Rob

It's a thread standard - well you've certainly been screwed if you believe it. Sorry, I'll get my coat.

That is a vast improvement.

why not?

I was in that position, but service is now restored. Couldn't get on to say I couldn't get on. Chickens and eggs spring to mind.

Basically, VIP proofs were produced in very limited numbers for specific people and to a higher standard than the regular proof sets for general distribution. Some of these are seriously rare, others less so, though no accurate population statistics have ever been disclosed by the RM. For years other than the general issues you are very unlikely to encounter them. They stand out like a sore thumb with the frosted detail.

OK, not for the first time. Left to right - currency, 1953 set for the general populace, 1958 VIP http://

I thought we had all that. Must have got a job lot in.

thanks

This is a common but misguided complaint which I have itemised previously. I will do so again. For the seller to cover themselves against claimed loss is a minimum £1.85. You cannot reasonably protect the contents within a 5mm thick packet for most items, so large letter is required. It would only be 20p less in any case as signed for letter rate. Cost of a Jiffy bag is 15-20p. Cost of printing out the invoice is 5p. You are already at £2.05 minimum. If you are VAT registered you are required to charge it on shipping, so the cost is now £2.46. Is 4p over cost really that excessive? To cover your eBay and Paypal fees would actually require a charge of about £3.20 or so. alternatively you can cover your fees and take the risk on shipping, but either way these are expenses that need to be covered if you are selling. Nobody sells to help the buyer - they do so to make money and there are two sides to a balance sheet or set of accounts. As I have long maintained, people on eBay are unrealistic in their expectations, and frankly the place is best avoided.

If they made proofs that year and a brass 3d was normally issued, there will be a VIP proof version. My type example is a 1960. It's just like a normal coin except for the fields and sharper detail/edge/rims As someone unable to benefit from CGS images, what is the 1936? I assume not either Ed. VIII as they are dated 1937

Which is why eBay is such a drag. 99% of this material needs to be melted which would be good for the environment and good for numismatics. With everything priced at 99p it sets the bar for people's expectations on price. The world has a long way to go before there is a shortage of low grade material. I know I send tens of kgs to the pot every year and that is just a drop in the ocean. In fact, it makes you wonder at which point it is worth not melting. A while back I acquired a virtually full run of bronze pennies (missing 1869, 1870, 1926ME and 1950), mostly in fairly dire condition with the best Vicky no better than fine. Given the undesirable state of most, I bulked them up with a load of across the board 20th century to get rid of a few kilos, it had no bids despite only asking for scrap + fees + shipping + 10% as a starting price. My scrap man was happy to do a BIN with no time wasting eBayer to worry about. I would have no hesitation in limiting things to one relist before scrapping, or just cutting out eBay altogether as future policy. Sure I'll check for the odd obvious rarity, but that aside it really isn't worth the time and effort. A washer for 99p including postage is a waste of time for everyone. With the cheapest shipping method possible, after fees it leaves 11p to be divided between the scrap metal value, packing and cost of getting it to the post office. The cost to the environment is considerably greater than 11p.

Good. You're all doing very well. It helps if your starting point is where only a single die is known. Two dies is not impossible, but the job is a lot harder.

Good. You now have a starting point for extending the die pairs forwards and backwards. Next job is to find the reverse die(s) previously paired with the earlier obverse, and then any reverse(s) paired with the later obverse. Then you are on a roll and can take it as far as the evidence allows. You also have to bear in mind there was more than one press in use at any one time, so the potential for crossover is also present.

Twas always the same. This time in 1979 we intended to go down Birk's Fell Cave above Buckden, but couldn't find the entrance for snow. Oh well, it's only at the bottom of a 10-15' shakehole which had temporarily ceased to exist. Three weeks later it was 20 degrees plus.

No, missing the point. On the assumption there is only one N over reverse die, you are looking for wear/developing flaws on this die and then looking at the obverses to see which die is paired with it in either the early or late stage. The state of the two obverse dies is irrelevant as they are different, so an increasingly decrepit obverse die is merely telling you whether two examples are early or later with that die pair, but not which came first. A single die will have been changed when it became unserviceable, but they would not necesarily be changed as a pair as this is un-necessary expense. It is this point which allows you to sequence die pairing.

It is the wear to the reverse die you are interested in. Developing flaws etc that allow you to sequence the obverses.

B****r. Missed out again. I didn't get one.

Good, so now you know which two dies were paired with the N over reverse and you can work out in which order they were used. All essential information for working out a die pair matrix. Then you pair each obverse with another die and start to build up the sequence.

Or just be more patient

Could do a 21 and 35

Happy birthday from the same frigid northern wastes.

Matteo gets up earlier than me. I concur. Swetman could be written SPEDMAN or more likely with a Ð (TH) given the use of the wen (P)

I agree regarding the lack of scientific application. Personally, I feel the 1645s are likely to be over-represented due to the almost automatic illustration of any flat crown 1645 despite there only being a couple dozen or so. I did start to make a list of identifiable Newark siege pieces, but lost the will to live a few years ago. Whatever the distribution, there is no excessively large skew suggesting that coining took place continuously for months prior to the New Year, nor that coining only took place in (literally) a few days leading up to New Year. The actual periods when coins could have been struck are flexible to a point, as money of necessity only it would be made as a last resort after any available coin had been used. I think we can be confident that dated coins were struck in the appropriate year. If there had to be a case made for an issue considerably earlier, that would have to be the flat crown pieces, but their relative rarity suggests a very short striking period. The two spellings of NEWARK(E) on the regular shillings might be indicative that shillings and ninepences with the terminal E were concurrent with the flat crown shillings. If so, one might be inclined to consider these were struck at a completely different time to those without the E. That would favour an early striking such as the arrival of Charles with a significant number of troops, thus requiring plate due to the immediate supplies of coin being insufficient. But the quid pro quo for any early output is a reduction in the length of time for late strikings, i.e.that would negate any lengthy striking period in Feb/March 1645 because I think we can reasonably assume similar survival rates for both 1645 and 1646, plus the spelling varieties. The absence of many halfcrowns dated 1645 poses a bit of a conundrum. As the basic pay for a cavalryman, you would have expected a fairly even distribution across the dates. Was there a large supply of halfcrowns, yet no shillings? What also seems unlikely is that there would be a large output of shillings and ninepences relative to halfcrowns when the majority of Royalist troops by this time were mounted cavalry. Charles' infantry was decimated at Naseby, so you would have expected the halfcrown/shilling ratio to increasingly favour the former, if it did in fact change. If the spelling of Newark has any bearing, then it might be that coins without the E represent the striking period leading up to the surrender, in which case, the ratio of 1645 to 1646 Newark coins as a whole gives us the approximate split for the period leading up to and after the New Year. The levies would have fallen on the inhabitants once the town was under siege with any Royalists taking refuge likely to be assessed in name only unless they were fortuitously ably to carry their wealth with them. I don't know if records exist for Newark covering the siege period, but those surviving at Chester record fortnightly assessments of £200 during the autumn months. However, there is no confirmation that these sums were actually collected in full. There is a record of a shortfall on one occasion. Again, at York, Slingsby records that there was no money or plate surviving towards the end. So much we don't know that I wish we did.

It still doesn't tell us when they started producing coins unfortunately. 1646 is unquestionably commoner than 1645, but production has to be limited to a six week period with this date, so I wonder how late in the year they started using plate. If striking was pro-rata to time, then production couldn't have started before February, unless levies were collected in plate only at some point. One would assume that levies would have been collected mainly in coin until it ran out and plate only converted out of necessity, but confirmation of that would rely on council records from the time.