Rob

No, the obsession is with absolutes. Maybes are a definite no-no. They like to assign a number as it is quantifiable. That's why you don't have a draw in a game, which goes into overtime to force a result. Cricket poses something of a conundrum.

I'm struggling to identify the graffiti as it all just looks like contact marks from the pictures. I'm not sure that clarification makes much of a difference when you get down to these grades. This is melt or thereabouts whether graded or rejected. You might get a small premium for the recyclable plastic, but not for the coin.

That's as clear as a bell (sorry), so overmarks both sides. That narrows down the striking period a lot. Presumably to the weeks following the change of mark. You always need decent pictures to give a meaningful reply. (Those who just post a message saying 'I have a coin. What is it?' please take note.)

The reverse die is the same as Schneider 200, but the obverse is a different die. Schneider 200 obverse appears to be an anachronistic use of earlier punches, which he classed as IIb, the bust being 6a, as opposed to this coin's bust 7a, which became standard in 'Bell' and was used through to anchor. It is the commonest of the types. Looking at the picture, there may be a trace of a bell, but it isn't clear enough to confirm. The very close proximity of the stops either side of the crown would support the overmark, a bell being narrower. Sorry, I don't have a database of this type to compare dies, but it isn't the same obverse as Schneider 198. The value would depend more on condition than on marks for this period as there was a steady output of gold. With 204lb of gold in the crown pyx as opposed to half that for the two periods before and two after crown. It wasn't until triangle that the figure reduced significantly (to 41lb). For further reading on Schneider's Tower gold article see the BNJ vols.28-30. Nice coin.

Civil War period fakes are quite common. Most tend to be half-crowns, though shillings are also known. The Royalists went to great lengths to ensure that silver standards were maintained at their temporary mints from 1642-6, and there is no evidence to suggest Parliament attempted to debase the coinage either.

I would disagree. There is probably as much undocumented information as there is documented, so you can assume nothing. The vast majority of material in a numismatic sense relies on mint reports, pyx trials, the odd piece of documentary evidence from other sources and one hell of a lot of assumption on the part of auction houses, collectors and dealers. The last bit is where the problems arise. Fourteen years ago at Spink in July 2003, I bought a few of the Weyl pattern pennies at the Adams sale. Peck listed this group as nos P2137 - 2204. Specifically, I aimed for the aluminium examples because this was a precious metal until it became commercially available in 1883-4. Not paying too much attention to the description other than the metal type, I bought them. When I weighed them it quickly dawned that they were roughly 3x too heavy for aluminium ( I hadn't paid attention to the weight given in the sale catalogue) - so what to do? The answer was obviously to resolve the issue. i.e why was it too heavy; what was the metal type, as it clearly didn't match anything listed in Peck, and what else have I missed? So over the next two or three years, I bought a few more pieces from the Nicholson, Cooke and Wayne collections and at the same time, listed all I could find in past sales or price lists. Like Peck I found tracing examples difficult, but over time felt confident enough to arrive at a list of approximately 105 known examples of the series, most of which were unique. That extended the list of variants by more than two dozen, many of these were in a hitherto unrecorded material. The aluminium description had been taken verbatim from the Glendining sale on 15th Dec 1993, where the vendor had presumably thought - too light for silver, so the only other alternative looking like that is aluminium. Aluminium it is then! I published the results in the 2011 BNJ. Proof if you want it, that the auctioneers aren't trying to dupe, I think they simply don't know when it comes to esoteric material, because they don't have material analysis equipment to hand. Nobody apart from museums or nerds like me and others on this forum is going to take the time to get the metal analysed and prove one way or the other what the attribution should be. Same again in the Adams halfcrown sale where I bought the RM trial halfcrown struck from ship halfpenny dies. It was listed as Cu-Ni, but is magnetic. It transpires that it is about 87% iron with the remainder mostly chromium with a trace of manganese. Again, a case of total reliance on what has been said before without any corroborative evidence. You have to question anything and everything unless proven, because nobody has all the answers.

In token/medal terms, you can usually take tin to be the major component. A quick check of the weight should be enough to gauge whether tin is indicated.

Tin alloy. Usually with lead. The Moore pattern pennies of 1860 were listed by Peck as being struck in antimony, but an analysis of the metal by EDX gave a tin to lead ratio of approximately 2:1. That would pass as white metal.

It was a sea change in legislation. A tenner to set up a company is a real incentive to go into business. It's no different to today when you can set up a company with 2 paid up £1 shares, and a cheque to a business that does all the paperwork for considerably less than £100.

I think it is more likely to be struck as a result of the changes in legislation in 1844 or 1856 which allowed companies to be incorporated other than by Royal Charter in the first case, or with limited liability in the second. These were major changes in the legal structures of a typical business, which introduced the concept of limited liability and so led to an expansion of business. To issue a token highlighting the new status of a company would be perfectly normal, and no different to a shop giving out branded advertising. Joint Stock Companies were set up country wide. Wiki is helpful here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stock_Companies_Act_1844

Properly described as not hammered. Should probably also say not milled either. But cast doesn't sell very well when they shouldn't be.

It's all part of the ebay learning experience. If you can send it back when not as described, but nobody does, then it must be accurately described, right? There has been a number of people come on here over the years who had to recalibrate their grading, and there will be others in the future too. It's easy for people to think they have a high grade coin when they compare with other examples on ebay or the example they have just upgraded. The half decent coin in their hands may not be UNC, but has to be close enough to call it EF A statistic that sellers studiously avoid is that one whereby only a miniscule fraction of one per cent of coins are genuinely uncirculated. Sellers up the grade because they are merely pandering to the market that demands 'uncirculated' coins and to fill the demand this requires flexi-grade - the suit anybody description.

Looks like a Henry V halfpenny. Withers type 5 with broken annulets by the hair, but the image is too dark to work out all the stops and determine the sub-type.

Looks to have a bit of a lump at the beginning of where the legend should be, so probably the die was blocked with grease. What is the reverse like?

This post will probably open a big can of worms. If you definitely want a graded date run, you have set your own criteria, so will have to bite the bullet and buy another. It really depends on what you want as the US market is firmly addicted to slabs, and dare I say it, afraid to contradict the 'experts'. You bought the coin because it looked good, and for most people, that will and should be the determining reason. Personally, I think people should collect for pleasure, and not as an investment. If you are thinking along the lines of the second, then you will have to go for higher grades, as that is what the 'investor' is looking for. The phrase on the reverse of the details slab says it all. 'Details grade does not determine value' implies the converse, i.e. a graded number will dictate the price you must pay. Clearly this is nonsense, as no two coins are the same, and by extension do not necessarily pass the 'does it look nice?' audition, even if the TPG thinks they are equal. The top end of the US market, or those trying to outdo the other slab collectors in the competitive most highly graded type sets promoted by the TPGs, is driven by someone else's opinion, and not that of the person who is spending the money. To a large extent, slabbing is a triumph of marketing over a willingness on the part of the collector to do the necessary spadework. Horses for courses, I'm afraid. Yes, a TPG submission is a bit of a lottery. However, for those who collect the coin rather than the number, slabs can offer countless opportunities to acquire incorrectly identified coins; or correctly identified coins, but in a slab too lowly graded to attract the money irrespective of its appeal. From a personal perspective, maybe 20% of the hundred or more slabs I have bought have fallen into one of these two categories, with lower MS numbers frequently looking better than the higher graded examples from named collections, the latter of which apparently deserve a better rating. And a details or maybe a VF or whatever grade on a coin where I am struggling to find any suitable example is a no-brainer, with bargains aplenty. That can be really good. Even if you are firmly on the slabbing route, there is nothing wrong with buying raw coins if you have familiarised yourself with what constitutes an uncleaned, naturally toned, and basically untampered with, example. For the beginner it is a steep learning curve with mistakes necessarily being made to provide the experience of what a 'good' coin looks like, but it gets easier with time. i.e. just like everything else in life. It is the numismatic equivalent of the saying, 'the harder I practice, the luckier I get'. Slabbing attempts to remove this learning curve by saying 'you don't need to know, just accept what we say', leading to a healthy income for the TPGs with their captive adherents. Ultimately, the decision is for you to decide what you want. Collecting isn't a p'ing competition, just something for personal satisfaction and interest.

It has taken me 20 seconds to work out what you are talking about.............

There is no appreciable output of evasion pieces after they were banned by Parliament a few years before this coin's date. Coins have always been copied, but a decade or more before this the main reason was to facilitate trade due to the copper shortage arising from the Napoleonic War. By 1826, copper supplies were stable and tbh I'm struggling to think of any examples. To my mind it has to be either an advertising token or some type of play money, probably struck in the late 19th century at the earliest, or certainly after the large coppers had been demonetised in 1869.

On the not entirely convincing point that the date seen is contemporary, 20 grams is in the same ballpark as the intrisic value of a penny. You don't make a forgery for what you could get for scrap. Only if it commands a premium would you make it which says something a bit later struck for collectors. By that time you are past the major issues of copper tokens.

Not a clue.

A bit like in March 1979 when we were discussing where to go caving that weekend. I suggested going down Ireby Fell Cavern on Ingleborough. Some cheeky bugger quipped 'That's Rob-speak for I have fallen over'. Wouldn't mind, but it came from the mahf of a Lahndoner.

Nobody knows everything about a subject, so you can always add to your knowledge. That is why a selection of reading material is a must. Too much is taken for granted as well. Last weekend I was asked what moneyer and mint a coin was from. Being a collector medieval pennies for at least the last 30 years, I had assumed that he would have a copy of North, but no, he didn't. Personally, I couldn't see how he could cope without what is a basic reference, but clearly he can as he knows more about his Edwards than I will ever know. The key is not necessarily going back to what you have previously visited, but rather to discuss things. It doesn't matter if your views are complete b*****ks as long as you stimulate discussion. That is when things are learnt. It is why the anodyne 'like' button should be banned as it makes people feel they are contributing, when in fact they are saying nothing. Only by taking a contrarian view can you bring out alternative theories - and that is how knowledge makes progress. Play devil's advocate (giving a thumbs down is not enough). Either one person will have to justify their argument (in which case the other may learn something), or the second person has to back up their disagreement with reasoning. It's a win-win situation. That is why all views on a forum are welcomed and valid. They might be shot down, but that shouldn't be taken to heart. Every day I learn something new and I know I am not alone in that.

For the vast majority, that is simply a function of subject interest. Anyone interested enough in their chosen area can get up to speed within a few years at the most.

Most cheap coins will stay cheap and most expensive ones today will continue to hold their value. The biggest impediment for you is knowledge. If you stop worrying about their value, and concentrate on their numismatic qualities, the question of collecting what you can afford rather than what is really cheap will determine your collecting habits. You will like things that are beyond your pocket (we all do), but even the more expensive relative to your pocket can be acquired without concern once you have done your homework.

You have just made a very good case for collecting the unspendable.

No reason to wonder. The money is in the 50p, £1 and £2 coins, but in terms of effort expended does not represent a huge return given any sale will likely be through ebay with its fees and then posted with the Royal Mail.. If the three are selling more individually than the sets are as a whole, then breaking them up is a no-brainer as a dealer, but less clear cut on eBay with the relevant fees and costs taken into consideration. I can sell £1 coins at any time for now - I think I only have 1 or 2 left. But I still have a healthy selection of 1/2p to 20ps. These I could use for small change at any time should I need to. There are collectors of all denominations, but most do just the three mentioned. As a rule, the question should be 'why do you not break them up?' Given the involvement of the general public as opposed to knowledgeable numismatists, I still think this feeding frenzy will end in tears.