Rob

Henry VII 1st issue with the half rose and lis mark (below). Priced roughly the same as H8 halfpennies (above) in Spink, you will see dozens of the latter for every one of these. Quite chuffed with this one, ex-Shuttlewood. .........

Edward IV heavy coinage halfpenny with i.m. rose. The copious quantities of wax stem from this coin's illustration in Whitton's BNJ article where it was pl.11. no.12. Gold restrike type R64 by Taylor. Henry VIII halfpenny struck under Archbishop Edward Lee at the episcopal mint at York as denoted by the letters E L beside the bust. Dates to 1531-44.

To appease the milled brigade, here is a P607, a W&M 1/2d struck in brass. A 1718 struck in silver. As I noted on this forum 8 or 10 years ago, this coin is the subject of a typo in Peck. Footnote 1 says the coin weighed 157.3 grains, was 26.5mm diameter, had 2 file cuts on the edge and was somewhat worn. This matches the description in all bar the weight which is not 157.3, but 115.7 grains. i.e. the typesetter used the first 1 of the weight as being footnote 1. It came out of Baldwin's basement.

1st is an Elizabeth I 7th issue halfpenny. The basic design was carried over into the following reign of James I where it was used for the first couple of initial marks - thistle & lis. From James I rose onwards, a revised design was used with the English rose on one side and the Scottish thistle on the other. Although strictly a penny, the debased issues of Edward VI and Philip & Mary were used as halfpennies on account of their reduced silver content. This example was struck at York. The final piece is a James I with the initial mark cinquefoil current from 1613-5. This issue coincided with the granting of the Harington patent for copper farthings. As a result, the production of silver small change virtually stopped. I can only recall seeing 2 examples with this mark in the past 10 years.

Michael-Roo was saying that nobody posts halfpennies, so here is an attempt to rectify that. From Saxon times up to the medieval period, it was normal to use the reverse cross as a cutting guide to produce a halfpenny of which this Henry III long cross is a typical example. Next up is the Commonwealth halfpenny, the last hammered silver halfpenny produced in this country. Third is a so-called Pinecone-Mascle issue halfpenny of Henry VI, the name derived from the presence of pinecone and mascle (diamond) symbols in the legend. 4th is a 1694 William & Mary halfpenny with GV of GVLIELMVS struck over a B - the engraver presumably starting the reverse legend in error. 5th is an Edward I class 7 halfpenny.

He hasn't necessarily dipped things. You can only sell what's available to buy and there is a lot of dipped material in the market.

It's a cash and they were struck over a period of a few hundred years. They aren't rare for the most part, but the series is quite complex and some do fetch good money if you know what you have. The best reference book is Berger's PhD thesis (1976) - if you can find one. Obviously the market for Chinese reference material is somewhat limited, so you should be able to pick up a copy for not too much money, say £60-80. I had one a couple years ago and it sold within a week or two at the lower price.

Done on a scanner so drained of colour, but wonderfully iridescent in the hand. Must look for a camera image.

Has anybody got access to a copy? If so, please could you PM me. Thanks.

Nope

The suggestion that the RM is deliberately creating errors seems a little wide of the mark when they have no control of the market for circulating coins. They would not be able to turn round and say 'used undated 20p, forty quid if anyone wants one', so unless they advertise errors when new, I can't see how they can ask more than face value for circulating pieces

Almost every collection has a name put to it eventually, the only caveat being that it does need to have sufficient quality to be memorable. You can't buy in total isolation and so hide your identity indefinitely, eg, I was able to put a name to Declan's acquaintance with the old milled gold a couple years ago on the back of a date and a coin or two.

And there were quarter and half farthings dated 1868 as well, but these in the same design as the early Victorian coppers. I don't think they were made as sets because the halfpennies appear more often than the other denominations, certainly more so than the pennies. Maybe there were sets made and a few extra halfpennies. Having said that, I've never seen a boxed set, nor an empty box to take them.

The 1967 off-metals are probably the mint workers having a bit of fun as this coincided with the closure of the mint at Tower Hill and its relocation to Llantrisant. There are quite a few of them about. The 1868 cupro-nickel proofs were intentional as all denominations otherwise struck in bronze are known and it coincided with the introduction of cupro-nickel coins for Jamaica. Copper and bronze don't perform well in humid tropical conditions, so they switched to cupro-nickel for this reason. The same applied to a number of British possessions with similar climates. For example, here is a third farthing struck in cupro-nickel from the same period.

Ah, good. Thanks.

Possibly not noted before. Coincraft lists both A's unbarred but doesn't mention stops at all, so it would come under this reference (WMHD-065). I don't know whether Nicholson 049 had a stop or not and now the images are no longer available, so can't say. The die is different to both my unbarred A's obverses. Baldwins 47 lot 357 definitely has a stop.

If you could ever find one. They were made to be worn, and were, with pride. The likelihood of someone having one just to set aside as a collectible is not great.

Cleaning medallions doesn't affect the desirability as much as coins. They were things to be displayed, so the odd rub is only to be expected. Uncleaned original surfaces on a 2 or 300 year old medallion are somewhat rare and highly desirable. Medallion or medal collectors tend be less picky IMO.

But if it was just the bottom leg of the E missing, then you would fork out 400. People ask 'silly prices', whatever that means, because there are people willing to pay extra for something abnormal. Every dog has its day. You used to be able to pick up an 1839 proof set for £10-15. Today you might have to pay £180K because the market has lapped them up. Take the 1 off the front and reduce it some more and we will be approaching a realistic price based on rarity/desirability.

With a flower as the mark you only have Tower mint 1631 or Briot's first milled as the options because the Exeter rose marked sixpences are all dated 1644, and no other Provincial mint sixpences have this mark. I would be tempted to go with Briot 1st issue also given the style of bust, but the punctuation on the obverse is wrong and there is no rev. flower as the mark. A regular Tower mint issue would fit the legends but not the general style of the collar which seems more akin to those of the last Bristol/A/B mint style, nor the reverse square top shield which only appears as the date above from 1625 to 1630 before reappearing in group E sixpences with the correct cross ends. Rose marked patterns do occur for shillings, so a sixpence pattern is not out of the question.

'Finest known' is marketing hype based on a selective database. All the TPGs have finest knowns, but they are from mutually exclusive databases unless a coin has been crossed. Therefore, finest known usually falls flat on its face when you take all known examples into consideration. This is merely the numismatic version of lies, damned lies and statistics. Do your own homework.

lot 84, bought by Brown for £2/16/-. No further explanation. It was in a lot of two with the plume over Bell shilling on P4.T6

The original statement was actually reflecting the presence on the list of sellers of an old favourite, but could be interpreted in the way you did too. Either way it's a depressing sign of the times.

One dependable seller there - for all the wrong reasons.

£40 postage in the context of an £11K purchase is cheap. It isn't the postage that's stupid, rather the item for sale. If I ship an item valued at over £250 abroad, the PO no longer insure it. It has to go by Parcelforce as a parcel, and the cost of that is about £50 minimum, with some rates as much as £150 or so if the value is higher. People tend to automatically dismiss postage as a trivial amount, but the last few years have seen significant changes in the system. And if on eBay you also have to add on their fee and that of Paypal. Anything under £3ish and you are short changing yourself.