Rob

Discretionary, as are just about everybody else.

No it wasn't.

I bought a lot to sell, a lot on commission and a lot for me. Pushed the boat out on lot 1941 after the penny dropped. The ticket that came with the annulet marked halfgroat was incorrectly dated a day too late, but after a bit of thinking established that the coin is ex Hugh Howard (d.1738) lot 40 part, which explained Webb's note on the ticket that the coin was not listed in Hawkins. Hawkins published in 1841, but Howard's collection wasn't sold until 1874, 136 years after his death. There are a couple more examples around, but not a lot. Underbidder on the Aylesbury Edward the Confessor and the Richard III mule groat. I couldn't understand the 1826 either.

Yep. That's wrong too.

Stewartby part 6 of 5 All the things that arrived too late for inclusion in the relevant sale and his milled.

I've not seen much worth responding to either. A few what is its, which once answered don't leave any room for discussion. Even penny posts seem to have dried up - is the end of the world nigh? Still, at least there's an auction tomorrow.

You often see British overseas territory coins in your change. Although not strictly legal tender, their identical sizes means few people object. As to whether they are worth keeping, there is no right or wrong way to collect. If you are happy doing so, that's your prerogative.

It's a Harold I fleur de lis type, but I can't make out the mint, it's quite low grade and it's cracked. It's scarce as a type, but unless it's a rare mint not worth a huge amount on account of the faults. Try cropping the image so the coin fills as much of the image as possible and repost. You are only fillng 5% of the available image space with useful content.

Nah. There's always one.

At the £500 level they should be exceptionally rare.

Well, if it's only a handful of people listing out of a population of 60m +, then at least the idiots are rare.

Here's an 1811 from the archive to compare. Sorry, only the one image to hand.

Impossible to say from the image. Seuk's site with contemporary counterfeits is http://www.steppeulvene.com/index.bank_token_3s.html For a genuine example see below. This is 1812 (no 1811 to hand) and shows slight detail differences compared to the 1811 varieities according to Davis, the latter having 5 berries in the laurel, the first leaf pointing to the first limb or end of E and the reverse has anything from 24 to 27 acorns in the wreath.

I know, but it's close enough to a rabbit for an Easter present given the likely age of the recipient. You could have Chinese Year of the Rabbit coins, however, there aren't a huge number of coins featuring rabbits, so beggars can't be choosers.

Mine is 14.78g. A copper counterfeit with a silver wash would be nearly 15% light assuming all dimensions were as for a genuine coin, so you would be looking at around the 13g mark.

Irish 3d. How many do you want?

In which case, the cameo designation does not take into consideration the level of frosting, as what they are effectively trying to measure is the degree of polishing done to the fields and/or the grit side of the abrasive used? Presumably therefore, even a coin with non-frosted features should qualify for cameo or deep cameo status if the newsprint test is met? Anyone expand on that?

I suspect opinions might differ on that one.

I think they are trying another way to market slabs as the desirable way forward by 'assessing' beauty (which will always be in the eye of the beholder). Why else would a grading company which purports to assess the grade strictly on the degree of wear then give an aesthetic attribution - something they allegedly were trying to eliminate when getting the slab concept off the ground? As far as a grading company is concerned, they should be consistently assessing the level of wear and the catalogued attribution. Everything else is irrelevant. Proof or not should be noted, but not prooflike. If cameo is used, then, Washer 01 should be an equally valid attributed grade, but I suppose they already have that with their M(ostly) S(mooth) designation.

You could also get a larger gap than normal as a result of a weak strike or from die refurbishment if the fields were polished.

Yes

I'm surprised it even got a bid in the first place given the £19.00 starting price. Maybe a decimal point placing error - nobody's infallible.

This is potential can of worms. Some proofs never seem to appear with a cameo effect whilst others are split. You even get a cameo effect on things that are bones of contention when it comes to describing them as proofs. In general terms, the Soho pieces tend to be cameo. George IV & William IV not. Victorian pieces are split, but also with the caveat that the contentious Heaton pieces can be unquestionably described as cameo - yet the same cannot be said for their status as proofs. Leaving aside the 1902 set which being matte proofs is something of an oddity, the 20th century commercial proof sets can be cameo, but the so-called VIPs are again split with the Georges typically not cameo whilst the Elizabeth ones mostly are.

Could be and more likely is a rusted die. 1882 is an odd year. The Royal Mint replaced Boulton and Watt's presses in this year and the mint was generally updated, so they had to outsource the bronze to Heaton and although silver was struck, is generally scarce for this date. It would not be surprising for the dies to be used intermittently, particularly in this year given the circumstances. They look like rust spots, and not casting bubbles.

The uncertainty in a provenance must be inferred due to the lack of direct contemporary documentation identifying the coin in question to the people named, but in the case of the two items referred to earlier there is very good circumstantial evidence to support the link. The info came from doing the spadework. My 1601 portcullis halfpenny came has catalogued provenance back to the Earl of Pembroke who died in 1733. The Pembrokes were noted collectors and patrons of the arts and it seems highly likely that Mary Sidney (the poet and author), who was one of Elizabeth I's inner coterie, was the initial recipient of the coin. She married the second Earl of Pembroke, and frequently entertained the Queen at Wilton House. She was clearly a favourite at court, both before and after her marriage. The coin would be passed down from one generation to the next. Again, in the case of the Oxford crown there is a line of descent through marriage prior to a documented catalogued provenance starting in the 1700s. As for a value, think of a 6 figure sum and take it from there, with or without the provenance. Both have to be supportive of the origins, because as a random occurrence, you would be incredibly lucky to hit the jackpot twice. These items did not circulate being presentation pieces, so personal connection would be everything. Whilst you might think coin collecting is relatively modern, there is also evidence indicating collecting coins has always existed. The Bolsena hoard found in the 1880s in northern Italy contained a large number of Sestertii and other denominations. These covered a period of nearly two centuries and contained a significant number of as struck coins. Clearly a sestertius would not circulate for that long without signs of wear, so the question is whether they were deposited around 200 AD having been collected during Roman times, or at a much later date with a requirement to be 'found'. The earth deposits suggest the former. There is no reason to suggest that anyone today is markedly different in habits to a bloke of two millennia ago. Lifestyles might have changed over time, but basic habits?