Rob

Apologies. Normal service restored. 1817 shilling with I/S in HONI

Oops. Forgot that. Much easier to find nice hammered than milled.

You can only deal with a very small portion of a collection at any one time, so the question of it being in a bank vault is not a major problem. You might want to look at a small group, but it is difficult to imagine a study that would require hundreds of coins in hand at the same time. Coins are bought individually and are best viewed as a single object. Two coins side by side invariably leads you to say one is better than the other, whereas in many respects they will still be equal. Not all coins are available in identical grade, toning, or shape, but all were purchased on their individual merits.

Ditto

Ditto

Comparatively common. They rarely get over 2K

Ditto.

Faulty operative. Post corrected to comply.

It could just as easily be a short flaw joining the extremities of the F arms given the width of the 'P' loop is not full size.

Good for a bottom fisher though. An 1839 halfpenny in acceptable grade would set you back £400 minimum these days.

39 is a proof only year for the halfpenny and penny. Only coppers struck were farthings et infra for this year.

Right, a challenge - time to put up or shut up. You give me £3K and I will give you an Aquatics error 50p. That's completely straight and above board.

An article on eBay on how to evaluate Richard III coins, published by eBay. Presumably this is where Saxbys learned his trade. Maybe if they published an article on Edward I, or Henry III coins, he would be able to list under these rulers too. Nah, maybe not.

Interesting sale of Bitcoins. A virtual currency that can apparently be collected in person.

Made it more difficult for the counterfeiters

Sovereigns are 22mm diameter. Half sovereigns are 19mm diameter and half the weight. i.e.4g. Yours is a half sovereign if it agrees with these dimensions. Whatever, in that grade it will only have bullion value. It isn't a rare year, so unlikely to be counterfeited.

I suspect the aquatics error was never released for currency as all the examples I have come across are in the sealed packs issued by the mint and the error was picked up early on. This would mean that any examples found in change would have to be from a dismembered presentaion pack. i.e. you would have to be extremely lucky to find one.

Typical press article. If it was in your pocket it would be unlikely to retain its value, as it would wear progressively with time. Any £3K coin would likely be sat in a cabinet with the owner fully aware of what he/she has.

I concur. The reverse is definitely better than the obverse, which looks a bit water-worn IMO

Some are, some aren't. The original post was about a unique piece. Charles I unites and triples are not rare, nor are the Cromwell broads particularly so. The crowns et infra are common, but obviously desirable. The pricing on these is too high in my opinion, but as long as the number of collectors holds up there is not likely to be a drop in the foreseeable future. Cromwell 50/- pieces are a bit more exclusive as there are only 15(?) known, one of which is horrible and repaired, but the other 14 are ok.

No. Gun money is only listed in the Irish references. Numbers you can probably count on one hand, 1 or 2 gold, maybe a few more for the silver.

Best bet is Ryan, Lockett, Mitchell, Waite Sanderson, Whetmore, Norweb, and any of the large gold collections in the past 30 years. Sorry, I don't follow gun money.

And the illustrations.

I should have said that if you don't have any joy in Montagu, then move onto Murdoch. Part IV had both the Montagu shillings plus a crown and halfcrown. Unfortunately all were bought by dealers (Spink and Whelan). Lots 62 - 65 refer.

If uncertain, always start with Montagu assuming it is in the time period. Part IV lots 282 and 283 were large and small shillings struck in gold, but I have no idea where they went or even if they are still outside a museum. They weren't illustrated.