Rob

That wasn't a bad coin and was on my list to buy if cheap enough. I think you paid a full price for it, but it a nice round coin. It isn't a rare coin. I'd go with VF. I thought there was a trace of a portcullis underneath the bell from a previous incarnation of the die. Traces of a former die are quite common, and in the case of portcullis was used on the previous type of halfcrown issued, being the mark that preceded bell. Not sure what you mean about missing letters as they are all there, though the S is double struck, but this is common and a function of the number of blows required to fully strike up the coin. The date is as per Spink and the number 60 comes from the list of mint marks compiled originally by Seaby. This is a question that's asked on a regular basis. The list has been published in Seaby's and subsequently Spink's annual tome ever since the book was published, and is a damning indictment of laziness on the part of many collectors who don't bother reading from cover to cover. p.535-7 in the current volume refers,

Blocked die, but only worth a couple pounds at the most. There are a few examples shown on this forum elsewhere

And the reverse. Clearly not a thing of great beauty, but it is what it says on the label.

Peck's 1697 I/E in TERTIVS. Also ex Nicholson.

And the reverse

Nicholson's 1700 GVLIEEMVS

Missed a trick by not buying Nicholson's 1719 when it was cheap. This is the third example after Peck's coin and the Rogers coin which surfaced out of Baldwin's basement. It is the example that surfaced in a Brand sale in the US in the 1960s. He had obviously picked it up sometime around WW1, probably in 1912.

Only have a halfcrown. Sorry about the scan only

And the reverse.

Actually, both the above ticked boxes. The first as an example of a double obverse, and the second as an example of a George II coin. Notwithstanding that, I have gone overboard keeping the first issue G2 halfpennies with both silver and copper proofs and 1732/1 all falling into the too nice to sell category, a GEOGIVS because I've had it for ages though is only EF, and the 1734/3 retained simply because I have only seen three with the next best only in the good fine ballpark. The 1738 appears to be the second best of seven I've noted so far. There will be more unaccounted for, but it's not that common because I sub-conciously look for them as the variety is clear down to below fine grade. The 1738 in the April 1986 sale at Glens looks to be better from the description with lustre as well. For a change, George I. 1719 first issue halfpenny.

Marketing. We all complain about costs relative to intrinsic value, but who is to say that our collections have any premium to this either. There is a market amongst some who feel they are worth more than bullion. The cost of manufacture dictates that the initial retail price must exceed spot. In fact, everything you buy costs more than the spot price of the raw materials.

They are buying the label. It matters to some that the genuine Chinese non-circulating bullion is what you have compared to the Chinese bullion copy of the Chinese bullion

Didn't pay attention. A lot of indifferent material made a lot of money today.

and the reverse.

1738 V/S

T'other side

Bored

I've got a 1960 VIP proof which I would do an exchange on assuming you had a problem free example duplicate date (excluding the common set dates for obvious reasons).

The question is, what was wrong with it? Maybe nothing, but dropping a point gave a bit of wiggle room for the future?

Could be anything. A mistake just means a random unintended punch. Doesn't have to be a number or a letter, or even the right way up.

4 over a partially cut 8 or S?

Probably no rim bruise

Those 3 you posted and Spink 638 could be different obv. 3s. The first I of BRIT is a bit bent to the right in the latter and the alignment of the second I and A in BRIT together with the bun curls relative to the R could be different too. If so, this condemns the RR obverse as a maundy die.

That's Spink 15006 lot 638 off my list.

Sorry, that was supposed to say obverse 2, not 3. I got it right in the list above as the two images are Aureo and Baldwin -doh. Easiest way for me is the number of border teeth. 8ish on obv 2 vs 11 or so on 3 between D and the colon after G is quite obvious.