Rob

So, two likes but no discussion. If you reduce the diameter of the obverse inner circle to that of roughly the smallest that I have of the various coins in the image database, you end up with the coin looking as below. There is still a small amount of slippage on the extreme right side of the obverse, but that may be due to the obverse die having a larger diameter than the reverse die. The significant reduction in width of the obverse conveys better the amount of slippage - about 10-15%. I can show for the reasons described in the article that the obverse die must have been cut on a piece of diestock that had a larger diameter than the size of the obverse die design. This obverse die was subsequently recut to make the Chester Declaration halfcrown obverse die. I haven't been able to establish the overall size of this reverse die. I don't know what happened to the reverse die, but one favoured option to pursue is that it moved to a W/SA mint (probably Worcester) following the commission granted to Thomas Carey dated 22nd May 1644.

You won't find a cheap Mass sylloge. I paid £100 for mine from Marshall Faintich after he had sold his collection through CNG, and that was a few years ago now. Everybody who collects that area and doesn't have one, wants it. If the copy in the US is comparably priced, I would buy it.

Sorry, no spare.

Any deviation from the required character is an error. As we can assume the error was not intentionally made, by extension it follows that the underlying character could quite literally be any of the punches at the engraver's immediate disposal. Although there must be a greater likelihood of the correct character being used but entered incorrectly, it does not follow that it is a given.

I thought that, but it is an odd thing for a casual person to have loose. There aren't that many singles of E2 maundy floating around.

The thing with trial strikes is that they are a bit of an unknown. If you look at the decimal patterns of the late 1850s, many of the flans laminated. The striking pressures will be different for the previous issue of copper pennies compared to that required for the thinner bronze equivalent. In the case of the 1/20th of a shilling pattern halfpenny, all known examples have this defect as does the unique F689 and probably other things struck on a flan of similar thickness. What cannot be known or appreciated by the layman is the number of unpublished failures suffered before they got it right. Anything that failed to make adopted status will be frozen in time, so a cracked die remains just that.

Might be colonial.

Although double struck, the reverse die appears to be the same as Mass 1723 & 1724 which would be a 5c. Although the portrait is a decent match for a 5c, the initial h isn't, so I would go for 5b/c. As with many things, it is a somewhat blurred boundary.

In case you got lost? Has been known

It could be a 0, but looks a bit round for 0, or weren't they elongated? Sorry, don't have one to compare. I wouldn't worry about the alignment, as the last two were entered separately.

Or an inverted or sideways 6? The curve looks to be the same in parts.

Possibly, but not certain. The obverse is definitely 5b and though NORV is ok for 5c, is there a die match for a true 5c? A 5b reading NORV would muddy the water.

I've sold all the copies I had, and don't have enough room to keep catalogues with only non-British content, so nothing in the library. Galata or Douglas Saville will almost certainly have a copy. It won't cost the earth.

Have any gone through sales, and if so, prices? I would have thought a sale which brought a good price would encourage others to come out of the woodwork, assuming that is, they are out there. I can't help. Never seen one.

The only point of reference I can think of is the end of hammered coinage and its replacement with an all milled coinage. Good question, never noticed or thought about it. However, thinking about it now......... One possible reason could be that Charles I faced left, so you would expect Charles II to face right (the Commonwealth didn't exist in Royalist eyes, Charles II's accession being on the death of his father). The Cromwell and hammered Charles II coins faced left, but as any royal succession out of the question with the abolition of the monarchy, the custom of alternating busts became irrelevant. Moreover, the latter two issues were engraved by Thomas Simon. As one who worked for Cromwell et al, he may not have cared which way Charles II faced. The odd ones out are the Commonwealth, Cromwell and Chas.2 hammered issues.

If storage space ever becomes a problem for this forum, we could always have an 'eBay - Spot On' thread. Shouldn't see too much traffic.

In terms of the smaller denominations, the three plumes can be replaced by all lis or a plume and two lis as below.

Hm. Bizarre. He could have refrained from corroding the surfaces and sold it for a tenner, yet chose to damage it, reducing the value to zero. Odd choice.

For the Una? Certainly will. Ebay sale? Wouldn't trust it.

Makes the £421,600 paid for the Una & the Lion last Friday look quite reasonable.

People seem to get quite exercised about the value of and prices paid for low grade things. Frankly, I'm not sure it matters that much whether you pay £2, £3 or even £5 for something that is worth less as melt. The buyer has filled an integral part of their collection; ok, maybe at a premium to it's worth, but given 2 or 3 quid is less than the cost of a pint............ More importantly they are happy. It's no good telling people there is no right or wrong way to collect, but then to tell them they have collected in the wrong way seems a bit muddled thinking.

It depends on how much you want to spend and what sort of things you like. Do you appreciate quality, or are you just looking to tick boxes? This might be a little unfair at present, but the question will raise its head again. All collections are a trade-off between desire/ambition and funds. You collect what you feel comfortable with. Just the simple exercise of buying a book or two will give you knowledge. A book with prices means you can add up the numbers and see what the book says it will cost you to assemble your chosen collection. Prices at the top end can get a little scary if you are used to bottom fishing, but it is always worth remembering that even if you are normally paying £10/coin, a £100 coin doesn't suddenly become a £10 coin just because you bought it. More important is the need to understand the market you are playing in, which means a lot of reading and minimal collecting to begin with. Get a few books and visit coin fairs, speak to people. Wakefield is tomorrow at the Cedar Court Hotel (off Jcn 39 of the M1) starting at 9:30 if you are within range. The Midland fair is at the Motorcycle Museum (near Birmingham Airport on the M42) on the second Sunday of each month, again doors open at 9:30. People with a genuine desire or need for knowledge are welcome to talk to dealers - we don't want to frighten people away as they are our future customers.

A type set is an example of each denomination for a particular coinage, so fractional farthing up to the gold £5 if you can afford it. By collecting in this manner you can see a range of coins which differ in both size and design. After a while you may decide that you like a particular denomination, but until you do it keeps all your options open. Personally, I find a date run boring as it comprises a number of similar coins which differ only in the date which may be too small to see easily, but there is no right or wrong and it is each to their own. You can start with a single type set for a monarch, but this can be expanded to include type sets of the different coinages of that reign. For example, George VI's initial coinage was in 500 silver and had the full titles on the obverse. Following India's independence the IND IMP was dropped on the 3rd coinage, so you have a different obverse design, though the portrait was unchanged. You have 3 distinct portrait types for Victoria, the Young head, Jubilee head and Veiled head. Elizabeth II has half a dozen portraits and she isn't finished yet! The beauty of a type set is that it allows you to find the cheapest year for any denomination/type of coin. Go for a date run and you will end up with a gap for the key date that you feel reluctant to fill. Edward VII silver for example is relatively cheap for some years, but 1905 is way more expensive than the rest. If you got a 1902 set then you would have all the denominations issued during the reign at the cheapest price for any grade. 1902 is quite common in all denominations. Aesthetically speaking, it is better to have coins with a similar grade and tone.

4K hammer

It worked after a fashion today. I still had to wait for registration to be approved, which I still maintain should not be necessary every time as it ought to remember the previous registration, but at least their system found me today (linked to the email account). Powder was dry, but I couldn't afford the Derwent Wood unless it went for low estimate or a bit above. I've bought quite a lot of late, so liquidity is an issue for larger amounts. I did ok in CNG the other day, so can't complain, and Spink has possibilities too.