Rob

I think that sums up the biggest problem with FB. I might go a week without looking at the forum, or on other occasions visit a few times a day. Not all of us live on our phones, so difficulty in finding old posts and replying is a bit of a negative.

Is the restricted scope generally typical of FB? The above all have specific fields of interest unlike this or other forums. Is there anything with unrestricted cover? As Richard notes above, there are a few well known names about, but if the scope is limited, then it seems a wasted opportunity. Realistically, when dealing with more knowledgeable minds, you would probably be better speaking at a fair, phoning or emailing, which trumps any forum/group discussion which tend to have short posts because many people can't be bothered formulating or reading lengthy replies. From a personal perspective, I regularly end up discussing a query for anything from 10 minutes to an hour because few things are that straightforward.

Posts are only any use if they can be retrieved. Is there a search facility on FB? I ask this because the wife has used it but when she says I should look at this post - she can't find it because life has moved on and there's been a zillion replies, mostly of vacuous nonsense.

That's not too surprising, as everyone wants to make a quick buck and education improves decision making, which is unhelpful for sales in most instances. A comparison between rare as in half a dozen known and rare as in only a million struck puts things into perspective.

Most guesses of surviving numbers are underestimated, relying to a large extent on personal experience, which is a bit hit and miss as you can't pick up everything. There is no central database of coins, so you will almost always revise numbers upwards. The only exception to this is likely to be for cases of mis-identification where one type will reduce and another increase. Patterns and proofs are a bit more quantifiable. Additional examples from known dies can appear at any time, just as new die pairs appear on a regular basis. We only have a fraction of the story.

Yes, but they tend to get upset when you tell them. When I pointed out to someone on CoinTalk that 'I collect coins, while you collect opinions', he got a bit miffed. Diplomacy has never been my strong point, so if someone could enlighten me on how to call a spade a spade without offending, I would like to know.

Freeman, in response to Pies saying only the first on the list could be his coin. Hence the question whether the toning matched.

Different coin. None of the toning spots match, so make that 7 on the list.

Different coin. Those pictures are a 'PENNEY' obverse, not a dated one.

Or one not on the list. In the absence of any documentary evidence, does it match the image?

Small claims court.

Right. I'm p'ing in the wind having spent all day trying to rectify this and got nowhere. Only being able to access the last page of everything is unworkable as even past PMs can't be opened. It appears to be specific to this forum, as others allow me to view past pages. I'll ask one of the kids to look at it at Christmas when they come home. In the meantime, if anyone wants to contact me, please use either the contact link on my website or email me if you have the address as forum notifications of any messages may or may not work.

If you try to type a page number in it gives a message 'This form is not secure. Autofill has been turned off'. Presumably the issue is with google rather than me. If so, that's a shot in the foot as they can't track my wanderings - there not being any. Every cloud etc.....

Must be something wrong with my end then. Not to worry, as it will eliminate wandering through previous posts and make me more productive.

More likely polished

Does anyone know why the page buttons aren't working on any threads? Have we had a software change because I had a couple of random request asking if I would accept notifications? I blocked it because they come through automatically as far as I'm aware, or at least have up to now, so either gremlins or someone phishing.

I thought you'd ask for that - the original image is 551K, so had to reduce it. There's potentially something to ponder here, namely is 29 a knackered 26? The lis are not well struck up, but overall is somewhere between 26 and 29 - say 27.5! The top lis have full arms, so are 26, but the bottom ones show some sign of degradation, but not a full 29 as yours.

I bought the 1566 dated coin with the two different lions in the Comber sale (ex RCCB) which uses the same obverse die. Thus it is reasonable to assume that this obverse die was in use at the turn of the year and your reverse may well be the first 1567 die.

Not in English either. Why are so many people bi-lingual? Something purporting to be English as their first language, with occasional diversions into English.

Have you come into some money? They aren't exactly cheap. Nor are they the sort of thing that you have duplicates of. There can't be too many types/specific marks with multiple examples available. I've been looking for a couple of overmarks for more than 10 years and am still waiting

I don't - they stopped selling bread a few years ago, and bread is the primary reason I walk to the shops every few days, with additional items purchased subject to the limit imposed by the backpack size.

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).