Rob

It isn't the fact that different dies of the same year clog in the same place, rather the same characters that get filled time and time again. Unbarred As occur throughout the milled series. Sometimes described as inverted Vs for As, the crossbars were initially added to form the A and so you need a mint state example or thereabouts to show there is no trace of the crossbar.

It depends on what you want to collect. Davies goes back to 1816 only but has better detailed info. ESC goes back to 1649, but the latest revision is a disaster unless you have a previous edition to reference against. If you want a copy of Davies, PM me.

It is possible that auction houses could negotiate a small discount to rates if they send a certain volume of mail. That might bring the cost down to £7.50 incl VAT. Don't know what rates are on offer from the post

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.

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.