Rob

I'm no metallurgist, but I suspect either die degradation or metal flow rather than a font change I don't think so. On the halfcrowns you get two obverses and two reverses. The obverses are different pointings to bead/spaces, but the reverses have different sized letters associated with the change in style, suggesting a slight change of font.

You see straight and indented bases on the lettering of veiled head silver too, so that suggests a slight change to the font used, or a change of manufacturer/engraver around this time.

When you have that many signed in I think it might be spyware piggy backing on a genuine viewer, as once there was 80-odd viewing, but remarkably only viewing a handful of topics. i.e. whatever the genuine person was looking at then the hanger on was doing the same, or more likely a few hangers on per viewer.

Any references in the footnotes of Peck would be worth revisiting, as would any documentation regarding the sacking of James Roettier in 1696/7 and the appointment of Coker and Bull. One of the footnotes for W3 in Peck by Farquhar "Concerning some Roettiers Dies" NC, 1917, p.126 might help. I have Snelling and Ruding, the latter of which looks particularly helpful with contemporary leads, or at least articles written soon after the event.

I just find the rationale for including things a bit odd. For example, page 4 has a 1652 altered to a 1660 and the mark changed to an anchor by persons unknown. Does it need its own entry when the first line reads there are many forgeries of this series? This really only merits a footnote, or alternatively there should be a list of the known copies, including the modern stuff. Another is new ref 50, described as a prooflike appearance of 49. Is it a proof or not? Any coin whether it is hammered or milled struck from a fresh die can be prooflike, so unless it is struck from a specially prepared flan and dies, surely this is normal? Given the reuse of diestock, it is probably better to do a lot more research before listing traces of stops in the wrong place as errors? There are too many variables with hammered coins to say what is a mistake and what is coincidental giving the appearance of an error. In the case of milled, a coin struck without a collar when it should have been is surely just a mint error of a normal coin? I know this all boils down to individual preference, but the key is consistency. In the case of the latter, there will be examples struck on a spread flan of a majority of ESC numbers, so the inclusion of a few types is misleading.

Look good to me. A Pointed Helmet of Hereford (not the commonest) and a Sovereign Eagles of Winchester (I think - needs a clean). Presumably found close together? The two types followed each other chronologically and look kosher, so I don't thiink there is any reason to be suspicious.

BM usually means British Museum. Maurice Bull (or any other individual) would usually be referenced as Bull (other).

Happy birthday

And somewhat ironically, probably one of the few errors that isn't necessarily a mint error. Spellings mistakes, incorporated material, blocked dies, double striking etc, are all things that can be attributed to an individual's handiwork or are the result of normal mint activity, but a flan that just falls apart is somewhat difficult to assign blame. If the ingots from which the blanks are produced was made elsewhere, it means that someone else was to blame.

A little overgraded, but not by too much. There is some wear to the obverse on the laurel, but there isn't a lot of wear to the reverse, just the dig in the field which hits you in the eye. Good VF is probably more appropriate.

This is a rather extreme case of rotated double strike reading GVLIELMELM TERTIVTIVS and BRBRITANIA•16981698

It's the last couple of years when they effectively stopped selling to the trade that the prices have rocketed.

It ticks the example of a 'double struck coin' box. The minting techniques and errors section is full of oddballs like this, e.g. my avatar. The gold coloured one is in Barton's Metal. As it was only used on a couple of occasions, again it was a case of grabbing it when the opportunity arose.

You haven't. It's just the two things appeared a**e about face for normality. People will pick up on anything around here. Foot in mouth is a common disease around here.

Lamination has been a problen as long as plate has been rolled. Pockets of air can get trapped leading to effects such as this brass 3d. The coin was held together at the periphery only, with the dark areas showing where the trapped air has oxidised the inner surface.

An interesting double strike and the only example I have seen of Briot's milled coinage.

OK, a starter for 10. The 1824 bare head halfcrown obverse die must have been close to disintegration when this was struck. The flaws radiate from the centre in all directions and are noticeably worse than on other 1824s I have seen.

No problem, we all do it. You're the 'go to' bloke Rob. Can you tell me: how rare is the R over O obverse? Never seen one, though Nick found one in a DNW search in 1995. There is a thread somewhere because I asked the question a while ago. It would be interesting to see what this actually is in hand because I have a 1773 with OR over O - i.e. the underlying O was cut too far clockwise and then corrected.

Oops, so he did. That's what happens when you speed read. I saw the 1734 and 3 over 1, so made the words after 1734 'over' given there was one described as 1734/3/I in Nicholson.

It isn't a 4 over 3. They are actually quite rare, more so than say the 1732/1. I can still count the number I have seen on one hand.

Truth is Vicky, there's a lot we don't know. Last week I was shown an 1887 6d with the second reverse that had the last digit a full tick to the right of all the others seen. That had to be put in by hand too as it was slightly misaligned. I think it is a case of take everything you read with a pinch of salt unless you are happy in your own mind it is true.

Somewhere on this forum is an 1870 with variable spacing, so make of it what you will.

I'm not sure it was specifically because the early coins were outsourced. Up to about 1880, the last digit or 2 digits were entered manually on the die. This is why you sometimes see a variation in the width of these dates, with the right hand digits showing variable spacing. The footnote on ESC p.135 refers. It may possibly have occurred after this time, but I have no documentary evidence to support the theory.

Not a clue. I haven't been to one of their sales for 10 years - not since an 'unc' 1905 halfcrown looked to have been in the possession of Viking invaders at some point in the past. Unsurprisingly, nor have I felt inclined to bid blind.

I have one of these - an 06-plate Cayman S that I've had from new since March 06. Nearly 90k on the clock now and I still love driving it. Much like coins - quality is indeed the key. I've never regretted pushing the boat out for the Cayman, even when it's thrown me the odd big bill. Sorry for the thread hijack Non. I love your halfcrowns. When funds allow, I'm aiming for similar ones too! Most people struggle to afford the Cayman rather than a few halfcrowns.