Rob

I don't think it would make any difference because there is no matching feature at this angle on the obverse.

I think you will struggle to get an answer as very few people collect foreign on this forum, and even fewer with in depth knowledge. Mrbadexample was asking me at the last Midland fair for foreign Heaton mint coins, so might have a similar interest in KN's output.

Aberystwyth bust refers to the style of bust which was introduced towards the end of tun and used simultaneously at both Tower and Aberystwyth mints. The prototype Tower bust was Sharp's E5. Variations on the theme were produced with single/double arched crowns, large and small bust sizes and variations in decoration. These form Group E coins (Sharp's Fx where x is a number from 1-7). Some busts are rare, others very common. Concurrent with the Tower group F coins was the output from Thomas Bushell's mint at Aberystwyth which opened in 1638. These used the same bust and is the source of the name. For the definitive read, look at Michael Sharp's article in the 1977 BNJ where both Tower and Aberystwyth coins are illustrated. FYI, 1628-9 anchor is a very rare mark for silver with only £5 of silver in the pyx. Only Negro's Head and Heart had less silver. Compare this to £113 for 1638-9 anchor and closer to £200 for the entire period when the Aberystwyth busts were used.

Looks iffy to me. I don't have a 1934, only a 1928, but according to Davies the reverse dies should be the same for both years. Compared to this one the KG relative to the teeth is wrong. This one has the K above a tooth, mine is mostly over the space. I think the edge milling is also different. It is in lower relief with broader lines than my regular one. i.e. it's crap. Proof milling is frequently razor sharp. The number of raised lines between the two reference points appears to be 21 or possibly plus a half. My edge looks to have an extra line. The legend aligns differently with respect to the teeth in this area as well. You say it's a proof, so are the fields, milling and other details right?

I have a few in the trays. Manchester, Macclesfield (3), Stockport and Rochdale together with a couple of local co-op tokens.

I would say the 2 has been initially punched in the incorrect position and adjusted after the first blow. Don't forget the last digit would always be entered manually, hence the irrelevance of last digit spacing, unlike the difference between uniformly narrow and wide dates.

Difficult to say because of the picture quality. It looks to be a decent grade, but corroded, which will kill the value because it isn't a rare coin. Maybe a tenner on a good day?

What I was thinking was a different period of time in 1717 given the existence of 1718 silver proofs, but that doesn't exclude a 1718 run. Say the mint made a run of say 100 proofs, then at a later date it needed some more, so made another run which this time had the die axis inverted. Or it could be the other way round with a few special strikings made at the beginning of the issue with the bulk made later. The silvers are obviously special and one might assume made at the outset as momentos of the new coinage, which bear in mind was 16 years since the last coppers were struck. Who knows? I suspect we only have conjecture at our disposal.

I think no is the answer, with the caveat that silvers are known both ways. So maybe the inverted ones were struck at a specific point in time and different to the normal en-medaille strikes. It is certainly scarcer than the upright die axis type.

I'll look later. Just popping out.

Second is a P2000 (F706A), ex Peck collection. Rated R20 by Freeman, but as there is another in the Mint Museum, R19 is more appropriate. Third is a F689. ex - Baron Philippe de Ferrari la Renotiere, Sotheby 27/3/1922 lot 399 V M Brand SNC May 1967 lot CC3073 (incorrectly listed as P2002) £75 M J Freeman Christies 23/10/1984 lot 202 Heritage Auction #410 lot 13023 1/6/06 This was an important miss by Peck as he only recorded the P1983 where the reverse leaves face in the opposite direction, but this coin was illustrated in the Nobleman sale of 1922. This was one of only six Victorian decimal patterns not in the Norweb collection, and was omitted purely by chance. When the coin was listed in the May '67 Circular, it was attributed as a P2002, which she already possessed. Normally Mrs N would have had first bite at the cherry, but the misattribution allowed MJF to acquire it and recognise the variety for what it was. Purchased slabbed as a P1983, the coin is no longer in the plastic, thus saving NGC the embarrassment of a label error. This coin's exciting life included a 7 month period after the Heritage sale when it went awol on a world tour of various countries' postal systems. Thankfully it was returned to Heritage the following January. I was not happy at a unique coin going missing. The second coin like so many of the thinner flan patterns is laminating. This is more often the case than not. And finally, Mrs N's P2002 which she had and so didn't get the misdescribed second coin. These are in the wrong order because of mixed sources. The P2002 is the undated one at the top.

They made 633 of them, but they were struck from specially prepared dies and not the lower quality seen on regular currency dies. i.e. they were more likely to kept rather than spent, hence my comment that a badly worn one would be suspect, or at least initially. It was the first sovereign issue from the Ottawa mint Pictures have to be a maximum of 500kB. You can either resize or use a hosting site such as Photobucket. You aren't the first person to encounter a problem uploading. This is 1949s reply to wild camper last night on the same point. Saves typing it out. When you upload to photobucket, as Nick says, there should be a "direct link" - highlight and then right click and copy. Then when postin on here, click on the symbol above, to the right of the "underline" - it looks a bit like a chain link. Right click in the box where it says URL (disregard the greyed out text) and paste your direct link from photobucket into it, then click "insert into post". That has got to do it. If you can't load the second side without cumulatively exceeding 500kB, leave the thread and re-enter. That will allow another 500kB.

Pictures please of both sides. 633 struck, but proofs. Anything less than as struck or nearly so might be suspect, though not necessarily so.

An oddball for a change. 1859 pattern decimal halfpenny. P2037, ex - Baron Philippe de Ferrari la Renotiere 399, Sotheby 27/3/1922 V M Brand SNC May 1967/CC3075 M J Freeman Christies 23/10/1984 lot 221 part SNC Oct.2002 MC1524C St. James’s 3 3/10/05, lot 307

1863 small 3, 1874H

1859 copper, 1861 bronze and 1860 Weyl copper pattern. All scans, so a bit flat.

Even on the pc the configuration seems a bit wasteful of space. Why it is deemed necessary to waste almost one third of the full screen width seems a bit silly. Hand held mobile devices are inherently compromised when it comes to functionality on account of the screen size, so I can see that viewing on them is a pain in the rear due to the inevitable stack-styled configuration of the page. What was the over-riding advantage of the last upgrade? Previously the whole screen was used and the set up was less complicated - a bonus as most functions are not must-haves.

The original question was whether a coin without the denomination incorporated in the design was permitted to enter circulation. I would suggest the answer is yes and that query has been sorted.

I don't want to hog the pictures. I appreciate halfpennies are unloved, so sticking a couple hundred images up might not be appreciated.

It depends on what the remit is. Catherine was talkiing about Victorian halfpennies. If any reign goes the options are quite extensive.

A coin is something that has been proclaimed currency with a value. The debate is whether the denomination has to be displayed on that coin. I say it doesn't because if so, the Royal Mint would have had to recall all the undated 20p pieces for example.

Please expand.

You can have mine, I haven't used it.

It's the piece referred to in footnote 2 on p.408 by Peck

Or maybe Norweb's 1853 copper proof. This is a nice coin.