Rob

Welcome to the forum. When you say Edwardian pennies, I assume you mean medieval rather than Ed.VII?

Condolences to you and your daughters.

The latter.

I'd say 3g.

Just collect what appeals. Your taste will change over time. The resulting dilemma about what to keep and what to get rid of is only a variation on the angst created when you decide to collect a series, but then find that you can't afford to finish this either. Unless you choose a narrow field, one way or the other you will probably hit a brick wall. Happy collecting.

I thought the Adams was well struck. Haven't looked at others since then as it isn't a must have piece. In the unlikely event of me having a spare £5K with nowhere to spend it, I might revisit the 60/59

What do you have and what were you expecting? The polished die coins have a reflective field, but don't have a frosted bust as you might find on a proof.

Coming second on that one with a bid of £1500 still makes me wonder why I didn't bid a bit higher. It seems very cheap with hindsight, but then the world was looking quite rosy at the time, prices for coins were edging up slowly, everyone was making money and there wasn't a financial crisis on the horizon. Go forward 5 or 6 years and the price of a 60/59 to the collector had doubled, whilst half the banking industry was spending its spare cash on changes of corporate underwear. Go forward another 5 or 6 years and the price has trebled from 2003, all paid for by government QE.

The problem of young collectors is not new. Whilst it has always been possible for young people to collect from change, it is, and always has been a totally different matter to expect them to shell out many tens or more of pounds on a coin. People who only collect from change don't need a society and young people tend not to have the financial liquidity required to form a quality collection. Coin collecting has traditionally been pursued by middle aged people or older. Forums and clubs can live side by side. The only members of this forum in the South Manchester are me and Geoff T. Davidrj was, but his membership has lapsed. With so little crossover, I don't think that one meeting place will replace the other. Every member of the South Manchester is on the web, so this clearly hasn't stopped them going to meetings. Anyway, it is good to compare notes and see what people have bought.

We have 2 in Manchester, the Lancs and Cheshire which meets at the university and the South Manchester which meets in the far superior surroundings of the Nursery in Heaton Moor. (Hyde' beers ). I am a member of the South Manchester. We have a core membership of around a dozen who attend nearly all meetings, with a few more making intermittent apperances. For all the talk about them being in decline, our membership has stayed nearly constant, varying only by +/-1 member per annum from one to the next. It probably helps that there are another 3 or 4 groups within an hour's drive, so it is reasonably easy to get a guest speaker to talk about a field that is not normal for the regulars. These operate on a reciprocal basis. There is also an inter-county quiz covering Lancashire and Cheshire. We also have guest speakers coming from further afield, with former RM curator Graham Dyer talking about milled coins, Joe Bispham on Edward VI shillings and Lee Toone talking about Roman to name but three who have given talks. It is clear that they are far less popular than fifty years ago, but that is just a reflection of modern society with its marketing of hobbies and pastimes, far more numerous today compared to the DIY era of post-war Britain. It is unlikely the internet will kill off societies, as even for insular old gits like me it provides an excuse to get out and talk face to face about coins with similar minded people.

yes there is

I think that they were described correctly as I recall, or at least the ones that I looked at. Somewhat ironically, the one that I am uncertain about is ex both Magnay and Adams, and was described as a 3D in both sales. It is not possible to establish the state of the rust spots from the catalogues. There is never a better option than to check in hand. Pricing is generally based on metal type for most patterns. Copper and base metals are the cheapest, silver is more expensive and gold the most expensive. There is no rule, but it is quite obvious that there is a ballpark figure which encompasses most sales of a specific type. Silver pieces are regularly 3 or 4 times the price of a copper analogue. The rarity numbers are a red herring given they are rarely the result of a comprehensive survey, and in any case would typically only look within the country. I don't know why they are published, as you could do just as well drawing lots. In the case of the Moore patterns you have the numbers quoted by Shorthouse, which would imply a similar number (9) of each piece listed. Some of the pieces in the market are at odds with the statement attested by Shorthouse, but having seen gilt restrikes, I have to say that the surfaces of the P2115 listed above did not obviously suggest post-mint gilding.

Certainly don't have any references to sales of these four. All three bronze denominations exist, so it seems a little strange that the other silvers weren't struck. I wouldn't be surprised if a set turned up given the existence of 1928 and 1930 proofs.

Lots of things are misdescribed and the mistake inevitably perpetuated because many collectors have blind faith in the literature and don't question inconsistencies. As always, it pays to know what you are buying, because when the time comes to sell you can rest assured that someone will point out the incorrect listing if wrongly described as a rare variety (but are usually more reticent when a rare type is catalogued as a common one) . Buyer beware applies to each and every purchase. It doesn't matter whether the mis-attribution is intentional or not, just that one day the owner is likely to meet up with someone knowledgable. It could be very expensive. For anyone interested in these patterns, a copy of the Magnay or Adams sale is a useful reference. Both collections had large numbers of them. All three of the above images were from the Adams collection.

Yes, I think those are right. There are small spots on the base of the neck only on the last, but clear cheek spots on no.3

If you read the appendix in Peck concerning Shorthouse's 1885 visit to Moore's workshop post-mortem when the 3 sets of restrikes were made, it is mentioned that there was no sign of the second obverse. This die developed a large flaw and it is likely that he was in the process of re-engraving the P2135 obverse as there is a trial obverse only striking in pewter using the same bust punch as the P2135 but with re-arranged legends. Playing around with the contrast of the image gives a few hints of a prior design with traces of underlying characters. However, no strikings are known as far as I am aware with the obverse die below paired with a reverse.

This is obverse C, a P2115. Unfortunately it is a bit bright and the spots in the middle of the cheek do not show up in relief. I suggest you save the image and blow it up a bit to see what I mean. There are strikings that have the cheek spots fully polished down, but the 3 at the back of the neck remain, which I have always taken this to be obv.C and the flattened cheek spots as obv. D That is why I think both your obv 3 & 4 are actually obv. 4.

It's not that bad. The original strikings must have no signs of rust marks on the neck, so your 1D looks like it isn't given the cluster by the back of the neck at the truncation, but I think your 1B gilt is obv. 1 as I can't see any polished rust spots. My obverse 2 is attached. Your 3D and 4D are possibly the same pairing. It is difficult as the one labelled obv 3 is a bit fuzzy. I will have to dig out the other obverses as I'm afraid I got rid of my examples due to quality issues.

The pictures really don't help. It looks as if the I in HONI is virtually flat, in which case it would be difficult to assign a grade higher than fine, but then the rest looks better. Assuming the I is a red herring, then VF or so is probably right.

The water runs off the grit which is covered in peat on the hills above the limestone. The peat is acidic, which is the reason the caves are formed when the limestone dissolves. The water throughput is such that it remains slightly acidic. If it was percolating through the limestone for years before it resurfaced it would be fully neutralised, but in this case dye tests give a transit time measured in hours from the bottom of Gaping Gill through to Ingleborough Cave. Edited to add that the pool shown looks to be stagnant, so would only be refreshed with acidic water if that section flooded.

You will be pleased to know that I also had to enter my projected spend when registering for the Baldwin sale this afternoon. I entered a quid, and was immediately authorised to bid. Baldwins aren't going to turn potential bidders away unless they have been a problem in the past. It also crossed my mind that this could be the Saleroom fishing for details. The more you enter as a projected spend, the more valuable you are to auction houses as a potential bidder, so I wouldn't be surprised if lists of named large spenders are sold to Saleroom customers to target marketing.

Except that the water will be slightly acidic. Maybe not such a good chance of picking out a gem.

Images won't open for me so I can only see the thumbnails. By definition, I would not get your hopes up

I'm blissfully ignorant of all that you are prattling on about. Don't know who it is and more particularly, don't care. I just see yet another eBay listing not as described and so to be avoided.

Nickel is also magnetic