Rob

I can't see how these can be anything other than die flaws. People are getting overly excited about dots that appear on coins over decades and centuries. People are still getting excited about warts on QE2's face. The mint was placing numbers below the date, letters by the lighthouse (both sides), numbers under the bust etc, so why they would go to the effort of putting an obscure dot on the die beggars belief. We do know that they appear to have scratched numbers into the obverse to indicate tonnage, so that would have been sampled every 110000 ish pennies struck or 175000 ish halfpennies (3500000 farthings). I don't know how much the dies had improved from the situation they had in the second half of the 1840s, but I would think they should have got back up to 30000 struck per die pair if not more. So with only 3 -5 ish die pairs required before someone scratched a tonnage figure on an obverse, how much need would there be for an obscure and apparently random spot? Die numbers make sense, little raised bumps in the field do not. It's a bit like Gypsy Rose reading tea leaves.

No symbol as far as I'm aware, just use guineas or gn(s)

Accumulator has some, I have some (but not pennies), Vicky has some, so do a few others. The collection is widely dispersed.

Hmm. It's also missing a lot of what we in the trade call - detail. It's horrible unless you collect counterstamped coins.

I think it's just corroded with subsequent metal loss. The legend looks a bit thin in parts and the pitting is consistent with being in the ground for a long time. The range given in Peck is 9.42 - 10.62g, but there must inevitably be a few outliers. If it is 8.4 I wouldn't worry given the condition.

You should be able to. The edit button comes up to the left of multiquote, click on it and it takes you back to a reply box with the post to be edited within. The time limit is an hour or two for me, so don't know why you can't do it after 4 minutes?

Die cracks are a natural result of a fatigued die. A die is a tool which is used until it is no longer fit for purpose. A cracked die will be used until it physically falls apart and then it will be replaced with a new one and so the cycle goes on. Coins struck from cracked dies will be treated no differently to those from defect free dies because they will still pass as legal tender.

The guinea started life as a 20/- coin during the reign of Charles II. The price of gold fluctuated rising as high as 30/- for a guinea even though the weight remained the same due to the relationship with the price of silver. i.e. you had effectively two standards which didn't follow each other in price. Historically, since Saxon times the standard was set by the price of silver. Eventually we went onto the gold standard and the guinea was set at 21/-. It remained so until the introduction of the sovereign in 1817 which became the new standard of 20/- (one pound) with a compensating reduction in weight equal to one pound and guinea production ceased. The last issue was the military guinea of 1813. I was going to write this earlier, but you said you didn't want a complicated answer.

Mark it as spam then. We are plagued with spam links at the moment.

Probably half a dozen ish, maybe less. Some varieties are only known from 1 or 2 examples. They never circulated, so I suspect most of the original mintage still exists. Colin Cooke had a flat one for sale 10(?) years ago, but you couldn't confirm the variety with certainty. Considering their rarity they are relatively cheap, but then people don't collect halfpennies, do they. If they were bronze pennies you would be doubling the price and more. Coppers and gilt or bronzed coppers are more common for the original Soho pieces. There is only one original Soho striking in gold (P957) known and that was unsold in Selig (1999), but had disappeared by the time I went looking for it. Of Taylor's restrikes, Aluminium ones are rare, but that is because it was a precious metal at the time, only becoming commercially available in the 1880s. The gold restrikes are probably all unique and the silver ones unique or nearly so. Most are copper or more likely bronzed to hide the defects.

And the reverse. Pity about the marks on the leg.

A KH4 halfpenny in silver (P-). The appearance of a P1039 in the next Spink sale reminded me of this, as it was originally described thus, but has rust spots on Britannia's knee, something that my KH2 (P1042 in copper) is missing. As this came out of Baldwins basement about 9 years ago, it is one that Peck genuinely missed as he must have visited the dungeon a few times whilst compiling his tome.

I think the basic problem is the number of dies that were made. Unless you have a definitive study of the coinage, then there will always be differences which you have to try an differentiate between kosher and suspect. The shilling jewels just looked too bulky for my liking. This however, may be a timing difference because the Spink plate and OP coins are 1554, whereas the one I posted is 1555. Also, copies tend not to embellish detail. The P&M was from DNW 10 or 12 years ago but I don't have anything before that. The surfaces weren't very nice in any case - it had clearly been dug. I don't have this any more as I couldn't live with the scratch etc. The weight was ok. The testoon was ex Noble sale 1973 and one of Ras' lists. As you said, ideally you need them in hand.

Shilling doesn't look very good either with reference to the jewels on the crown cushion and Mary's necklace.

I would have my doubts about the Testoon. My main concerns are the stops, which seem too bulky and the obverse has what appears to be a crack. The fact it is not fully formed and effectively filled in makes me suspicious. FWIW, I've only got a grotty pellet in annulet testoon, but the stops are much clearer, and even if worn down would not have the same size footprint. Not looked at the P&M yet. Do that later.

There is no right or wrong way to collect if the collector is happy with what they have. Personal preferences change and standards are adjusted, but it is entirely up to the individual. Otherwise, the habits of all collectors would be dictated by he who shouts loudest.

Happy birthday for yesterday.

I guess the best thing would be to contact Coincraft. Joe Bispham is your man, but I don't have any contact details for him. They must have listed it on someone's recommendation, almost certainly Joe's given he wrote the BNJ article in 1985 and much has come to light in the past 30 years.

Ah. See what you mean. Joe's article has obverse 5 with the EDWARD legend, so that ties in, although the bust looks larger on your coin, but I can't see anything for a Durham House reverse with TIMOR. Is the reverse mark definitely a bow? If not it could be a muled mark after the dies had transferred to the Tower/Southwark, wherever they went. Looking at what you can see of the shield garnishing, it looks more like a non Durham House style. Guarantee they will have been used somewhere given the financial constraints of the time.

S2472 with bust as 2466, Edward VI etc on the obverse and INIMICOS rev.

Post mint damage. The options are either done in a vice, or two coins coming together in the coining press leaving the imprint of one on the other

It might be a mistrike. Can't tell whether it is PM or not from the image.

Don't think so. It looks like the colon after Britt points to between teeth and the G of GRA isn't sloping.

Not to be confused with die polishing lines which are raised on the coin (incuse on the die). They are alright.

It happens all the time. I had an order, one of which I had sold and not removed. I told the buyer and he pointed out that I still had something listed he bought 6 months before. Problem was I had 2 similar things which both sold inside a day and after removing one, I thought in my mind that I had removed both. If you don't have a fully automated shop with stock control you are always going to fall foul of this at some point.