Rob

It is like every other unsubstantiated statistic, it is frequently in error. Bearing in mind the first edition was in 1949 and the previous was 1992, none of the rarity figures could be substantiated using a search of the net to inflate the sample size. You are therefore left with gut feeling as the final arbiter. Probably of more use would be the English Milled Coinage 1662-1972 written by Cope and Rayner in the 1970s which does at least give rarity numbers vs. grade. FYI the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given S(carce) and R(are) for EF & UNC

Can you find a good G from 1677 onwards? It would help to know when the dies were derived from a master and not just punched into the working die. Was this method employed from 1662 onwards, or introduced later? Gut feeling is later based on the uneven legends seen in the recoinage of 1695-8.

I feared that might not give too much info because the obverses can be used year on year, whilst the reverses need to be worked on if they are to be used with the following year's date. What do 1676 and 1679 reverses look like, and do all reverses for these two years show the same feature?

I agree it does look to be the same style, so could it be the conventional way of entering a G at that time given the dies are different? It is so similar that it could be a single punch. The upright of the G looks to be hand entered on the 1678, but to get it so reproducibly misplaced is unlikely. What do the obverse Gs look like at this time?

That seems a little condescending given his lack of popularity. Either that or a full blown brown nose job?

G over O, or the more likely G over inverted G? It looks like there might be some evidence of an inverted G at top left. Inverted letters should be the first point of call IMO given the engraver has gone to the trouble of selecting a punch. It's much easier to place the correct punch upside down than to choose the wrong one in the first place. A bit like the OAROLVS legends found on small silver in Chas.II which is a C over a rotated C, thus giving the impression of an O.

The cut off date for vendors is the 7th Feb. They will be taking lots in at both Wakefield on the 31st and London the following week. It all depends on whether the sale is a collection or general items. Collections can be held for a year or more before coming to market. General sales include lots that the general public leave, and so filling the sale is in the lap of the gods.

Unifaces from the mint are usually made with properly prepared blank reverse dies. i.e there is a rim of sorts, even if no design. Trials from unfinished dies may also be made, but tend to be in lead or similar soft material as the die has not been hardened at this point. A perfectly flat surface on the blank side is much easier to obtain by rubbing down than replicating some vestige of a rim which you would expect as whether uniface or double sided it always has to be struck in a collar to prevent spreading, and so you would expect to see flow into the gap between collar and blank die (which would never be practical to use if a perfect fit without any tolerance).

If that 2015 coin gets slabbed without being rejected as ATed, then by logical extension it has to be genuine and so someone at the mint should get a grip on handling and quality control. Somehow, I don't think that's the problem. Surely a coin that is 13 months old at most, but potentially less than a month old should ring alarm bells when it is presented in such a condition? That really is a case of head in sand.

I actually have sympathy for them having been in the same position myself. Running a business with stock levels creates a problem one way or another. In my case, mark 1 website was basic with everything done manually - adding or removing items or invoicing required me to physically check the stock was there before I could risk sending out the payment request. Postage was calculated once the items were found and packed. If I forgot to remove something it would often be ordered at a later date only for me to pull my hair out looking for it. Its beauty lay in the complete flexibility permitted. To generate the payment link you only had to order something. Mark 2 is a completely different beast. Because the platform allows for integrated stock and invoicing, I now have to get the stock levels right as it will not accept orders where stock level =0. I also have to weigh each item to enable the system to calculate postage. Of necessity those rates have to be simplified. It makes the admin easier, but you lose flexibility. 4 years ago I was asked to get a group of catalogues (~200) together for someone. This I dutifully did and wrote them down on a list. I lost the list and am still finding catalogues that I thought I should have but which went at the time. At one point I had two 1926 shillings listed. These sold within 24 hours of each other, but manual me only removed one of them yet still thought I had done both. Needless to say more orders came in for the listed piece. It isn't as easy as you might think. It is like B&Q having 2 items in stock at location A. This doesn't consider the one left at checkout when the person decided they didn't want it, nor does it allow for the untidy customer who sticks it back in the shelf - somewhere.

Why would you get it slabbed? Unless you have a suspicion that it isn't genuine, authentication is not necessary, and in any case the TPGs don't get it right all of the time. If you really want it authenticated then send it to the Royal Mint. Slabbing may or may not improve its value. I suspect that with 2p pieces not often collected, the fact that it is in the original packing would help. Personally, I wouldn't break it out.

Brilliant! An unrecorded 100? bronze penny. Get in line chaps, first come, first served.

There's too much obsession with catalogue prices. Some are too high, other too low. Even as a hobby, it is not unreasonable to pay over the catalogue price for something you want because the prices seen vary so wildly that only one will ever be on the button and even that is not guaranteed. Ultimately it boils down to whether you are willing to pay what is asked. Whether you collect as a hobby or as an obsession, you always make the same decision based on how much you want something and whether it is affordable. Those who have done their homework will have a feel for prices, the remainder wander blindly, many convinced they are being ripped off at anything above the lowest prices in the reference catalogues. The stingiest working on the principle of fair (for which read lowest catalogue) price or more never knowingly (or willingly) paid.

Colour looks a bit off and the image is not taken with the camera perpendicular to the coin. Crop out the excess surrounding bits and then it will be possible to give a better assessment.

I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Why would anyone want to add to another person's feed other than for mischievous reasons? You aren't replying to a post and it isn't private. Odd.

That looks like it has been polished

PM sent

I've just had a conversation with secret santa that appears in my feed. This was not received as a message, but something else. In fact it doesn't appear in my messages at all even though it was intended as a private communication. How was it sent? Edited to say that it appears as a conversation when added to your feed. You can access a member via the online user list, then at the top of the activity is a box to add to someone's feed. This is not the same as a PM which should be accessed via the message button above this. I think this is why some things appear to be in the public domain and others not.

For what it's worth, here is my 1918I sovereign. There is no blob after the 8, the streamer looks to be slightly different and the depression running along the dragon's neck looks clearer on mine. The shaft on the left side of the ground is thicker on yours too.

I think both fall a bit short of the grades quoted, though not by too much. The reverse of the second is better than the obverse.

Strange contact details. cmci.org.uk suggests a government or semi-official body doesn't it? Why this as the contact details when the vendor's name is Three Counties Coins Ltd. Surely an email address closer to the company name would be expected. 518 Hamilton House is a large tower block split into offices, so suggests a permanent presence. Limited company suggests respectability. CMCI searches bring up Culture, Media & Creative Industries, but there is no 'org' with this name. Further digging has come up with the following: Three Counties Coins Ltd was founded on 03 Sep 2013 and has its registered office in Herts. The organisation's status is listed as "Proposal to Strike Off" and it currently has one director. The company's first director was Mrs Vicky Ilsley. Three Counties Coins Ltd does not have any subsidiaries. The first set of accounts must be made up within 18 months of incorporation and filed within 9 months. They are 6 months overdue (for which reason is likely to be the proposal to strike off). The name Ilsley is one that older members will remember as Dolphin Coins, which may give a clue as the email address is dolphin@cmci.org.uk, though the person listed as heading the company is John Lardner when there was a change in director in July 2014. There was also a change of address from Burnley to Hemel, which may have been related to incorporation as a search for this company also gives Whalley Swarbrick Ltd in Preston (they are auditors). In July they also filed a SAIL address with Companies House, so the director records are held off the registered address, which incidentally doesn't match the one given on eBay. I will not be looking to buy from this vendor.

I think the only reason for rejection should be questionable authenticity or tooled/graffiti as these are not the real deal, and physically modified respectively. People collect coins in all conditions. If the TPGs would grade them for wear (which is the real meaning of the number), then any attribution of cleaning etc could be added to the number

Surely this is just die wear/fill? There are many examples of weakness in varying degrees for this reason.

I always find the rejection of less than mint state coins for surface marks a little odd. Why is wear acceptable but not contact marks, as this is surely just another result arising from circulation? This is frequently contradicted by TPGs grading coins with bagmarks. Just as these are part of the normal minting process, so are contact marks from circulation part of normal useage.

Oh dear, that looks like a nasty surprise in the making.