Rob

Why don't you look at 10th century pennies from EdE to Ae2? They don't seem too hot at the moment and there is plenty of scope for discoveries to be made.

Sorry, I don't have the book. What are the 5 issues listed for Ae2 and which one is Saewine missing? I'm guessing it is Helmet following the sacking of Wilton in 1003 and the relocation of the mint to Salisbury? It surely has to be three generations involved. Ae2 ruling for 37 years is compact enough to be a single person, but with a break until EdC type 7, you have a gap of 40 years, so grandson seems more likely (if relevant). Locations in the interim (Cnut to H'cnut) with a Saewine listed are Bristol, Exeter, Leicester, London, Lydford, Oxford, Shaftesbury, Totnes and Winchester, so one moneyer located in the west and travelling around. with only Leicester and London as outliers suggesting a second person. The two EdC issues involved imply a considerable increase in mint output if the number of moneyers was increased from 2 or 3 to 6. From the table, EdC hammer cross to W1 first issue, you are looking at a gap of only 4 or 5 years before returning - assuming we are talking about the same person. For the period from Sov Eagles to William 2 type 3 is another 35 years. It must be the grandson if descended from the first. North only lists 6 mints with Saewine during EdC. Wilton, Winchester, Bristol, Exeter, Leicester and Northampton. This almost certainly refers to 2 moneyers, with one located in Wessex and the second on the Mercian border. The locations listed in North with S(a)ewine during Williams 1 & 2 are Exeter, Gloucester, Leicester, Northampton, Wilton and Worcester. The continual employment of Saewine at Wilton from William I type 1 to William 2 type 3 might imply a third person of that name doing the rounds. The only missing one is Sword type which is a rare issue in any case. Although North is dated as a reference, the list is complete enough to give a reasonable view of who worked where and when.

Could do a specific gravity test if you have accurate scales and a similarly accurate volumetric dispenser.

Keep this thread open so that they can all be listed in one place as a reference. Lots common coins being reproduced is a future headache. Actually, we will need to copy and paste the image otherwise it will be lost 3 months down the line.

The moral is don't use ebay if you aren't happy. If you and sufficient numbers take away their custom, it will eventually hurt them in the pocket. Only that, or being taken to court for breaking the law will force them to take a more responsible attitude. Their business model has been successful because so many people have a means of selling unwanted items or as a place for businesses to advertise as a shop front. It filled what with hindsight was a glaring hole in the market. In a way you have to sympathise with ebay as it is too unwieldy to police fully and you can easily see why so many dodgy items get through because they will always be playing catchup. An open mind would be helpful instead of a blanket buyer right, seller wrong attitude, but an open mind would also rarely make a decision. The serious problems in my mind started about 10 years ago when they made Paypal mandatory, ostensibly to protect the buyer, but in reality to increase their profits given eBay and Paypal were one company at the time. From that point onwards they applied ever restricted communication and dispute outcomes, to the point where it became impossible to warn buyers about problems, include contact details, discuss wider problems, whilst all you have to do as a buyer is claim nothing was received and they will pay out, whilst the unscupulous receive their goods as well. There is absolutely nothing that forces anyone to use eBay either immorally or irresponsibly, just the greed of many or the avarice of a few.

I'd say 3g

Reverse?

Not really. If you have a partially ejected coin or a die that comes adrift from its holder in the press, the imparted impression can be of any thing anywhere. e.g. Counterfeit halfpenny with an offset double strike on the obverse and partial brockage on the reverse.

Spink list three, but they are all within a few quid of each other. I don't think that any are particularly rare over the others from experience. Fine is 40-45, VF 135-150, EF 700-750 in CoE 2017. I would treat them all as equal.

30g is too much. Should be 28g or a midges over. 41mm is the correct diameter.

There are at least 4 varieties of 1750 shilling.

1750/46

Looks like it. Many things on eBay have been similarly treated. It is one good reason to avoid the place if you don't know what you are doing. Many sellers purvey 'unc', 'high grade', 'superb' coins. Many buyers receive less than those loftily described pieces of metal. Both seller and buyer are initially happy, but the latter frequently suffers a bit of a downer once they become a bit more worldly-wise. You need to visit coin fairs and see things in hand to get an appreciation for condition and impairments.

If it is in mint condition and a 20th century striking it is going to typically sell for £20 give or take a bit, however the early ones would be worth considerably more in this grade. They have been made more or less continually since 1780, so the majority are modern restrikes. There is just over 3/4oz of silver in them, so an intrinsic value of just under a tenner at current silver prices. Paying twice that for a mint state piece is not unreasonable. If it is impaired though, I wouldn't bother full stop. 10 years ago the note in Krause said the mintage was up to about 800 million for all issues. There are sites which go through the variations, but the one I was using now gives a 404 error message.

They would suffer wear just like any other raised feature.

Yep

Here is both sides, cleaned up a little. Super portrait of the king.

Impossible to say. The other letters appear to be partially blocked, so there is no reason to assume the presence or lack of crossbar. Unless a coin is near to as struck and crucially, well struck, the jury is always out regarding inverted Vs because as the crossbar was often an addition, it frequently appears weak and is often the first feature to fill.

Probably the former, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. The following O is also doubled. but not the N

The mark above the head is an attempted piercing. That will put people off given the number available in undamaged condition.

Double the money will get you a mint one.

To elaborate on the previous post, the lines on the coin in the image two posts previously will be seen to be incuse under a glass. This is because the abrasive will always remove metal. In the case of polished dies, the lines on the coin will be raised because the metal has been removed from the die leaving a depression which gives a raised feature on the coin. Effectively it is just additional detail. See image below where there are clearly raised lines in front of the face. The light source is from above.

I would say the reverse was better than VF because you not only have the crown band detail showing well, but the ridges on the central lis fleurs aren't worn either. The obverse looks about the VF mark.

Take two coins of similar age and worn appearance - say a 2p from 1971. Use one as the control and rub the other with a pan cleaner or similar. Recheck surfaces. It will be obvious. The lines are many and parallel. Circulation will give plenty of surface marks, but they tend to be only one or two for any one abrasive event and the orientation of the coin will be different on each occasion.

Always a good feeling to get a coin from where you were born or where you live.