Rob

Yes

That's right. He isn't lying, but neither is he being very informative.

One consideration when choosing tray sizes is the question of tickets. It is always useful to retain old tickets from a historical perspective as it is often the only connection you can make for a provenance. These are invariably bigger than the hole size required for small coins,

I think that anyone copying a coin in this period would have required that coin in hand. The drawings were inevitably made completely round (as above) and to a large extent idealistic. Although less obvious in the case of legend only coins, any portraiture in the drawings tends to be fairly unrealistic, though the positional limits of detail seem to be quite faithfully reproduced.

OK, I get you. I think I need to find another image of an A1. Maybe the BM has an example if I can negotiate a way into the site. Unfortunately the 3d and groat use different punches for the crown.

I'm trying to put these obverses into chronological order. They are all the same die. Thoughts ladies and gentlemen please.

The feature to the left of the crown in image 1 is the top of the crown double struck. The line in front of the portrait on 3,5 and 6 looks to be double striking too. I agree with 7 5 and 6 both show a different C due to double striking with some rotation. The C in image 4 shows a well formed C for this coinage. The right hand I of the denomination in 5 is raised, so clearly double struck and giving what looks to be a wide top of the C, despite the poor image. Image 6 is clearly rotated about half a letter, so the apparent flaw between the mintmark and C is the left side of the C. The top of the C also has two points corresponding to the shifted serif. The distance is approximately that from crown to the line before the face which would support double striking. I recommend you get your metal detector out and find me an upgrade with a third example. Thanks in advance.

I assume you mean 1 3 4 2 if you think 2 to be the latest strike, in which case I concur. The A is showing signs of deteriorating on the base of the crossbar with 1 & 3 intact and 2 & 4 with an indent on the left hand side of the crossbar. This would be in agreement with current accepted wisdom which puts the 2d reverse 1 at the start of the chain. And so to 5, 6 & 7. No. 7, although cracked, shows no signs of double striking, in which case the A is properly formed and so contemporary to image 3 before any subsequent damage. 5 & 6 are still a problem though as determining the position of no.6 cannot rely on the shape of the A due to double striking. The legend appears double struck following rotation by approximately half a character - or just enough to position the good part of the A crossbar at the same point as the defective part would be. That makes it a bit inconclusive, though the lack of any feature showing the indent must bolster the case for an early place. The crockets on reverse 1 I believe to be earlier, the pyramid with pellet garnishing is later. In the case of which of the lis or scroll garnishing is earlier, the jury is out, but the die looks to be in a much better state than in image 2, again putting reverse 3 second.

Rev 1 is in the previous post, revs 2 & 3 are shown below. Reverse 2 is the size of a groat and subsequently never seen fully on flan. Reverse 3 is quite helpful in that a couple of features place it firmly in a group of dies which as problematical with respect to location or chronology, hence the attempt to pin the obverses in the sequence. The style at the initial mark of a lis surrounded by 4 pellets is early, seen on some halfcrown obverses. The use of the broken annulet punch puts it in a group with the martlet obverse shilling, Boar's Head rev. 6d (and possibly Allen halfcrown rev.43) which are proving difficult to place in the series. The broken annulet 'scroll' reverse mark (which appears to be legend filler rather than a mark) also appears on these shillings. Given the use of a Leopard Head mark for coins that can reasonably be placed at Shrewsbury, and three gerbs and a sword that can definitely be allocated to Chester, the use of the martlet and boar's head may well reflect the use of the dies in another location. Radnor or Radnorshire could be a possibility for the Boar's Head given its current use on the coat of arms and there is documentary evidence that Rupert attempted to raise troops in this area in 1644. More research is required. To keep an open mind, I have been trying to ignore the reverses which independenly fall into identifiable groups which I previously have assumed to have some order and association with other denominations. The view expressed above that the first coin was the latest based on the width of the base of the L contradicts my previously held views and I am still not saying it with much conviction, but the visual evidence must have some validity until disproved. Preconceptions derived from alternative evidence agrees with Stuart in that I think the second coin was the last in the sequence, which would place rev.2 as the last. The rev.2 coins are nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7. The crocket garnishing used on rev.1 would be contemporary with early strikes such as the Tower/Tower 6d. The Tower/Boar's Head coins came later. The shield garnishing appears to lend itself to grouping types across the denominations. This leaves coins 5 & 6 with reverse 3. I am leaning towards the idea that rev.3 came second

There is no verifiable order. Just a number of opinions with varying evidence to support them. The A1 reverse is also known paired with a 3d obverse, possibly at a later stage than with the first obverse above. That is based on the merging of the legend to the left side with the inner circle, but given they show different stages of wear, could just be coincidence. A sample size of one in each case is not very helpful.

That would mean reversing the order set out above

Unless it is mint state, i.e in the same condition as it left the mint - 1p for a penny, 2p for a two pence

Sorry, these are all the images I have for halfgroats. I thought the A2 coins might be earlier on the basis of the L which appears to be a single baseline whereas the A1 and A3 have a thicker base to the right of the upright, though the Brooker image isn't really good enough to say. The Baldwins A2 is well struck and has sharp detail with no signs of re-engraving, which would be a good start. Plus, the first coin's T (A1) looks to have added serifs compared to the 3rd coin (A2). It doesn't help to place A3 in the chronology, but it's a start. If A2 coins were the first issue, that means they used a groat reverse because they hadn't got around to making the halfgroat. The A1 is the only example I have found and is clearly the rarer of the two types. The halfgroat reverse is also known paired with a threepence obverse. Again, it doesn't help the placement of A3 which is hampered by my coin being double struck in the legend where it is struck up, and the Brooker image being crap. I've spent quite a few hours looking at these.

And if anything can be gleaned from that, where do the following fit into the sequence? I'm trying to establish the order of the reverse pairings. Thanks.

Copper chloride, copper acetate, both are green. There will be the occasional free chlorine molecule present from when the PVC was made which will react with copper, though PVC is actually quite stable. More importantly, the plasticiser used in the PVC to keep it flexible will also leach out and degrade. Longer term I would favour the latter as they are often phthalates with a pair of hydrocarbon chains. Although several homologues are used, they all exhibit the same basic chemical reactivity.

I'll go one better. I've got a 1066 undated mule That Harold was king is undisputed, but given the trials and tribulations of Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings, PAX seems a little wide of the mark and surely not the most appropriate reverse design.

There is verdigris and there is verdigris. The coin above has obviously reacted with plastic and this comes off relatively easily being recent. Buried coins which have reacted with soil ingredients in the longer term will develop a much harder verdigris. In the case of something such as the styca seen below, the pastel coloured parts will clean up with time using a soft brush.The emerald green deposits are like glass and can only be removed chemically.

In which case, how can you say it's a coin? No markings is a blank disc. It could be anything.

He isn't doing authentication any more. He's looking after his grandchildren now.

I've got two or three here in stock. I need to buy other things.

If they are copies, he must surely be using someone else's pictures. A group of genuine coins might possibly contain examples of complete and broken E coins, but copies would be all from the same batch, i.e. full or broken E, but highly unlikely both. It might be worth buying a second example to compare. If genuine, £50 is a steal. If not you can get your money back.

Looking at the previous sales, the earlier picture had a complete E in DEI, whilst the one currrently on offer has the broken E. It could be a genuine small group that he has acquired. Other bulk groups of mint state same date coins have come to light in recent years. 1825 and 1890 farthings for example, or the group of 50 1905 sixpences.

With a buy it now price of £50 it has to be wrong. Whether you know anything about coins or not, a simple search will show things in that condition selling for a couple hundred.

Quite possibly a literal stock photograph

The colour looks too uniform for my liking. Even with a full lustre coin you see some variation in the toning. It ought to be 175 years old, after all. Having said that, it is the commonest date. Question is, are the marks the same on all coins?