Rob

I got mine from Mark Ray in Nottingham soon after they were released. That would suggest they were issued direct from the mint to whoever's order they were filling at the time.

I've got a woolpack 1/2d but that has rough surfaces and a tun 1/2d which still has dirt in it but is likely to be too high grade. No spare 3/4d - sorry.

Property will flatline or possibly move slightly up for the majority of the country. It won't collapse because the need for accommodation is too great. Ignore central London which is in a parallel universe and reliant on the whims of the very rich. There is sufficient money that needs laundering to keep the top end property market buoyant for years. All that QE and bribery has to find a home somewhere. Collectibles are where they always were. The best and the rest. The top pieces always command top dollar, but the pressure is on the also rans. It has become progressivly difficult to sell lower grade items for a good price (obviously with exceptions) as the internet has opened up new sources of material to the average collector. You are no longer restricted to a handful of shops in your local area plus Spink and Seaby if you subscribed. The world has always had more material available than collectors to buy it. More people are doing background work to seek out the more desirable piecces, essentially driven by computer databases. This keeps specialist areas buoyant. A lot of people jumped on the collectibles bandwagon when interest rates dropped to zero or thereabouts. In some cases this was not a question of making money, rather preserving it by diversification. The first real test of the market's resilience will be when interest rates creep back up again, as this will ask questions of those who diversified for reasons other than they like coins. I think the market has been moving slightly downhill for 'average' pieces for a while, but it depends on the mood on the day. A lack of fresh material will constrain prices, but a collection that has been off the market for half a century will usually do very well - think Marshall, Slaney, Boyd and a couple others. I don't think the market is likely to collapse given the level of disposable income and the changes in society mentality. A generation ago people saved up for a house. Today, a large number of people are unwilling to do this, preferring to spend their disposable income. It doesn't require a large number of people to take up numismatics to distort the markets given we are regularly talking about the number of examples of this that and the other that are available. With collectibles, the only important question in determining the trend is how much would it realise if I sold it today? People pay as much or as little as they feel necessary to obtain something, but I guarantee they want to sell for the most they can get, unless a forced seller.

Which marks?

Taking all the above into consideration, I think they must have repaired the flaw in the same way as they sometimes filled dates and recut them, (e.g. my 1675/3/2 halfpenny, where the first modification was to fill the 2 and recut the 3, whilst the second simply added a sideways spur to the right side of the 3 at about half height). The flaw doesn't reach the edge of the coin, so the die is essentialy intact on the 1677. If it had split to the edge it may well have been terminal. The width of the flaw is no greater than a letter upright, so it is quite possible to effect a repair in this way. Try as I might, the flaw shows no hints of being repaired on the 78. I was hoping for a change in surface, visible when the contrast is adjusted. The full set of harp strings on the 78 in comparison to the 77 and the crown cushion suggest was extensively recut, particularly given the strength of the two arcs on all the shields compared to the 77, which seem a bit weak on the 77. As for the G over O, the same die albeit repaired covers the problem of accurately reproducing a compound letter. I would go for O rather than D based on the images. No you haven't wasted your time, you have answered a question.

A lot more than you might think.

Don't tempt me. I've got a 90% shortfall on the funds I could usefully employ at the moment.

I don't have a 2p. Inadvertently picked up the aquatics 50p though.

Looks unc and is the best date, but it also requires sunglasses. It looks un-naturally bright.

The funds will be going to a good home.

Typically about 7 or 800 quid rare. Actual numbers? Not a clue as I've never seen or heard of any, but as with everything, numbers do not define the price.

Get a good glass on it and count. They will be either incuse or raised or there may be a straight raised line or nothing at all.

I think the die would have to be polished heavily and essentially have a full recut to change it that much. Not saying it can't be done, but it would require a good hand to put the detail back exactly where it was before.

No they aren't. There is a flaw on the shield at 9pm on the 1677 that isn't present on the 78, and the lines between the crowns and shields are better on the later coin. That's why I said they were struck from different dies earlier in the thread

You should also check the other obvious points of wear such as orb, lion's tail, fleur, paws etc. Coins are not necessarily worn in one place consistently. The one above looks dipped to me.

So nothing abnormal. The flaw just tracks across the surface, just that in this instance it crosses a feature.

Strikes were a bit iffy at the changeover from 0.925 to 0.500 silver. It was probably 1923 when they started producing sharp detail again on a regular basis. During WW1 they ran the minting presses using less force to prolong the life of the die, so from 1915 to 1922 it is fairly unusual to see a fully struck nose.

You can't stop the flow of copies, so just be grateful that it sticks out like a sore thumb as wrong. When they copy a genuine 1st issue 1823 hafcrown, that will be time to worry.

What's the problem? What do you expect from a 3" x 2" screen apart from bad eyesight?

All of them exhibit large differences. I suspect the pricing is largely down to the contributors' pet areas. Anything outside someone's comfort zone is a case of seeing which way the wind is blowing and applying an adjustment to the previous numbers. I would say that applies to all. As far as pricing goes, the changes at the top end are not that fanciful. People are paying big bucks for specific items.

OK, sorry. I was going on what I was told when looking at some other coins of his that went to the BM.

The most likely candidate would be J P Morgan. He went down with the Titanic and his children donated a large number of coins to the BM in 1915. Prior to that you would be looking at Murdoch, Montagu, Bergne, and a few others, but no time to look.

William Forster, Sotheby 28-30 May 1868, English, 390 lots. Webster was a dealer, so no collection.

This is a much revisited topic. I'm not sure why people are so dismissive of Spink's prices. Nobody has a monpoly on accurate numbers. Not all things are overpriced in Spink. The further back in time you go the better they resemble the market. Using ebay listings could be interesting. 50p washers for 100 quid on ebay - not an uncommon occurrence and something guaranteed to skew the data. A 50 pound item going off at 3 in the morning may well sell at 99p - again skewing the data. Auction houses have as much variation as eBay too, with the sale presentation and contents having far more influence than the reference volume prices.

How do guests manage to post without logging in with a username?