Rob

Both? There are 4 catalogues and 3 vols of M&R

He had some coins in that sale and also in sales10/4/74 and 24/3/76, but the main collection was sold at Glens on 8/11/1978. The first ref was noted on a dealer's catalogue as being his. You need Manville and Robertson

More likely corrosion. Any sign of copper with a silver wash, as counterfeiting wasn't very normal in debased silver? And the weight? The 3a3 issue was not the best in terms of quality.

If anyone has a copy of Dowle and Finn's Irish book, please could they scan the pages for the Henry VIII posthumous issues of Ed.VI through to Philip and Mary and send them over. Thanks in advance.

Can't - the defining feature for KH5 is the rusted obverse die which is only known for this die pair. There isn't anything obvious on the reverse to differentiate from other varieties. Anyway, for lewd coin displays you need the nude Britannia reverse.

Not for the first time tact isn't my strongest point. Oops. My idea of stunning is by comparison with its peers.

Shouldn't be the same punch as the Soho punches remained there until they were sold off in the 1848 auction where Taylor acquired them. i.e, the 1825s would have to be restrikes to use the same punches as the mint was already using in house punches.

I'm not belittling anybody. As Azda said, it is a case of taking what is available, even if not perfect. I've even got a badly corroded aluminium specimen of one type because it's probably the only one in existence. The same went for a guy on the PCGS forum who took a P940 slabbed 61. normally he wouldn't look at it being a number chaser, but it is the only one he is likely to encounter. Again, it was another variety that hadn't appeared in a sale over the past half-century. I've never seen one other than that coin. Most patterns come up in really good grade at some point, so patience is the name of the game, but occasionally it is Hobson's Choice.

No it's not. It's probably the worst of the bunch as it has a large thumbprint on the obverse which is something that would normally be a reason for rejection, but given the last example I have recorded is in the Circular for September 1968 (CC4134) given as aEF and Mick Martin couldn't find any examples in the period from 1970 to 2008, buying was a no-brainer. Peck's own example went to Birmingham, and the BM has one (ex-Cuff 1854). That leaves only the Brice/Montagu coin as the other reference I have. Any of the aforementioned may be the same coin, but I can't be certain. The late Soho types KH3 onwards, say P1043 to 1048 are decidedly rare. I only have this one and the silver KH4 (not in Peck). I threw out the P1044 which I couldn't live with, but these aside I've not seen any examples of the others.

Somewhat ironically, it probably is a genuine rarity if the mintage figures of 100K or 200K for the real thing are to be believed. The Chinese will make them to order, and I suspect that levels have not yet reached the 100K mark.

Sorted then. I've only kept three. This sixpence plus the two shillings.

That'll see him quaking at the knees, not. Is anybody aware of an instance in which eBay actually backed up their rhetoric with action? Or is this just a malicious rumour spread about by their script writers?

Most people go for a year of birth collection at some point and seem to keep it irrespective of where they end up with the main collection.

It isn't rare. For that sort of money you would need to be looking at a French arms at date

That has to be shilled. It's a 200-300 coin with the scratch on the nose, or maybe that's the rare variety

At least you didn't try putting them in the meter

If I have any in stock they usually go in at £3, reducing for the others

I wondered where they went

Sorry, no spare

The catalogue images are pixelated black and white, so no better than what you have. The cover might be more informative however.

It was lot 316 in Spink 89 on 25/11/1991. Hammered at £21K.

That's a moot point. If the tool had bevelled sides then it would tend to throw the metal surfaces outwards on scraping. If the metal was removed to leave perpendicular sides to the scrape, then striking would lead to the groove being filled in at the surface as it folded over on striking. Somewhere in the middle, the two extremes would cancel each other out. Once the coin is worn, it would result in metal removal at the highest points, unhelpfully removing the evidence for either. IMO the best info is therefore likely to show where the lines are away from the highest points, but this is also where the relief will be lowest. Despite the logic of removing excess weight before striking, I still think it is post strike as the lines rarely cover the whole diameter which you would expect if scraped across an abrasive surface.

I'm keeping mum, as I have nothing meaningless to say.

P1046. This appears to be the first example to come to market since the mid-60s

P607. 1694 halfpenny in brass