Rob

Hooray! Good news here. Just having a few days in Norfolk and the hotel says in its welcome pack that payment in cash is welcome and preferred - to avoid paying card fees. (Paying in cash has a lower charge and provides support for retaining the only local bank). They also recommend future bookings be made by direct contact or via their website to save having to pay the £7 a night booking site fee. I might come back for a few days fishing if all goes well.

Morrieson took the view that as they were issued as a result of the indenture dated 22nd Feb 1637-8 and have an inner circle, this means the inner circle can be taken to have been adopted around this date. (The early coins had no inner circle as per the group E shillings at the tower mint which were struck during tun). Morrieson was unable to allocate the two lace collar busts to a specific period, and confessed to finding it odd that the two appeared to be concurrent. So it would appear to be for a 2 year period from around the beginning of 1638 to the turn of 1640, but possibly a bit later. Based on the style of bands/plumes, he believed the small bust paired with a reverse similar to his sixpence no.3 was issued around Christmas 1639. The legend reading MAG he concluded was produced around the same time as the corresponding shilling, i.e.1639-40. The armoured bust is known paired with the Oxford reverse, so must have been last. Morrieson dates this 1640 to September 1642 when the mint moved away. The whole issue would probably benefit from a review of the evidence. There are images of groats in spades thanks to the internet, so it might be possible to corroborate or refute Morrieson's assertions with relative ease because hi-res images allow you to see punch degradation and die wear. With £13069 face produced at Aberystwyth over the 4 years, there should be no shortage of research material.

Go with your original attribution. Bull does say 4?, so presumably the example he examined was fairly dire. Don't lose any sleep over the number of strings as they can easily get filled. My 1697B halfcrown for example has 1 & 1/2 harp strings, and I'm absolutely certain the die didn't start out with that number. Another reason for not getting too attached to the number of harp strings is that Jackson-Kent did a 10 year study from 1955-1965 on the harp strings of William III coins and concluded at the end of 10 years that you couldn't conclude anything. Just take the number of strings indicated by Bull to be what he saw and nothing more. He didn't see every coin, so all options are available.

The problem is that a majority of collectors like a number to assign to a particular variety. It allows them to tick it off once acquired. Date collectors already have it on their coins and as a result many don't feel the need for a reference at all. That's why I keep being asked for 1947 brass threepences, 1923-5 pennies and 1961 halfpennies. Collecting by type or date whatever the condition can also exclude identification of varieties due to the lack of detail. However, a more specialised collection such as a denomination or reign will almost certainly be based on one or more of the major references with the varieties researched. I have to say that when I published my article on the Weyl patterns in the BNJ over 10 years ago, the first comment from the referee was 'Pearce numbers?' Like your 1878 1/2d, they were easily identified as being what they were and most types appeared to be unique, so I didn't feel the need for yet another list of arbitrary numbers. Unfortunately, a result of not giving numbers is the near total disregard of the article despite having shown the existence of new metal types, the individual rarities of a particular variety and an assigned provenance to each of the coins extant. I feel that had I given each a number, then the reference would likely be used. Referring to the article would also help curtail the diarrhoeic marketing blurb such as that in the last St. James's Premier sale when an 1860 farthing was described as 3-5 known (show me a duplicate), was struck in 1904 (there were examples in Clarkson 1901 and Cholmley 1902).

I thought long and hard about this. The conclusion I came to is that no update to any volume can be complete as new varieties come to light, meaning that whatever numbering system for an existing reference is used, is going to become overly complicated with suffixes to existing numbers that are unlikely to be in any rational order starting with the first few recorded additions to the published list. This led me to a very deep rabbit hole. Rationalising what people need, I realised that any reference cannot be logically organised on a 1, 2, 3, 4 etc numbering system, however simple this might be because of the above problem. A better alternative would be a longer reference along the lines of Gouby's numbering, starting with the date as the root, and finding a logical numbering system for an extension to this to account for the various varieties as they come to light. Just considering Davies and ESC, the former doesn't assign a different number to currency, proof, edge or off-metal strikes of a given denomination and date, whilst the latter is now just a mess, given the issues with proof-like being assigned a different number, despite being a regular currency coin and the obvious lack of proof-reading which has now consigned to print a large number of glaring inconsistencies. Both leave no room for later inclusions. A date ordered system would necessarily lead to long reference numbers, hence the need for intuitive extension references, but I do think it would appeal to the completist mentality inherent in most of us. It would not solve the problem of what some consider varieties such as the listing of various dots on pennies whilst others don't for example. Whatever system is adopted, it will have its critics. Given the complication involved, anything along the lines of the above would probably be best served as a number of publications, each done for a specific denomination. Some would be large, others a single page. The next issue would then be how too deal with undated coins in a systematic way. A disadvantage of any comprehensive detailed reference is the limited number of people to which it would appeal. Collectors are a diverse bunch, with relatively few interested in any particular sphere, even allowing for the disproportionate number of penny collectors on this forum. Any printed published reference has to have sufficient prospective buyers to justify the costs, though obviously a digital database is infinitely updatable. Another option that might be worth considering is a concordance of references. Whilst that would not help with unrecorded varieties, it would bring the various references under one roof, including those of relatively obscure specialist studies, but even this would be a considerable volume. Taken to its logical conclusion, what all this leads to is a register of all identifiable individual dies based on the observations of every contributor.

Should be possible. Only 2 of the 9 on my list are definitely in museums - the BM and Hunterian, though one or more could have slipped under the radar since their last appearance at auction.

That Sanders coin is one that I can't reconcile with those on my list. Peck examined 6 - the BM (ex Devonshire), the Hunterian, the Foster coin (ex Pembroke, Nicholson, Alderley and mine), his own which went to Norweb, Rogers (ex Alderley with a distinctive flaw) and Parsons (ex Weightman). There was a pierced example in Baldwin's 44 from the basement (lot 589) and the Wilkinson coin (DNW 114 lot 1253) making this a 9th example on my list. Anyway, just for you.

That description is completely screwed up. First line says 1 of only 2 known. Last line says almost a certainly a one-off. OK. And the provenance descriptions say brilliant; brilliant; and Peck says mint state. This will be the A H F Baldwin coin. The last one is right, though not helped by the Baldwin 77 sale provenance given as all the wrong ones. A saleroom notice is required, methinks.

That person is a bit iffy - full of BS. Ask Azda who called him out.

Don't think it is die fill, as there's no sign of it on my example.

Yes please, when you're done with it.

Although the loss of physical evidence is unfortunate, it wouldn't be so bad if there was a mechanism for retaining the provenance on the slab - but they rarely do and half the time get it wrong. I bought the original silver strike with the wide raised rim reverse in DNW a year ago which as far as I am aware is the Moore piece with the longest provenance, being ex Carter, Peck, Magnay, Adams and a few anonymous sales since then. Unfortunately for the documentation, it's a superb example, so lost all its tickets once slabbed, which included a Carter ticket when Colin had the coin. Anyway, it's now out of a slab again with a ticket that records all the info. Still looking for a gilt obverse C with the no legend reverse if anyone knows where the Adams 186 coin is? I haven't seen it since 2013.

Pity. It had mine, 2 x Adams and a Seaby from 1980 for £375.

And ex me. I bought it in the Adams sale and sold it off the website in September 2009. Did it come with the tickets? It left me with 4.

I think they would be given to each member of the committee who took the decision which designs to put forward for adoption, together with some for Victoria. It's illogical to assume a wider circulation for the public given they would not be privy to prospective designs, so IMO the ESC rating of R2 for most varieties is hopelessly out. The R5 rating for the double reverses is probably about right for the number of people involved in the decision.

The evidence suggests the florins weren't issued as a set for the reasons I have outlined previously. You can't exclude that partial sets were possibly given to a few people, but all 28 varieties - no. These were clearly made to test the waters on the best obverse/reverse die and legend combinations.

Just had an email asking if I wanted to buy this. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325752414044?hash=item4bd85b5f5c:g:~cMAAOSwyDxkx-Mb&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4Ic%2B6ncSccSicmhQLB3VpaxkbbT73mx4FRBfjFBKYPC6lRMqyAe%2Fcb3dySR1trTUx%2B5WvyMkI2scM3JQnqsu%2F15gVp8s0kP0VSPf7rz4KBEJRwcDU1g%2F3UNYBGqfx2FmXe6cBpdCLo8F%2BEynv9L5s1jf6zql%2BLUbdFK6%2B7w4orBrlEEclYegKIHoo7YNjVsEocaAAFYxbAPyJkrXD%2F1YnyczDD6fU5vS8PEIIhWw98HEHLVkWtOkVjJC%2B%2FoSojGo26x7eBokcPNOhwwJhjcSDd5rCfFchYQlPQFhNqqUhuDj|tkp%3ABk9SR5i8qZ62Yg I told her it wasn't a forgery, and just a strip end. I suggested she take down the listing and list it for what it is. Hopefully won't have to report it, but we shall see. The problem with ebay is the number of willing idiots, all desperate to splash the cash on things they don't understand. A company that disregards it's own rules or anyone reporting items in order to make a buck, and a long queue of sellers looking to sell crap at moonmoney prices.

The 1853 bronzed halfpenny also appears to be one confirmed. Forget the Norweb coin which is definitely copper - because I've got it. It's the oddball 1839 sixpence which I think is the real clue. I can't see the last young head die being made other than from 1880 on, and certainly not in 1839 whence it sat on the shelf for the next 40 years. That has to mean a late strike. We know that the 1839 sets were not all made in that year because of the 39/41 & 39/43 halfpennies plus the above 6d. My money is still on the production of a few sets prior to the mint refurbishment in 1882, with one or more 1853 sets also produced. The same might also apply to the inverted die copper 1860 penny that went through London Coins, because we know that the die still existed, it currently being in the RM Museum collection. The same applies to the 1860 copper halfpenny and farthing dies. The latter have always been considered late strikings.

The question of the 1853 bronzed proofs has occupied my mind one more than one occasion since the article was written. A stumbling block in resolving the outstanding questions is the images in Baldwin's 44 catalogue are not good enough to determine the positions of the pitting to the reverse rim on the 1853 bronzed halfpenny, which is unfortunate as the 1839/41 bronzed proof in my possession also has a pitted rim. If in the same positions, it would imply the same reverse die and by extension that quite possibly the two dates are contemporary. Following my acquisition of the 1841/39 bronzed proof halfpenny in 2007 I wrote an article in the May 2009 Circular outlining some thoughts for the existence of the dozen or so known inverted die 1841 halfpennies, which are all struck from the same worn reverse die and point to a striking for a specific reason. The bronzed 1853s have an inverted die axis, as does the 1839/41. As the anomalous 1839 proof sixpence is struck from an obverse that was only used from 1880 on and similarly has the wrong die axis, speculatively I wonder if the non-standard die axis coins are all from this late period. Assuming they were from sets made to order before the mint was refurbished and the old Soho equipment replaced, with a maximum window of 2 years for the sixpence, it would point to a minimal number of the other coins - as is seen. It would also help to know if the die fixings were compatible on both the Soho presses and their replacements. I can't help feeling that all the information is currently known, but different bits are in different places.

Maybe there is some input required by the auctioneer to permit flat fee charges? I paid £3 with Lockdales this week for example. The only time I opted for the % fee was when the only lot I was bidding on was going to be £50 max.

At today's Huddersfield fair, I had a conversation with the guy next to me on this very topic. He made the very valid point that every time you pay for a £50 purchase with cash, the recipient has £50 to spend on something else. If he uses that cash in the same manner, the next recipient will also have £50 spend. But if you use electronic payments the bank takes 2 or 3%. So a £50 transaction at 3% leaves the recipient with only £48.50 to spend. When he spends that sum electronically on a subsequent purchase, the recipient only has £47.04 to spend. That reduces to £45.63 for the next one etc. Within 8 transactions, the banking system has extracted 20% of the original value. If the transaction is funded to £50 every time, it would take over 20% by the fourth transaction. If cash was used, the full £50 would be available ad infinitum to all except the banking system. The banks might not like cash, but there is no need to involve them if cash is used in person to person transactions, or at least within the local area. Purchasing power for the masses is actually enhanced by not using cards (debit or credit), because there is no mechanism to skim off the fees. Yes there is a case for having banks for remote transactions, but not for putting every transaction through their system when cash would be more cost effective. Whilst there is always a security risk in carrying large amounts of cash, the benefits of using it are not insignificant. The modern view of things only costing a fiver for some fee that is avoidable with a bit of thought and planning is part of the wealth problem. Book a hotel through a booking site and you pay £5 more than you would if you call up the hotel and book it yourself. It's not rocket science. Rhetorical question, but why do people buy things off ebay from me with at least a 15% surcharge to the cost of the item on the website when they have been pointed in the direction of the latter previously? Sure it involves electronic transfer that has a cost to the vendor, but they are also saying please fleece me as the buyer for 15% more. People really do not think. The solution is in all our hands.

When you sign in to Easylive to register to bid on an auction it gives you the option of either a flat fee of £3 which is taken whether you win anything or not, or a 3% of hammer surcharge. That's a no-brainer. I've spent thousands on many occasions for the same £3 a pop. On very rare occasions I have not won anything, but happily paid £3 to give me the ability to bid live, particularly with less prestigious auctioneers, where you might be wary of leaving commission bids. As I said, it's the cost of a pint and you need to do incredibly badly to spend more in wasted £3s than the 3% charge on any winnings.

Easylive isn't extortionate. A flat fee of £3 is a pint - not going to break the bank. Spend over £100 and you are winning compared to the %age route.

Based on when a die pair was first used, Early Soho is essentially contemporary with the date on the coin, whereas Late Soho is struck from the same die(s) at a later date. There is nothing to stop Early Soho pieces being struck for a prolonged period if the dies were serviceable. So although some would be produced later, they would be indistinguishable from early strikes unless the dies showed signs of wear or rusting. What it doesn't tell you however, is the overall time period. Peck frequently seems to have taken Late to be when one or both of the dies had developed rust spots without gradual degradation of the die. i.e rust spots are present or not, and not seen in a progressive degree of dilapidation. This creates the necessary break between use to assign the period. Dies which had been polished down or refurbished in some way would also qualify for Late status. Obviously the division is an artificial one created by Peck and can't be tied to a particular date, because a die stored in the wrong conditions could degrade within a week or two. Also, one could potentially take issue with some of the attributions such as the 1797 obverse die combined with the 1795 reverse being described as Early, but then none of us knows if the 1797 obverse bust punch was made by 1795.

Given the numbers of KH16 known, it is clear that the type was struck over an extended period. The scratches by the mouth are on the die as my example of P1234 (now sold) also had this feature. See below. In hand, it does not appear on my copper P1235 (see below), nor did it show on my gilt P1233 (now sold). The implication of this is that either it was on the die from the beginning and subsequently filled, or the die was improved at a later date when the scratch appeared. I agree that the lighting may be a factor here, as the ribbon looks weaker on your third image, as is the eyebrow detail and the lines by the eye. If all things were equal, that would imply a worn die, with the smaller jewels also in agreement, but I'm not sure things are equal. The state of the drapery flaw could give a clue as to where in the chronology each image fits. The third looks bigger than the first two, but again this could be lighting. The jewels on my 1235 are razor sharp. There are also two faint raised parallel lines on the die running from the ear lobe to the base of the throat profile. These not visible in any image, so can't comment regarding the other two.