Rob

If you want detailed info then you have to accumulate a large number of papers/books, each covering a short period in time. Books tend to be written about a reign or a type, so a suitable example of one publication for the period you are interested in would be D F Allen's book on the Tealby coinage published in 1951. Won't come cheap though. If you look through the intro sections in Spink it lists the useful references for that particular period. The lists aren't exhaustive, but are a good start.

Could the 8 be over a misplaced 1? i.e. started the date too far to the right. I would have thought it was a bit late for such things as I think the mint were only adding the last two digits by hand at this point, but it looks a bit regular for a flaw and it is difficult to see how an 8 punch could give this appearance.

You have punched letters or numbers into the die. This produces an inherent weakness at the junction with untouched metal because you have effectively disrupted the stable lattice structure. This will allow accelerated flaw development or chemical attack along the stress lines. You often see thin line flaws along the bases or tops of punched in characters.

It looks like the 8 might have been punched to high originally, and then re-punched lower, to make it in alignment with the other characters..... Go with that

They are from different dies, so any coincidental agreement between the flaws is just that. The unclear one might be a 6 too given the trace of top loop, but I'm not totally convinced given the lack of LHS for a 6. The initial reaction was an underlying 7, but the angle is very badly aligned if this is the case. Again, not convincing.

The Frome hoard of 52000 Roman was kept intact, though I suspect there will be displays carved out of the total holding. The recent Buckingham find too. Sometimes they are kept in one place, sometimes they are shared around. The only consistent thing is that they are/will be kept away from the public and collectors. A lot of museums don't have anyone to look after the coins, they just fester in a shoebox or three. Blackburn museum is a good case. The Hart bequest in 1945 gave them some really choice and/or rare coins including Montagu's Petition Crown, but the collection languishes. In fact there isn't even a sylloge of it to put down on paper what is present in the collection. The idea that they are kept for the nation is a little disingenuous as there isn't sufficient spare manpower within the various museums to provide an overseer if a member of the public wants to have a look. There isn't even sufficient numbers to answer emails. When I wrote the article on the Weyl patterns, only the BM responded to an enquiry regarding any examples in their possession. Don't expect any answers unless you use Freedon of Information.

I think that happens more often than you realise. 'Sell a similar item' requires quite a few changes usually. It is also a good template for something completely different as you then don't have to keep typing in the same general blurb ad nauseum. Changes can be forgotten and the error missed.

Bet you they try to keep the hoard intact. It's bound to be considered treasure, so it may be that there will be no new material available. If they can keep 52000 Romans together, despite the condition, then the likelihood of them dispersing this lot is remote. William I PAXS pennies from the Beaworth hoard which changed the type overnight from rarest to commonest. Probably accounts for 95% of all known coins and as such the hoard list is a good proxy for absolute rarity of all dies. The Northumbrian Viking hoard at Cuerdale was later still in 1840. There will almost certainly be other examples

If they are washers then you should only expect prices around melt unless obviously worth something as a rarity and only a handful of dealers would want it. Trust me when I say the world is full of coins in this condition, which by extension means they are difficult to shift as a collectable. I am offered kilos of this type of material every month. Much goes in the pot.

When I've listed 1913 varieties (including all 4) in the past nobody gave a damn with no bids even starting at a quid. Now, assuming they aren't in decent grade I just throw them into bulk lots or the pot for melting.

Any foreign shipments get hammered now since they set the insurance limit at £250. Take out separate cover?

This is on a par with the Indian gentleman, who incidently is still sending his daily email.

If it had been Zimbabwean dollars it would have made sense (and a bargain to boot), but I'm struggling to think of what nationality pound they are referring to.

Has it been cleaned? The light bouncing off the detail looks a bit reflective for my liking. If it has been cleaned then it could well have left a residue that has picked up the fingerprint.

Graham Dyer wrote a number of articles in the BNJ during the 1980s and 90s.

Not so easy to mix and match styles as I understand. I agree a list is adequate, but the tail mustn't wag the dog. Returns from coins far outweigh those from catalogues simply on volume. Catalogues are offered pretty much as an at cost service given the amount of work required for something that sells for a quid or two in many cases. I'll never get rich selling catalogues, so I have no inclination to illustrate them all. The reason they had an auction house banner was that it looked better than a blank page. If you click on the logo it will give the same description as I had previously with contents, number of lots, plates etc.

Thanks. I'm glad someone's looked at it. It went live last Tues/Wed. Blame it all on nos. 1 & 4 as they did the donkey work. It is still a complete mystery to me. Need to reimage most of it and ensure that I only add things with a decent pic. We are still waiting for a ring light for the camera. And I'm going to try to have a permanent setup for pictures. A lot of the cheap stuff won't get listed as there's only so much patience in today's buyer and given the rapidity with which you get people clicking on and off sites it may not be productive to have a lot of cheap items without images. If you find any problems, please let me know.

Haven't got a clue about the 3d, but the ESC provenance section has been well and truly cocked up. By the time you get to the bit you are asking about the ESC ref is 3 adrift from the reference given in the main body. The first coin missed in the provenance section (thus creating a mismatch of 1 in the ESC number) is 2840 - florin, 1858 proof not traced. There is an offset of 1 until 1880 when no provenance is given for ESC2898 (854A) which appears in the main text. So a displacement of 2 going forward. This increases to 3 when the provenance includes an 1884/2 florin which doesn't appear in the main body. They have then missed out a chunk of the 1848 patterns. Then I lost the will to live........................................ Anyway, it stays at 3 out for the remainder of the reign. The error is corrected at the beginning of Ed. VII when 3 numbers are missed in the provenance section after the 1901 Maundy set and both parts start with the new ESC 3560. A mess.

Yes I do and no it doesn't mention a RRITANNIA 3d. MS9557 in the March 2011 SNC is an 1885 Maundy Set. It is illustrated, but I would be reluctant to say it was RR given the small picture size. Where is the ESC reference to it being a RRITANNIA? I have a full set for the year here spare if you are looking for them.

From what perspective? Varieties? Mint operations? Mint records? Prices?

I've left neutral in the past. Someone sent me a 'high grade' piece which had the contrast sufficiently reduced to remove the scratches. I left neutral pointing out that it was hopelessly overgraded, but to his credit he did at least give a refund. He just left me a negative with no explanation. What is wrong with people? If you are intent on selling s***e, don't call it what it isn't. You can't polish a turd. If it is crap, say so. And if someone isn't happy, put yourself in their position.

A constant problem for half the time. Then at others I'm told to get it if I can afford it. You have to tread a very thing line on the Brownie point thing.

I don't have any figures for die axis, but suspect this is normal. They weren't RM products, so you would not expect quality control to be such an issue. FWIW my penny is inverted, my halfpenny upright. Is your silver one definitely silver? i.e. have you tested it? The insert is normally white metal (mostly tin), so presume you are misleading yourself. You need a copy of Peck.

To add to the above, a figure of 5-9 implies the dot was put on the die as made. If it is the result of wear, then it would appear with time and the number seen would be lower than this per 1000. The number of dies that had to be used suggests you should see a lot more coins with dots if applied deliberately, after all, why place a dot on one or two dies only out of hundreds. I still think it is the result of wear and tear and not an indicator.

Only seeing a handful is probably about right. If we take the mintage figures given in CCGB as accurate for 1855, then 5.27 million coins struck in that year all with the correct date and a postulated 30-50000 coins struck per die gives a figure of 105-175 dies used with that date. Assume that you get a consistent number of coins from each die pair and the reasonable assumption that the spot is not going to occur in the same place on two dies, this suggests that you should be seeing 5-9 coins per thousand with the feature. OK, a few assumptions here, but a fair back of the fag packet assessment in my view. You could just as easily get one spot as multiple examples.