Rob

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.

It appears you want everything for nothing. All you have to do is phone the various auction houses up and ask what their commission rates are for selling. Some will charge more than others, whilst if a coin is valuable enough it might be sold at zero commission. Depending on how much you want for it (reserve price) may determine the commission level. If you already know the prices that these have gone for at a particular grade, then presumably you have a figure in mind. If you want to sell through a middle-man whether it be a dealer or auction then you must expect to receive less than the buyer will pay. In the case of auction results, the buyer will pay his premium, whilst the vendor will receive hammer less any selling commission. Everybody has to make a living, a fact which eludes many would be sellers. Heresay about commission levels is as useful as a chocolate teapot. A quoted number is far more useful. Or you can take pot luck on eBay.

Since last night the forum has consistently had at least 150 viewers, with over 300 at one point and currently standing at about 200. Presumably data mining, spammers checking for weakness or what? I guess that if the former it is not necessarily malicious, but serves to remind posters to keep their wits about them. If they are searching for links to spam, I will happily supply that of the Indian idiot who is still persisting 9 months on with his daily email. His current contact details are Chintan Tank cebra_99299@ymail.com and the price is still £2m.

I was in Yeovil today to see a roof repaired on a property I own. (Mini tornado picked it up on New Year's Eve and didn't put it back where it found it) Yeovil is clearly the centre of the universe.

Yes, I'm aware that it is thought to represent the total tonnage at that point, but there ought to be a reason for the second identical figure. It's difficult to see a reason for saying the same thing twice.

I suppose they could in part, in theory, As the output of H & W was only 32 & 74 tons respectively for 1860 and H's only totalled 41 tons including 1861 coins, this implies the only possible Heaton coin is the penny with 40/40. Watts could have possibly numbered things, but as Dyer points out, this would fail based on a total tonnage of 1720 up to 1863. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all the numbered coins are from the RM. Thinking out loud, the repeated use of the same number at the beginning might relate to production milestones such as an internal job requiring 40 tons as opposed to the full commission, or testing dies/blanks? It is also possible that the inconsistency seen for 1860-1 compared to latter figures was a mistake by someone at the mint! It is not easy to see why there would be 2 identical numbers unless for the above reason. Anyway, it's all speculation in the absence of evidence.

Graham Dyer discounted the output from Watt and Heatons as they only struck up to 1863. Only by considering the RM output in isolation do the figures work. If the numbers are inscribed on a coin taken at random by any one of several people on different days, then it wold be entirely down to chance where in the field the numbers are placed. It wasn't expensive compared to what penny collectors are willing to spend. I wish I hadn't stopped bidding on the two Adams pieces in 2003. Parry did ok there.

Here is my 1866 halfpenny reading 405/138. Gouby has an image of 406/139 on the front of his bronze book. They are by extension, all unique.

Graham Dyer's article in BNJ vol. 52 refers. The numbers are believed to refer to the cumulative total tons of bronze (pennies, halfpennies and farthings) struckfor the numerator, and the cumulative total tons of bronze pennies for the denominator. Using the bronze coin production figures for 1860-8, the various fractions observed provide a very good fit. So in this case, the figure 542 is within the range 498-577 tons struck since 1860 for 1867, and the figure 329 is within the 375 tons of bronze pennies struck up to 1868. Given the mint figures of 41 tons of bronze in 1868, this coin neatly fits the hypothesis.

If they use varying capacitance to give the reading then the conductivity of the surfaces will have an effect. I have a set here which can give a slightly unstable reading if not used for a long time. Either taking off the tray and wiping it or physically pushing down as far as it will go a few times seems to clear it. Not very scientific, but it seems to work.

GC posted it on a thread on this forum. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/6147-a-love-of-impossible-reality-excited-an-incredible-a-dream/#comment-56642

That's because Bole's collection was all sixpences.

Depends. If 3 dies were made and all dies used had equal numbers struck, then that would be the most likely statistical outcome. Three dies used with (proven) equal numbers struck using each one, but only the output from one surviving in any large quantity would be more unlikely and almost certainly indicate a hoard. When the sample number can be counted on one hand, nothing should be surprising as you sure as hell can't deduce much from the statistics.

I found 2 of the 1964s in the same 2000. Again, not easy.

I didn't find any in a bag of about 2000 E2 sixpences. Find one, and you will probably find another in the same place

Happy new year from here too. Off to the pub in a sec. - not that I need any more.

No shop, sorry.

It strikes me that you need to make a template resembling the desired shape in a soft material before making something more permanent. Lead is unquestionably soft and more so than gold which would make it the ideal material given the need to manipulate it. Nobody is going to make a mould the right shape given every mouth would be different, but an approximate fit can be adjusted to suit if soft enough. Lead would also be rigid enough to maintain the right shape when removed from the mouth. Modern day luxuries such as quick setting resins or cements are not likely to have been available, so any template would have to be made from a material that was both malleable and semi-rigid. Just my thinking out loud.

Further to the template theory, the only people likely to indulge in such a luxury would probably have sufficient funds to permit silver at the very least.