Rob

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.

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

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?

I think it is a case of one (or both) being off-centre. Need a larger statistically significant sample size to confirm. The gap from the crown to the letter looks to be the same and the rim on one is not cleanly struck.

Thanks. That's answered a big question. Database can now be expanded - a lot.

Thanks Nick. Any expansion on what I have to do? If not, this will be an ongoing job for willing volunteers.

How do you save images such as those on Baldwin's where there is a magnified image when you hover over it, but no right click save as etc? Thanks. http://www.baldwin.co.uk/coins/great-britain/halfgroats/charles-i-silver-half-groat-worcester-mint-crowned-bust-left-value-behind-initial-mark-lis-both-sides-rev-oval-quartered-shield-of-arms-in-scrolled-frame-beaded-circle-surrounding-with-legend-0-82g-z62912.html?usrc=1

Only one of me is. The other is quite normal.

Silly estimate on the 1667/4 halfcrown - £12-14K. Colin offered me that for £1600 before he consigned his collection which contained the better of his two for sale later in the year, but I couldn't bring myself to buy it given the condition. John (argentum) bought it for £2100 in Spink's March 2005 sale. 12 years, 12K increase in value? Surely not. Someone's having a laugh.

Before they were on a link. Now the pictures show automatically. No link to click - maybe a sign in problem?

They are obviously different dies, but all conform to type. What is your concern?

Do you mean either of this? Only one picture.