Rob

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.

I wonder if it might be a template to make a mould. The lead could be moulded inside the mouth without falling to pieces when removed. Put clay around it and cut the mould in half to remove the lead, you could then rejoin it and fill it with gold or silver. This would overcome the softness problem with the lead. I still find it difficult to believe there is any merit in using lead for a permanent fixture. How many corpses have been found with a lead set in place? People have used gold and silver since ancient times.

That line isn't a problem, just a developed die flaw.

I can't see how they could be as described. You could bite through lead sheet (not that I would suggest you try). Lead is simply too soft to be used for any mechanical tool. Using it to enclose something is ok because you can easily beat the sheet into a sealed container. 50/50 solder is soft too. You would have to make the lead content minimal to give any meaningful resistance to wear.

P is right. At the 1816 recoinage the weight was reduced from 3.01g to 2.83g. That weight stayed the same until the end.

I would go with IIIb. No sign of a neck and a suitably round face.

What? And in English?

I see a disc of metal that can have an assigned value if you can establish the element or alloy. Sorry, feeling mischievous.

Yes, but those are coppers, not the bronze coinage.

?? Peck 1929 is a bronze proof. P1930 the Cu-Ni proof and P1931 the Aluminium proof. The footnote says the latter was untraced, and presumably was a late striking given the metal wasn't available commercially until the early 1880s. It also assumes the listing in the Saward catalogue was correct and not an example in tin listed as aluminium in error. (Which would therefore make it likely to be a contemporary strike).

The original bust assignation was by Evans, then refined by Brooke and further discussed by Whitton in the BNJ vol.26, part.3 of which contains the notes pertaining to the groats. These articles are the sources and show the development of the original bust numbering. Basically it just shows that opinions have changed down the years as to the order in which they were used, so nothing new here. All this of course implies that the mint intended to have a numbered series of busts, which I very much doubt. There will inevitably be some crossover with a couple of bust punches in use at any one time, and so the sequencing is best done showing the degradation of letter and stop punches. If you wanted to do something useful, a die link matrix would help. Given the number of attempts to set the record straight, the order in which they were used is going to be more or less right, but by revisiting the order in which the dies were used, someone might see an obvious divide between styles/stops/lettering. Busts 1 and 2 and their varieties are so similar, that arguably all could be considered discrete varieties. The tunic depicted on bust 3 is distinctly different to the others, but that might just reflect a different engraver's style. We have to bear in mind that there was no reducing equipment used in conjunction with a master, so all the punches were the result of the individual engravers' attempts to replicate a style. That to me is trying to read too much into the slight variations. However, if it was possible to assign dies to a marked change in mint procedures or say silver fineness, then there would be a valid reason to group busts accordingly, but only as part of the bigger picture for the reasons given above. I don't think people pay enough attention to the idiosyncracies of the individual. At any one time there may be a number of engravers working on the same coinage, but who will have their own individual markers or visual perspective of an object. This could easily throw a detective off the scent of they were intent on assigning portrait appearance to a specific time and group.

use photobucket or something similar and post a link to the picture. Otherwise you will have to reduce it to under 500kb.

Difficult to say. The milling doesn't look particularly sharp considering. Is the milling spacing the same as for a normal 1881? Heritage are just going by the TPG designation - they don't think for themselves. ESC could well be wrong. 1881 shillings are noted with an inverted die axis. Bole 1831 was described as 6h (inverted). Davies doesn't indicate any change in die axis from the norm.

Get the quarters out of the way first. Both 1718 & 1762 are cheap and readily obtainable, plus a 1764 pattern which is a bit elusive.

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.