Rob

More likely April 1st

And the reverse if you want to check for a die match

Here is my 1858 obverse. A mixture of barred and unbarred and nearly filled with some recutting to boot. Same die as either of yours?

Putting the two coins in chronological order assumes you have two coins from the same die pair. Mintages in Coin Yearbook gives over 3m 1858 shillings, so we are talking about a few dozen die pairs, at least. I'd have a quid on them being different dies.

They aren't errors per se, rather the result of die use. Just an example of natural wear and tear, i.e. no mistake has been made at any point.

Special Delivery up to 100g and £500 is £6.45. The cost of jiffy bags, paperwork and other work required to ship suggests £10 all in is not excessive. As a VAT registered seller you have to add VAT to shipping costs - it is irrelevant that Royal Mail doesn't charge VAT. As I said before, the £5/day storage is moot and I would think is imposed to ensure people settle promptly. The vendor doesn't get paid until the agreed date, but this is based on the assumption that the sale proceeds will have arrived in that period. That is why auctioneers apply a sum after a fixed period in which to settle up, because a person who doesn't pay dumps the liability onto the auctioneer. It is in everyone's interest to have a smooth transaction. It is no difference to the slow payer on eBay who generates a fixed fee for the sale, but then decides he/she doesn't want the item a few weeks down the line.

£12 postage is not so much as a flat fee - £10 + VAT. £5 a day storage is moot given the size, but again as a business you would expect to apply a minimum charge for the provision of any facility.

Andy's ok. He likes his gold.

There isn't anything that screams fake. The obverse looks ok to the extent that the distance from the legend to the linear circle looks ok (i.e. variable) on the obverse compared to the illustration in Marsh. The image of the reverse isn't good enough to pass comment. What does the edge look like as I can't see any trace of the milling?

No. The list would be constantly changing in any case. Wean yourself off eBay. You recognise there is a problem with fakes on eBay, so it isn't a great leap into the dark to leave a site which frankly doesn't give a s**t if listings are genuine or fake and try to strike up a relationship with a few dealers. You will almost certainly forego the ability to acquire a coin worth a hundred quid for a fiver, but you will have a no-quibble return guarantee in 99% of cases. Coins are effectively on approval.

Not so well versed as you might imagine - I had to write down the dates to get the regnal years correct. Should be able to recite those just as you would the times tables or mental arithmetic. The edge is the regnal year, i.e. the twelve month period following accession to the crown and every subsequent anniversary. So in the case of William III, PRIMO will be 12 months from 13th Feb 1688/9 to the 1st anniversary in 1689/90; SECUNDO the following year to 13th Feb 1690/1, etc. Don't forget the years are old style, with New Year's Day falling on March 25th, hence the use of 1688/9 etc

I'm not sure why anyone would say it should be a SEPTIMO edge because that would equate to the year ending 13th Feb 1695/6. The existence of the OCTAVO edge on a 1698 dated coin is therefore a case of the wrong collar used because up to 13th Feb 1697/8 should be NONO and 1698 DECIMO or UNDECIMO. The edge is always likely to be DECIMO, though the overdate could have the UNDECIMO edge if the reverse die was used during the 6 weeks after 13th Feb 1698/9. This is unknown, but not impossible, as old dies were brought out of retirement and repaired/recut. William ascended the throne on 13th February 1688/9, so that only leaves a 6 week period for the later edge to be used for any date, hence the book price differential for 1698 Decimo (VF £225) and 1698 Undecimo (VF £1000). Looking at the coin, I cannot see any reason for an estimate as high as 800-1200. I would have put the estimate at no more than 200-250.

My camera does that too. Welcome to the CPC

Looks like it.

Welcome back, stranger. I knew it was your collection from a couple of other items - e.g the Chester. Who knows what it will do. Yes it is rare, but as we know, that doesn't necessarily equate to exponentially increasing prices. The market will decide, whatever - it only needs one person to bid.

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.