Rob

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you. It was never going to stay a secret on a forum that's 50% penny collectors - be serious. I wondered which route he would take.

Only up to a point as we aren't quite talking from the same angle here, are we? Carlisle was undeniably under siege and not in a position to expect relief, so the issue was only ever likely to be used internally. Newark was not out on so much of a limb, had a history of being under siege, even though it had not struck coin on previous occasions and from the Parlimentarian point of view was a continuing thorn in the side. It is fair to say that it would not have surrendered in May 1646 had it not been instructed to by Charles. Therefore, the use of fine silver of the correct weight is not surprising given its use elsewhere for Royalist issues. Charles was quite anxious that standards should be maintained, and presumably would have given instructions to that effect when he passed though in the summer of 1645 following the defeat at Naseby. (Is anybody aware of a date for when striking commenced?) Pontefract was in a far more precarious position given it was the Second Civil War, where the rebels were limited in numbers and their position defined clearly as traitors following the insurrection. This was never the position taken by either side regarding other English soldiers (Irish were different) Although Ormonde was instructed to negotiate a truce, this was effectively from a position of equality with the other side. Although various towns and cities came under attack and were essentially under siege, both sides had the upper hand on occasion, so his position was not comparable to the above three places. Use of touched silver meant that standards were maintained, even across the Irish Sea, thus guaranteeing the men would be paid in good money, and their purchased loyalty ensured.

Mine decided she likes Saxon pennies. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record that I love her very much and that the home environment is looking good for the time being.

It might just be a disintegrating punch.

The only thing I would have considered vaguely significant was the two 5s, one upright, one slanting slightly right. I would have expected the font not to change.

Strikes me that there must be most of these variations in date width for most years around a certain date. Just a cursory look through the crap pile gave two shapes of 5 for 1895 and two date widths for 1896 (1 narrower) and 1899 (1 wider). That was just a random sample of 14 veiled heads. Not statistically significant, but does make me question their absolute rarities. Edited to add and 1897

Yes, their value was changed to reflect the adoption of New Pence. A touch of realism perhaps in recognising that nobody would ever spend them as face value coins, yet equally recognising the history and their place as a tangible gift that could be spent, having a face value.

Not guilty m'lud. Despite 60% of this year's purchases having been pennies, not one was made of bronze.

Unfortunately the surviving mint records of the time don't list the privy marks involved at any particular time. However, we know that London used pheon, castle, and crowned (sometimes) portcullis on the silver, and gold additionally used a castle with H superimposed in the period 1509-26. If we assume that the first mark for the reign was pheon because that was the mark in use at the end of Henry VII, that would have accounted for the initial output. We can reasonably assume that castle followed pheon, and that was followed by portcullis. Portcullis, crowned or not, is much more common than castle as a mark which probably only lasted a year or two, so we can probably say that crowned portcullis covered most of the period in question. As there are only three marks for silver, it is clear that the pyx was either infrequently tried, or multiple pyxes were made for the same mark. We know that there are groats with crowned portcullis over crowned T, which was the mark used at Tournai during the period of English occupation from 1513-8. However, I don't have any details for how long the mint operated there. Politics would suggest that the mint started operating as soon as was practical in order to show the locals the English money as the new landlords, and indeed there is a groat (4 known from 2 types dated 1513). The town was captured on 23rd September 1513, so this would suggest coining took place soon afterwards. Tournai was returned to the French in October 1518 upon payment of 400000 crowns (Snelling) at which point any dies would have returned to London, if they hadn't already done so. Therefore we can say that crowned portcullis was in use either during the period 1513-8, or immediately afterwards because of the dies with the recut mark. I would lean towards the (crowned) portcullis mark being introduced in about 1512 or 1513 based on the rarity of castle. This would leave 12 or 13 years for the mark to run, but it is possible that pheon was in use concurrently as the mark is not that rare. It could equally have been used, stopped, and then reused, or even used throughout the 17 year period. There is documentary evidence that a trial was made before Cardinal Wolsey and others of two kinds of money struck between 1st June 1522 and 15th October 1523. Eighteen satchels contained £7/16/- in groats and halfgroats, taken from 14886 pounds weight Tower. This at least gives the amount of silver coined for these two denominations in the period, if not the total weight of silver, because pennies et infra were not included and their distribution not noted. Whether this corresponded to a change in privy mark is uncertain. We do know that the same mark was used in two different periods for the second and third coinages, and these only separated by a few years, so it may have been standard procedure to alternate(?) between pheon and crowned portcullis, or even have uncrowned portcullis as a third mark, but this is only conjecture. It's possible that crowned portcullis, which is a common enough mark for the angel, was mostly struck using the proceeds of the money received from France in 1518, but don't quote me on that one. Best guess is therefore sometime between 1513 and 30th October 1526. This isn't particularly helpful in answering your question and doesn't add anything to what is already written, but is the best I can do.

Fine or a bit better. There is a lot of detail missing, even if the legend is quite good. Spink quote 700 fine, 2K in VF

Although maundy money is mostly found in sets, there is usually an odd number of loose coins due to the distribution reflecting the age of the monarch. Some people also break sets up, the 3d being the denomination most removed from sets, and usually the same one has to be checked when buying sets because people reconstitute them using a currency 3d in lieu. As to whether they are worth buying individually will depend on what you want. If you want to rebuild sets, then it is a labour of love. Trying to match the toning in a made up set is nigh impossible. If you just want an example of each type, then buying a set is the easiest way. You shouldn't be disheartened by the price of sets. Many people refuse to pay more than £xx for anything, but a coin or set doesn't suddenly become worthless just because you have bought it. Properly looked after, it will retain its value in line with the market.

I never got around to joining, so it's as you were for me.

To expand on the musings of Vicky regarding XRF, here are two spectra acquired on the same coin (a tin pattern penny) on different instruments on different days. Apologies for the different scaling, but no prizes for guessing which day I was handling thorium oxide. You couldn't see anything, but obviously a minute trace of material found its way onto the surface. If you want accurate numbers it is imperative that you use a standard, but with most standards costing four figures, it isn't cost effective for most people and certainly not for the individual. Standardising operating conditions is not that easy either due to instrument differences. xrf comparison.docx

119

Afternoon all. Anyone with an example or examples of a Sydney mint half sovereign that they can compare with a London mint coin. The milling count is fewer on an 1889S here than it is on an 1887 London, but the latter has an identical number to a London veiled head half. Both are different to a young head, so the milling number does vary over time. The weight is 3.96g instead of 3.99g. As an unlisted high shield variety, suspicions have been aroused. I don't win the lottery. The engraved part and die axis are ok.

Thanks Andrew. Sorry, made a mistake on the one with the larger number. It is the 1889 which has the larger number of milling lines and is roughly 9 on the 1887 for every 10 on the 1889, or 10 for 11, so quite a difference all the way round. I haven't counted the total number, but on the basis of your 109 would be close to 120. I'm wondering if there were collars used in Australia that were a throwback to the young head period when the number of milling lines was greater. However, if your 1887S has a similar number to the London, it would suggest they were probably the same as mine. Given the only half documented for Sydney in 1889 is one with a low shield, I really need to compare with an example of that. Anyone?

Most phishing emails pass to the bin without a second thought, but today I received one worthy of mention. My Paypal account has been suspended (no surprise there), with the email coming from accountsuspended@ etc. However, Paypal's physical address suggested something might be amiss....... PayPal, 9 mersey road, Luxembourg, Luxembourg The intelligence levels of both phisher and any obliging phishee are questionable.

Yes, they are always a case of having assembled the collar in the wrong order. It has happened ever since they were invented a few hundred years ago. Not to be confused with other supposed errors which usually means a blockage rather than a genuine mistake.

Every day up to the New Year, but since then only on the 6th, 8th 12th and 30th January plus the 13th March. Looks like he is becoming unreliable. FYI the price for 2000 'ancient' coins is still £8m. Unfortunately I have sufficient stocks of 1959 5 paise and 1970 20 paise (nil stock) to be able to take up his offer. I will bear him in mind.

There will always be some variation in weight because mechanisation in Elizabethan times was virtually non-existent. 0.2 - 0.3 grams on a sixpence would be nothing to worry about. Factor in some wear and the fact that the second has been clipped and you are in the right ballpark for weight.

I know some are decidedly rare, because a dealer I thought might know about them said he listed one on ebay after it had been sat in his tray at £20 for a while with no takers - it made over £200 from genuine bidders

Does anyone have a copy of BHM handy to reference this Preston Guild 1882 medal? I've looked high and low but can't find an example of this die pair on the web. It's late as it names the Duke of Cambridge, who replaced the Duke of Atholl. The park view is also one of the rarer reverses. Struck in tin and the weight is 26.97g (including ring). All help gratefully received.

Hadn't thought of that. Thanks. I googled images and found one site with over 300 images of PG related material, but this medal die combination wasn't one of them.

Baldwins also had a uniface on the same day as one of the Bole sales in 2010. That hammered at 5K. Baldwins are setting their estimates too high. It might be related to their 'investment' portfolios.