Rob

You could report it as offensive material.

4023. I of GEORGIVS to bead. The shallow one is to space.

Obverse 11 was used at Tower Hill in 1881 and 1883, so would presumably be also used in 1882. Obverse 12 was used at Tower Hill in 1883, so there is no reason why it would not be used in 1882 if required as it was certainly in existence by then as it was used at Heaton that year. Obverse 11 was used at Heatons in 1881 and 1882, so do we see any evidence of suspect 1882 11+N coins where the H may have been removed? As we must surely be looking at a single die pair for Tower Hill struck 11+N, it is likely that all coins would show or not show any definitive evidence. Obverse 9 started out as the main Tower die in 1881, and the presumably rare 9+M Heaton coins used a residual die or dies(?) when production ceased at Tower Hill for the refurbishment. What happened to obverse 10 in 1881? Reverse N presumably appeared later in 1882 as there are a good number of 1882H with rev.N. If die manufacture was retained at Tower Hill which can be assumed, it is likely that they would have struck a few coins with the new reverse N prior to sending them to Heaton. These could use either obverse 11 or quite probably 12 given it was already in use at Heaton. Production didn't stop in 1882 at Tower Hill because they continued to strike silver there, so die manufacture is unlikely to have been significantly affected. The question then arises whether any 1882 pennies from Tower Hill were trials, or a genuine production run. A few trials would likely be retained at the mint and so you would expect the survivors to be predominantly high grade. A proper production run for circulation would give rise to survivors in varying grades comparable to any other die combination. Does anyone have figures giving a rough estimate of the surviving numbers of these various die combinations and do these broadly agree with the data for 11+N no H pennies? Using theoretical survival rates based on known populations vs production totals, what output level does the number of 1882 Tower coins represent? This is problem that will probably rumble on for eternity unless we can find documentary evidence that pennies were struck at Tower Hill in 1882. We struggle to deduce anything from the known die use to answer the question.

I was thinking more along the lines of both reverses being N, so what would be useful is a Heaton die with a developing flaw that can also be seen on the no H reverse. It may be a repaired die, but the important thing would be to see a trace of filled die as opposed to rubbed down letter. Filled dies have characteristics which you would not be able to replicate with filing arising from the method used to repair them. When they filled dies it appears that they packed metal into the hole as tightly as possible and hammered it into the hole to compact it as much as possible, probably while the die was heated to let shrinkage make it tighter. This sometimes leaves a small ridge/depression at the junction of die and inserted metal. This would not occur with a filed down letter, which would surely be done post-mint.

After the contract with Heatons was completed, the dies presumably returned to Tower Hill where they were destroyed. However, if there was a requirement for a small quantity of pennies at the end of the year, then the logical way forward would be to take a Heaton die and fill the H in. Ideally it would be possible to check out the accepted 1882 no H for a filled die under an electron microscope as you would be looking for a slight perturbation in the field where the H should be. If the die was perfectly filled and polished down level with the field, then even this might not show. Unfortunately Hocking doesn't list any items for 1882 or 1882H on the penny front in the RM museum, so this is not an option. Does anyone know where the good no H pennies are? Better still, are they on good terms with any current owner? Another line of enquiry would be to do a census of 1882H dies and see if any match the known no H dies.

I think it is a combination of the references stating there is only one die pair coupled with the circumstantial, but quite compelling fact that the original Soho-made mint equipment was replaced in 1882 (which is why Heatons got the contract), meaning the output was significantly reduced. I agree it is dogmatic, but against that must be considered that the pennies have been done to death over the past 60-70 years, so you might reasonably expect an unambiguous one to have appeared in the interim.

RP Coins. I'm next to David Craddock this weekend.

Then go. I've had a table there every month for a couple years now but never met you. Mothers' Day this Sunday - so treat her to a coin fair visit. After all, it's the thought that counts. Mothers' Day in the US Rob, we've had the UK one this year! Oh well, missed that one. Must pay more attention to the world outside. Just wondering where I saw it. Obviously there is some residual conscience hidden away somewhere.

Then go. I've had a table there every month for a couple years now but never met you. Mothers' Day this Sunday - so treat her to a coin fair visit. After all, it's the thought that counts.

My thoughts exactly. What's the point of a fine work piece if all the legend is a literary mess? Must have been cut by an engraver called Stanley........... Maybe they were apprentices' test pieces? Just a thought.

Hammered at 4200. Over 5K is too much for a fine work shilling. Pattern I could accept and more, but a fine work shilling isn't the rarest thing on this planet. The sale is still up on the Saleroom as it is today and tomorrow. Look at the bidding page rather than the online catalogue.

I was interested in the EdC PACX penny ex Lockett, but not for £2K all in. The only other thing would have been a Milton shilling, but I'm a bit skint for that at the moment.

What metal is it struck in? Which die pair is it. PM me a picture as I need a couple types/metals. Depending on what you have, I might be interested. Weight?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. There's nothing like submitting a coin to gain the assurance that you've submitted a coin. I know that it is each to their own, but given the failings that so many take or acknowledge as normal service, just what do people expect to achieve from spending the money involved, given you can buy slab cases for considerably less expenditure should protection be the reason for slabbing in the first place?

It costs the same to grade a 1967 penny as it does a 1676 halfcrown. If the job is being done 'professionally', they should spend the same time looking at a coin irrespective of value, age or whatever. If this time spent is actually value dependant, then a fool and their money are soon parted. Tiered charging essentially removes the act of grading from the equation as the cost of slabbing is clearly not dependant on the time spent doing so. If you remove that central plank, what are you buying?

The problem is the value they assign based on the grade given. If this was a fair reflection of the open market value of the item then there would be less of a problem, but as this figure is routinely at a significant premium to what the market says, then it is open to abuse. All I see is a tail desperately looking for a dog to wag. I would be much more accepting of the business if the fee was a flat rate number whatever the value as this would remove any potential conflict of interest because it doesn't cost more to ascertain a grade based on market value. Flan size or intricacy of the design might make the job marginally more demanding, but not significantly so. By saying the cost of grading is coin value dependant is essentially the same as saying we will take more care getting it right. Low value = common= something not worth spending time on as you can always get another one with the weekly shopping. The cost of shipping a more valuable object is going to be greater. That is the only excuse for an increased charge.

What's the expected added value from slabbing?

Charging more just because a coin grades higher represents a conflict of interest unless the additional cost is solely accounted for by the extra insurance required for shipping. If they need to earn an extra tenner, all they have to do is give it a higher grade.

I thought it already did.

For once it looks good and a tad more comprehensive than the usual fayre. Might make a visit.

You also said who's Pekwris to Paulus' post, but it says Peckris on my screen. Another must have iFault?

Unless in absolutely mint state - £1. Maybe £3-4 if perfect

The mint mark dates are straightforward as they are tied to the dates of the pyx trials. For Charles I there is a list on p.xxii of the Brooker sylloge which I have attached below. The question of the order in which order the 5 bust types were used may simply be a reflection of the workload at the mint. E2 was clearly the standard die used at the beginning of tun as it carried over from crown. E3 dies are not dissimilar to E2 and may almost be considered the same bust with the exception that there are 9 jewels on the crown band instead of 5. Yes, some are more upright, but you see a number of bust punches employed and this may be down to nothing more than a different engraver's handiwork. E1 is likely to have been reintroduced from old dies or existing punches to overcome a temporary shortage of working dies because the engravers were working on E4 and E5 together with dies for the introduction of the mint at Aberystwyth. The number of engravers employed does not appear to be very large, so any expansion of the workload would affect the mint's ability to produce dies. As the cost of employing engravers came out of the fixed sum granted by Parliament, employment would of necessity be kept to the minimum required for regular production. E5 (and E4) are likely to have been introduced in the final month or two of the tun period.

A very long shot, but I need details from Christies sale on 25/10/1948 in London. If anyone has one or has access to a copy it would be much appreciated. M&R only lists Christies and the BM as locations, and the former will not help.

Probably, but it's a long way to London to spend 5 minutes checking an auction catalogue. As it is in the C&M dept, you would have to go through security and all the other hassle one would associate with viewing their possessions. It also assumes that the catalogue is priced and named. A Christie's provenance is no better or worse than any other. It's just that the ticket with the Ryal I bought the other day has M.C 49 written on it with the M.C scrubbed out and LF in its place. I'm working on the hunch that M.C is Manson & Christies, and the LF is Leornard Forrer, a dealer at the time who consigned the sale at Christies in October 48. But if this was an unsold lot, he may have offloaded it at Seaby in 1949 whence it appeared in the Bulletin that September. There is no sale consigned by M C in the period concerned according to Manville and Robertson