be held again then remain would have a clear victory (which is what they said the last time!). I have to ask, as a former student of history, where is the source or what is their motive? To what end does staying in the EU benefit them, it obviously does otherwise why would they spend so long trying to feather their beds? Contrarily to the media's portrayal though of it as going against sanity and the wishes of the people. I have to say when they do ask the person in the street in the leave vote areas, the message I keep hearing is that many still want to leave, and same pattern in the remain areas, they still want to remain. I'm not really sure anything has actually changed, only the media's policy of mind-altering keeps on going. It's all very 1984. My biggest gripe of all though, is that they fail to realise that many of us (regardless of which side you fall on) already had a clear and conceived viewpoint and knew which way we were going to vote long before the campaigning ever began.

I was about to put this on eBay, just assuming it was a bog standard worn 1696 crown. So I photographed it, looking at the photos and the coins I thought oh it's a 1698, looked in the coin book and then though, wait hang on there ain't a 1698. So I've looked at this coin every which way, in natural light, artificial light and thought hard 'the last digit is a 6', but as worn as the coin is, it certainly looks more like an 8 - however, looking at 1698 halfcrowns the 8 is a different shape to what I have here, it looks like a 6 which turns at the top and comes back to make an 8. I can't find any evidence of any overdates for these 1696 crowns, which was my next logical thought. The edge date is OCTAVO as per 1696. The coin weighs 28.5g and is very worn. Silver ring when dropped and it travels down a magnetic silver slide as one would expect silver to. I though perhaps a forgery was the next logical conclusion.

I know there were a lot of production errors during the William III series, particularly around the Great Recoinage of 1696-7. The lower denominations were very much affected, particularly at the branch mints. This is somewhat unusual a crown though, but not unheard of for example the GEI variant. Looks like that shilling you had also had some letter under the E of ET, unless it was a dig in the field, looks serifed though.

Hmm possibly. I can see that as well. Presumably they accidentally placed the punch upside down and only realised once it was done, so corrected it, resulting in this.

You know I had a similar question on here about a year ago about die numbers on Sovereigns. I think we came to the conclusion that there were a set of dies made for the year and numbers probably were reused every year. So die 3 in 1865 would be different to die 3 in 1866. Now I have no iron clad evidence that, that is correct, however, I think it unlikely to have been the same die 3 from 1863 to 1880. I would be happy to be proved wrong though. The only way to do that though would be to find a die flaw on one year and have the very same flaw on a subsequent year. The problem there though is that once dies reach the point of cracks and flaws they are pretty much life expired and would be discarded soon after I should imagine. Conversely, if one could find a die number used say in 1870 that always presented with a flaw, but in 1871 the flaw was absent then that surely would be eividence to suggest that they are different dies each year.

Had a thought since I posted that. Could someone at the mint have punched the last 6 for the date too high and then corrected it by punching it lower, hence giving an 8 type figure, when in reality it is 6/6 (the first 6 being higher)? The Obverse: