Rob

The cloak design certainly changes from the early to later busts. I haven't looked at them enough to say whether the punches are composite or single, but if the former then there must inevitably be some crossover as they progress chronologically. I agree that the saltire/broken saltire must be a progression. Breaking them down by the amount the bust is turned to the right as was initially done is also problematic and must depend on the ability of the engraver to reproduce the angle.

There will be scope for producing new references as some areas are very poorly served. A comprehensive book for gold pre-1816 is definitely needed and as far as I know is in the making - hopefully doing a better job than the revised ESC. The second half of the Norman period will inevitably need updating as this 50 year period is the least well documented due to the paucity of evidence. Half the coins of the period are mostly illegible, so new types for mint and new moneyers do and will appear on a regular basis. This will be further expanded by the baronial issues with new ones appearing every year or two. This is probably the only area where the knowledge base is lacking to a significant degree, with most missing only the occasional unrecorded type. I'm not opposed to new works, but given the advanced state of the best reference for a given issue, anything short of a comprehensive die study is quite difficult to justify. At this level, adding a new variety is understandable, but is best incorporated into an existing structure rather than someone writing a new reference with its inevitable new numbering.

What I am saying is not rocket science. 10 minutes spent perusing Shuttlewood, Laker, Spink etc would satisfy any reader that the above few paragraphs was stating the bl****ng obvious!! Of far more use would be for people to acquire more books and do their own reading. Then they can come up with things that others have missed. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge, nor indeed should anyone be overly reliant on one or two sources. We all have a bit of grey matter between the ears we could use to good effect should we so wish.

If I produce yet another reference it simply muddies the water further. Very often less is more. I don't object to producing references for which there is nothing existing, but it is better in my opinion to accept one reference as the definitive classification with everything added as a sub-set, unless the bust is so obvously unrelated that it can clearly stand on its own. Ego is a factor here, as many writers want to be remembered for posterity having managed to extract a few more varieties that are only listed in their book. It only serves to confuse, as the OP pointed out. Most series have a couple of competing references. They don't need half a dozen ways of saying the same thing.

A lot of detectorists have little interest in coins that are dirty/corroded. The range of items that are dug is enormous and a wire brush can easily be viewed as the ideal tool. What would you do with a 100 year old corroded tin with traces of the original enamel? It is very easy to say the thing is worthless and do a hurried cleaning job.

Taking the Shuttlewood coin described as bust 1 variety and Laker B, the bust on this coin is Laker B looking at the shape of the moustache and the shape of the tuft to the right of the crown facing, but the cloak and tie is more reminiscent of Laker A1. If these were two separate punches, it would suggest another intermediate type. Laker states that 6 busts are insufficient, but it is possible that his 9 are still not enough. I notice that Spink list both Canterbury and York with bust 1 (or var), though there was nothing in Brady, nor Buck. This appears to have been in the listing since at least 1966 which is the earliest SCBC I have. There it refers to North as the main reference for hammered coins and does indeed reflect his breakdown for this issue. I think the safest way is to use the reference that most resembles the coin in hand. Given the varying number of types listed in the different reference tomes and how the variations on that type are described, it must inevitably lead to some conflicts. e.g. Laker B, B1 & B2 are allegedly all variations on a theme, but B1 is a much narrower face than the other two. Using the cloak, A1, B1 and B2 are different to B. If I had to decide on a way of splitting them up, the easiest is probably using the stops, i.e. saltire, broken saltire and trefoils. The numerous portraits lend themselves to individual classification, though cloak or tunic type offers scope for grouping. Bust 3 is the only unambiguous type!

A common theme associated with dug coins is the harsh treatment they get. So many are horribly scratched to expose the detail. A little more patience would do less damage (and provide the finder with greater residual value). Soapy water and no brillo pad is ideal.

Test? For what? Spam?

I'm surprised you have got to the end of the copper and silver without encountering the gold references along the way! The most comprehensive tome for George III gold patterns is Wilson & Rasmussen which has 140 entries. The Plymouth sale in 2008 had another 20 G3 gold pieces that were previously unidentifiable. Sovereigns and halves are covered by Marsh. Peck has a number of gold patterns and proofs, but you will know about these having completed the other metals. In terms of auctions, then many major early 20th century sales had a decent number. Murdoch had the most 5 guineas at 43 of 47, though even second line sales such as O'Hagen tended to have a few (35 in this case). Obviously not all were G3. From the1970s onwards you had Douglas Morris and Barnes, Sharps Pixley, Norweb pt.1, Selig, King, plus many more, Wertheimer (1945), Nobleman (1922), the list is practically endless.

We're fine, thanks. The river is a good 100 feet lower. Just never seen it in this state.

Somewhat unseasonal rainfall in the local area. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-updates-rain-flooding-manchester-10652325 The gas explosion is where there used to be a bridge with a gas pipe crossing the river. There is footage of it going on Facebook, but I don't have an account to link. Pub washed away; Sinkholes in M62; and it has been bone dry all day here. The water fell 10 or 12 miles away. And for good measure, this appealed. https://twitter.com/Mr_Dave_Haslam/status/680773348679356416?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

The wife suspects the allotment might have relocated to the Mersey estuary by the early hours of tomorrow morning. River level at 6pm was 5.66m above normal. Previous high recorded was 4.59m above. The river has already been deepened and widened.

Merry Christmas from me too

I am using my old bookmark. Finds it ok.

I put a cross in every possible box. We will see what happens.

How big is it? The trays look to be too deep for coins unless the whole thing is little bigger than a metronome.

If you can learn deffo, then you might as well learn both definitely and defiantly. That gives you two words with which to bamboozle the general populace instead of using a 'one size fits all' term. I don't object to the occasional error because we are all human, but people could at least demonstrate they have the fundamentals in place.

Not overly impressed. I now get emails because I 'follow' threads (which I never did before). email overload is a problem without the forum adding to the list. As with Tom, I think there is too much unused screen now. If the screen is there it is better used than not. It's as bad as a pdf in that respect. I assume this layout is to make it 'up to date in appearance', in which case I would like to revert to using Hengist Pod's square wheel.

The much used term 'deffo' in order to circumvent any problems arising when trying to spell definately, defiantly, definetly, definitly (sic) http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/10/definitely-versus-defiantly-difference/

The three examples listed in Peck that weren't in a museum were the Lockett coin, which GC got from Slaney, and the other two were listed as in the Brooks and in Peck's own collection. The Alderley example was listed as ex Brooks and Peck, so the waters are somewhat muddied. If not the Alderley one, it would need a picture because you can't be certain that those are the only 6. He listed the pieces he saw, but that is rarely a full list. The Slaney coin is given as ex Brice, Montagu, Murdoch, Manton & Lockett. The Alderley as ex Brice, Montagu, Peck, Brooks, Noble and Entwistle. See where I'm coming from?

I've got spares for April and May, but no July - and for the majority of issues since 1998. If anybody needs anything please PM me.

VLARD ON CANT, so Cl.2-4b i.e. Richard I. Struggling a bit with narrowing it down further though due to no detail.

Gremlins today. I was going to edit to say that it appears to be a general problem rather than specific program - but it won't bring up the edit reply page. Thankfully reply is still working. Hey, whadda you know. Now it does edit.

Same here many times over.

There are a few books which are helpful for identification, but the quid pro quo is their weight which iincreases in line with the complexity of the subject. Brussels hoard, Mass sylloge, or any one of the numerous BNJ articles on restricted sections, one way or another you are going to have to carry around a volume or two if you want to identify the variants within the main classes. TBH Spink isn't that bad given you are probably going to have it with you for other references. Anyway, a parcel of 100 should ensure you are fully up to speed on a few classes, which means that you will know what not to buy. Just as important as looking for specifics, is knowing what you have and avoiding them too.