Rob

Don't see too many of these.

And the reverse. There is a note at the bottom of Norweb 2 lot 520 stating the other known example of this type has the provenance ex Caldecott, ex Dean Rogers, Brand-Lichtenfels Sale (Kreisberg/Schulman, New York 18/3/64 lot 2737) and SNC March 1965 (CC1324). However, the appearance of a rather worn example in Baldwin’s Basement sale suggests that piece was the ex Roger’s example as it was accompanied by a note stating a gift from C W Peck 1951 who noted there were only 2 examples known. As Peck’s piece passed to Norweb when his collection was sold, this would therefore appear to be a third and previously unrecorded third example, but a bit of digging has shown this to be the Caldecott piece, bought by Brand, and sold in the US in 1964 before reappearing in the Circular in 1965. Norweb's went to Nicholson. It was the Rogers piece surfacing that finally resulted in 1 and 1 making 3, because it had been in Baldwin's basement since Rogers' death in 1961 and so could not be either this piece, or Norweb's

1719, 1st obverse with grained edge.

And the obverse.

1734/3. Better by a full grade compared to the other two I have seen. RRR in any grade.

And the reverse.

1738 halfpenny with V/S in GEORGIVS. This error is clearly seen in grades down to at least fair. Not common though, as I've only recorded 7 examples in all grades.

1773 halfpenny with OR over O and struck on a spread flan of about 32mm diameter.

It looks too bright. If you leave silver in the open air for 150 years it will tarnish. Depending on the atmosphere it can be any colour as far as jet black. Circulated coins will pick up contact marks, but also dirt, which will get lodged in the incuse parts. If you don't believe me, take a sharp knife and use it to scrape your finger. all that stuff will get deposited on coins with use. Surfaces don't get more shiny with time unless they are cleaned. An awful lot has been cleaned on ebay. It's the easiest way to dispose of problem coins.

Cleaned

Sorry, can't find the bigger reverse image that's in the 'toned silver'(?) thread.

The jury is out for me. Previously cleaned silver often tones down to a dark uniform colour. The fields and her cheek look to have the same 'brilliance'. If untouched I would not expect the cheek to be necessarily reflective. There is quite a lot of 'flat' relief on the lions' manes which would also make me think polished in the past i.e. they are a little reflective given the minimal wear indicated by the veil detail. Claims by certain peole in the past that it was die polish and not brasso have never held water. This might show what I mean above

Yes, nothing wrong with that apart from the hole. Struck sometime between 9th May 1638 and 4th July 1639

Doubly rare with 3 'eyes'

The third needs Polyfiller.

Does anybody have a real-life example of this hypothetical conundrum? Just wondering if we are tying ourselves in knots about a situation which doesn't actually exist as far as we know.

Almost certainly unique given there is no duplication known in the 8 or 9 similar pieces struck in aluminium around this one (Ballpark of Peck types R20-30 refers). This is one of a few exceptions to the rule of a piece of red felt having more appeal than the unpleasant coin within the tray recess. Anything struck in aluminium during the 19th centurey will be rare as it was a precious metal at the time.

I think I've already nailed my colours to the mast. http://

Depends entirely on the coin. If you have a choice of one pierced and the other with a bit missing off the edge, do you cut off your nose to spite your face and refuse to have either, or decide which one is more attractive to you? Given the former means you can never fill the spot, I presume that the decision will ultimately depend on how driven you are to complete, and in that case it probably doesn't matter which one you have,

There were many dies for this issue. This is for both with hearts and no hearts. Your large image above shows a lot of wear to the arms, so this would likely affect the central star too. The middle one has some of the rays missing, which judging from the position suggests a filled die. Dies were punched in by hand in the 18th century, so variation in execution is the order of the day.

I got this 1861 for the obverse die, which seemed to present quite a problem in a good grade. Henry V halfpennies can be identified by the broken annulets beside the head

I've got Nicholson's and have had another as well. Peck's own coin was in Baldwin's basement and well worth getting when it comes around again. The brass one was also Nicholson's. The other example in the BM is horrible.

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.