Rob

Sad, or just that Barcelona is a bit quiet at this time of year?.

Not a personal thing, but people are too willing to let others do the work. We are all guilty, because even if the will is there, often the time available is not. The early Standard catalogues started listing increasingly minor varieties because the mentality of collectors is to collect something if it appears on a list, so the expansion of a list is a heaven sent opportunity to expand the collection without having to do any homework, and the benefit to say Seaby's was the potential sale of half a dozen coins to the collector whereas before one would have sufficed, having already ticked 'The Box'. Look at the number of varieties that are documented and then suddenly everyone and their dog has one. Those collectors could have looked at their coins before, noted the differences and investigated - but relatively few people take this course.

That is one of the best written articles I've seen on any topic. Concise and to the point.

Nonsense. He must stay in a lot more and extend the study. In true parasitic convention, everybody applauds the work and then just uses the info for their own ends. what would be more useful would be for a few people to carry out the same studies working in parallel. Chances are that whilst the bulk of material will agree, there will also be a handful of unrecorded types which would not come to light on the basis of a single study. The confirmation of research results is a pre-requisite for acceptance, the unexpected discoveries are the icing on the cake.

People are happy to share information on this forum. Problems with copyright usually occur when publishing other people's images for personal gain.

Difficult to say. VF or gVF, possibly cleaned? All three would have pricing implications.

In that case it looks as if you got out of jail. The pictures aren't large enough to give it a grade. You will need to post images where the coin fills as much of the image as possible. Face on and not at an angle.

I bet there will be some damage to the edge milling because the coins are never perfectly round, and even if they were would have to be sweated into the holder. Usually the edges are filed to fit.

Mounted it will only sell for melt value. i.e. the intrinsic value of the gold content.

That's one way of ensuring varieties don't become popular then..........

Stick a picture up. If in decent condition it would appeal to the US market, but if not then marginally over melt

It could of course be a trial with a colonial issue in mind given there hadn't been a KN British currency piece before, and even Heatons hadn't done any production runs for the RM since the RM refurbishment of 1882. Both H & KN were regularly striking colonial issues. In that case it wouldn't tick a box for me.

No. I have an Edward VII penny which is good enough for the design. G5 will be an example of each obverse and reverse plus a Lavrillier, Victoria an early and late bust plus a Minton. I might stretch to a beaded and a toothed border. G6 with and without IND IMP, E2 with a 1953 and a later one without BRITT OMN. That's it for bronze pennies unless an Ed8 appeared, but I'm not holding my breath. I might have a spare Cnut.

Simple. I just want an example struck at King's Norton. The current gap is either a 1918KN or 1919KN, but I already have the design with a Heaton, albeit with Freeman dies 1+A instead of 2+B, so I suppose a regular penny of the mint would pass the non-duplication criteria, but it is difficult to get excited about the (minute) differences.

I think for beauty combined with a few thoughts as to how it was made, you have to look at ancients. Super detail that had to be made without recourse to a magnifying glass when engraving the dies. I have put up the Epaticcus Boar's Head before which is only 8mm diameter, but you could equally choose any one of many early works of art.

Yes, but that one doesn't say where it was made. First is better.

Not a clue, though would be interested if for sale. Saves getting a 1918 or 1919 which is a design I already have.

Is it possible to access their list of varieties, or do you have to be a member?

I think the Ns are inconclusive because there is no sign of the left hand foot. The underlying R is about 10% smaller in height than the other, so assuming the same font was used I would think there ought to be some trace of the underlying N other than the upright. Maybe someone has some close-ups of the appropriate farthing characters to see if the same punches are used? I'm not aware of this variety having been recorded elsewhere.

The final line of the description says 'The Best of British Manufacturing'. He omits to mention the quality British literacy in the title.

It has most likely been plated. A silver or nickel plated example might show signs of underlying bronze. A cupro-nickel flan intended for a different issue would be of similar weight to a bronze penny unless of markedly different thickness. The only off-metal strike that would be easy to ascertain would be a normal thickness penny struck in tin. This should be just over 7 grams against the normal 9g+ of a standard bronze penny. What's the weight to a couple decimal places preferably?

If I were you I would edit the post and remove your email address. Then save the pictures as a jpeg and resize them if necessary. Photos from a camera usually start out at 1 or 2Mb, but opening with paint and trimming off the excess irrrelevant content, then saving as a jpeg will probably reduce it to a few hundred kb which you can attach. The limit is 500kb.

All for £3

You could stick a 1967 penny in with a reserve of 10K as a vendor. They wouldn't have to accept it, but you could try. If someone resubmits a coin from a couple years ago at double the previous estimate, then it might sell. Certainly worth trying from the vendor's perspective. There are no rules to say you can't sell at a certain price, just the stigma of ridicule.

Grade is proportionally related to the wear on a coin. It has nothing to do with eye appeal, which is a subjective matter. Coins can look to be low grade, yet merely be weakly struck. The improvement will be in eye appeal, i.e. it looks more attractive, but you can't reinstate metal lost through friction in the past.