Rob

The evidence suggests the florins weren't issued as a set for the reasons I have outlined previously. You can't exclude that partial sets were possibly given to a few people, but all 28 varieties - no. These were clearly made to test the waters on the best obverse/reverse die and legend combinations.

Just had an email asking if I wanted to buy this. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325752414044?hash=item4bd85b5f5c:g:~cMAAOSwyDxkx-Mb&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4Ic%2B6ncSccSicmhQLB3VpaxkbbT73mx4FRBfjFBKYPC6lRMqyAe%2Fcb3dySR1trTUx%2B5WvyMkI2scM3JQnqsu%2F15gVp8s0kP0VSPf7rz4KBEJRwcDU1g%2F3UNYBGqfx2FmXe6cBpdCLo8F%2BEynv9L5s1jf6zql%2BLUbdFK6%2B7w4orBrlEEclYegKIHoo7YNjVsEocaAAFYxbAPyJkrXD%2F1YnyczDD6fU5vS8PEIIhWw98HEHLVkWtOkVjJC%2B%2FoSojGo26x7eBokcPNOhwwJhjcSDd5rCfFchYQlPQFhNqqUhuDj|tkp%3ABk9SR5i8qZ62Yg I told her it wasn't a forgery, and just a strip end. I suggested she take down the listing and list it for what it is. Hopefully won't have to report it, but we shall see. The problem with ebay is the number of willing idiots, all desperate to splash the cash on things they don't understand. A company that disregards it's own rules or anyone reporting items in order to make a buck, and a long queue of sellers looking to sell crap at moonmoney prices.

The 1853 bronzed halfpenny also appears to be one confirmed. Forget the Norweb coin which is definitely copper - because I've got it. It's the oddball 1839 sixpence which I think is the real clue. I can't see the last young head die being made other than from 1880 on, and certainly not in 1839 whence it sat on the shelf for the next 40 years. That has to mean a late strike. We know that the 1839 sets were not all made in that year because of the 39/41 & 39/43 halfpennies plus the above 6d. My money is still on the production of a few sets prior to the mint refurbishment in 1882, with one or more 1853 sets also produced. The same might also apply to the inverted die copper 1860 penny that went through London Coins, because we know that the die still existed, it currently being in the RM Museum collection. The same applies to the 1860 copper halfpenny and farthing dies. The latter have always been considered late strikings.

The question of the 1853 bronzed proofs has occupied my mind one more than one occasion since the article was written. A stumbling block in resolving the outstanding questions is the images in Baldwin's 44 catalogue are not good enough to determine the positions of the pitting to the reverse rim on the 1853 bronzed halfpenny, which is unfortunate as the 1839/41 bronzed proof in my possession also has a pitted rim. If in the same positions, it would imply the same reverse die and by extension that quite possibly the two dates are contemporary. Following my acquisition of the 1841/39 bronzed proof halfpenny in 2007 I wrote an article in the May 2009 Circular outlining some thoughts for the existence of the dozen or so known inverted die 1841 halfpennies, which are all struck from the same worn reverse die and point to a striking for a specific reason. The bronzed 1853s have an inverted die axis, as does the 1839/41. As the anomalous 1839 proof sixpence is struck from an obverse that was only used from 1880 on and similarly has the wrong die axis, speculatively I wonder if the non-standard die axis coins are all from this late period. Assuming they were from sets made to order before the mint was refurbished and the old Soho equipment replaced, with a maximum window of 2 years for the sixpence, it would point to a minimal number of the other coins - as is seen. It would also help to know if the die fixings were compatible on both the Soho presses and their replacements. I can't help feeling that all the information is currently known, but different bits are in different places.

Maybe there is some input required by the auctioneer to permit flat fee charges? I paid £3 with Lockdales this week for example. The only time I opted for the % fee was when the only lot I was bidding on was going to be £50 max.

At today's Huddersfield fair, I had a conversation with the guy next to me on this very topic. He made the very valid point that every time you pay for a £50 purchase with cash, the recipient has £50 to spend on something else. If he uses that cash in the same manner, the next recipient will also have £50 spend. But if you use electronic payments the bank takes 2 or 3%. So a £50 transaction at 3% leaves the recipient with only £48.50 to spend. When he spends that sum electronically on a subsequent purchase, the recipient only has £47.04 to spend. That reduces to £45.63 for the next one etc. Within 8 transactions, the banking system has extracted 20% of the original value. If the transaction is funded to £50 every time, it would take over 20% by the fourth transaction. If cash was used, the full £50 would be available ad infinitum to all except the banking system. The banks might not like cash, but there is no need to involve them if cash is used in person to person transactions, or at least within the local area. Purchasing power for the masses is actually enhanced by not using cards (debit or credit), because there is no mechanism to skim off the fees. Yes there is a case for having banks for remote transactions, but not for putting every transaction through their system when cash would be more cost effective. Whilst there is always a security risk in carrying large amounts of cash, the benefits of using it are not insignificant. The modern view of things only costing a fiver for some fee that is avoidable with a bit of thought and planning is part of the wealth problem. Book a hotel through a booking site and you pay £5 more than you would if you call up the hotel and book it yourself. It's not rocket science. Rhetorical question, but why do people buy things off ebay from me with at least a 15% surcharge to the cost of the item on the website when they have been pointed in the direction of the latter previously? Sure it involves electronic transfer that has a cost to the vendor, but they are also saying please fleece me as the buyer for 15% more. People really do not think. The solution is in all our hands.

When you sign in to Easylive to register to bid on an auction it gives you the option of either a flat fee of £3 which is taken whether you win anything or not, or a 3% of hammer surcharge. That's a no-brainer. I've spent thousands on many occasions for the same £3 a pop. On very rare occasions I have not won anything, but happily paid £3 to give me the ability to bid live, particularly with less prestigious auctioneers, where you might be wary of leaving commission bids. As I said, it's the cost of a pint and you need to do incredibly badly to spend more in wasted £3s than the 3% charge on any winnings.

Easylive isn't extortionate. A flat fee of £3 is a pint - not going to break the bank. Spend over £100 and you are winning compared to the %age route.

Based on when a die pair was first used, Early Soho is essentially contemporary with the date on the coin, whereas Late Soho is struck from the same die(s) at a later date. There is nothing to stop Early Soho pieces being struck for a prolonged period if the dies were serviceable. So although some would be produced later, they would be indistinguishable from early strikes unless the dies showed signs of wear or rusting. What it doesn't tell you however, is the overall time period. Peck frequently seems to have taken Late to be when one or both of the dies had developed rust spots without gradual degradation of the die. i.e rust spots are present or not, and not seen in a progressive degree of dilapidation. This creates the necessary break between use to assign the period. Dies which had been polished down or refurbished in some way would also qualify for Late status. Obviously the division is an artificial one created by Peck and can't be tied to a particular date, because a die stored in the wrong conditions could degrade within a week or two. Also, one could potentially take issue with some of the attributions such as the 1797 obverse die combined with the 1795 reverse being described as Early, but then none of us knows if the 1797 obverse bust punch was made by 1795.

Given the numbers of KH16 known, it is clear that the type was struck over an extended period. The scratches by the mouth are on the die as my example of P1234 (now sold) also had this feature. See below. In hand, it does not appear on my copper P1235 (see below), nor did it show on my gilt P1233 (now sold). The implication of this is that either it was on the die from the beginning and subsequently filled, or the die was improved at a later date when the scratch appeared. I agree that the lighting may be a factor here, as the ribbon looks weaker on your third image, as is the eyebrow detail and the lines by the eye. If all things were equal, that would imply a worn die, with the smaller jewels also in agreement, but I'm not sure things are equal. The state of the drapery flaw could give a clue as to where in the chronology each image fits. The third looks bigger than the first two, but again this could be lighting. The jewels on my 1235 are razor sharp. There are also two faint raised parallel lines on the die running from the ear lobe to the base of the throat profile. These not visible in any image, so can't comment regarding the other two.

In the world of numbers, ANYTHING is possible.

I know I don't normally advertise my website on here, but I am selling the David Beadell collection of English Shillings on behalf of a forum member, so all exposure is welcome. Link Comprising over 200 lots, it is essentially a date run of English shillings for the past 320 years with some date varieties together with some earlier pieces. There are also 4 lots of miscellaneous items including two pieces of Gunmoney. The grades vary from dire to as struck including some rarities, so if you collect shillings, there may be something to fill a gap, whatever the depth of your pockets.

Which is why I still reference the 5th edition numbers and in the case of anything from 1816 on, prefer to use Davies. It's making a good case for yet another revision, but this time not called ESC.

And it's fair to say that Bull's revision of ESC was not much of an upgrade. Missing items, items added that you would normally not include as a separate listing such as giving a prooflike specimen a different number, a provenance section at the back which doesn't match the ref. no. in the main body of the book. It basically wasn't proof read, or at least not after everything had been added. I list ESC references with the Bull number followed by ESC 5th edition numbers in brackets, as at least the only fiction in that edition was the rarity attribution. Davies is far better than Bull for varieties, with the caveat that it only covers 1816 onwards, and as you would expect is missing some later discoveries. Every reference volume has inclusions and exclusions relative to another book. You really need to buy the lot and sort out a proper list for yourself. It isn't that difficult because the vast majority of items are present in all and correctly catalogued. My personal view is that a concordance book would be a wonderful addition, but the chances of getting collectors to buy it are probably south of zero. It would also be gargantuan, as essentially you are trending towards an entry for every die ever produced, cross referenced to every book that has been printed on the subject.

Why, when I try to open a pdf document does mozilla open a minimum of 500 new tabs in rapid succession, but at no point show the document I am trying to download. The only way to stop it is to keep closing Mozilla until it gives up the ghost trying to open new tabs. I don't know the maximum number it opens before stopping of its own free will, but have noticed it seems to get a bit constipated after 500 new tabs (memory issue?). This is actually a serious inconvenience as I used to print off shipping labels for parcels shipped using a courier which were sent using pdf. Solution anybody, or even better an alternative that works. If it isn't possible to use pdfs any more so be it, then I will just have to move on and find something else. Thanks.

There will be more. Poo Tin's assertion that he can forgive most things except treachery bodes well for the future. If he could dispose of Prigozhin ( and Utkin) together with disbanding Wagner it will be doubles all round, given they have been Russia's most effective combatants. If Surovikin, who is apparently tied up in the plot, meets a messy end, it will be a bonus. Despite his reputation as a butcher, he did at least appear to be a competent military tactician by Russian standards. If Putin has a purge, it should further degrade Russia's ability to prosecute this war. I never thought I'd say it, but Go Putin. What are the odds on Russia imploding this year? I think Ukraine might have to issue another stamp soon.

According to Google I apparently have in excess of 4000 items on my site that are missing field image and so can't be searched. This is clearly not the case as the pictures come up every time of all the items I checked. Am I using the wrong image type (jpg) and should be using something else (png?)? I hope not because redoing 4000+ images is not going to happen - I guarantee I'll lose the will to live. But if I can sort this it might go some way to improving on the consistently small number of eyeballs I get for any items not on the recently added page. The home page items regularly appear in the first dozen listing for a search, but older items may be a few hundred places down the list, if at all. Interestingly, the search for a home page listed item may rank in the top few search places despite it having a missing field image. Confused. TIA

Rather more disconcerting is the selection of similar sponsored items with equally misplaced decimal poimts. For only a few pounds less you can get an MS64RB 1967 halfpenny, with an MS64RD a snip at half that. It's what happens when people collect opinions rather than contents. Anyone who goes down this route deserves everything they get because they're blind by choice to the bullshit. Absolutely no sympathy.

Or alternatively, say what you are looking for.

I've had 3 in the last 15 years

Has anybody got a spare copy of the hardback version available? Please PM if so. Ta.

Same could be said for Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Whatever, it wasn't an internal Russian suppression. Free thought is anathema to all dictatorships and to be suppressed at all cost. With good fortune, it's their nemesis.

The mindset of Russians beggars belief. One woman from Shebekino, upset at the recent border incursion that brought violence and destruction her town, bemoaned the fact that it was unfair. Apparently, 'All we wanted was to destroy Ukraine in peace'. Words fail me.

I bought one in a Bloomsbury sale (2005-7 but can't find the relevant catalogue at the moment). It was clearly a broken punch or filled die as there was a trace of the missing bar. I returned it not as described because it wasn't a genuine ONC as claimed.

This was discussed 10 or 15 years ago. Not only the 'circulation marks' match, but there are also small pits on the rim which are present in all cases. FYI the die axis is about 160 degrees and not 180. A couple more examples apart from the one Pete posted