Rob

The content is appropriate, but spelling/grammatical mistakes suggest there might be a Grauniad influence - Dailly and enterence, full stop after Shock, capital A in Auction should be lower case and Isis is a proper noun, thus requiring a capital letter. Apart from that it's fine.

Surely with the above spelling, you are referring to the Grauniad. The Dailly(sic) Mail usually gets the spelling right, but then spoils it by trotting out scaremongering drivel.

Just the odd stupid question? Don't hold back because nobody will mind.

Sovereigns will be worth bullion value as a minimum, currently sitting at just under £185 each, for any half sovereigns divide by 2. The coppers are worth about £3-4 per kilogram scrap - not collectable in that condition. The badly worn silver will be worth melt only. Up to 1919 it is 0.925 and from 1920-46 is 0.500. Anything later will be cupro-nickel (see coppers value) and only really worth a premium to scrap if in uncirculated condition.The Victorian silver will be worth a bit more, and I see a pile of halfcrowns which again the value will depend on condition and dates.

But with the hole is only worth melt or thereabouts.

Does anyone know how much the Middleton/Ryan/Bullmore piece sold for off Roddy's last list? Just wondering as this isn't the same as an auction.

Me too. The last one (15 months ago) went for 56 all in, but the portrait wasn't double struck. Most legends have a bit of double striking, but that doesn't detract as much as a d/s portrait.

No, don't think so. They mostly have edges like this, and the thought of sticking 120g of silver around your neck on a piece of hairy string wouldn't be very comfortable.

Does anyone know where this has come from? I don't have a catalogue with it in, or at least not illustrated. Plenty of others though. How come this is in unlisted varieties? It's Morrieson 1643 A-2 dies and Hawkins type 5, so we're about 170+ years behind the times. I haven't checked Snelling (1762) yet.

I think that £50K is a case of hype. The obverse has a considerable amount of double striking in obvious places - King's leg, horse's head. That won't help the price.

And conveniently fuzzy images to disguise the WRL.

The clarity of the legend seems at odds with the poor relief which is universally dire. You rarely see a sovereign with so little relief, particularly as the date 1925 is not too far from the end of the period when they circulated. Also, why does the extra bit have a crescent around it. It's almost like a cast was made and the extras dropped into a preprepared hole on the 'die'. It's one to avoid methinks.

No, I'm a Royalist long before I will ever be a republican. The comment relates to how little detail there is per unit surface area on today's coins compared to times gone by. Greek, Roman, Celtic, or even Saxon coins had a very good level of detail by comparison, but clearly were not subject to the far more rigorous operating conditions demanded today. The design must reflect the functionality of the die, i.e. first and foremost it is just a tool. John Bergdahl, one of the current mint engravers, gave an enlightening talk at the BNS meeting in Manchester a couple years ago where he discussed the question of allowable relief in the design. It's remarkably little, even when magnified prior to reduction, we are talking typically of less than a mm relief (0.7mm was a figure mentioned for one design in question). There isn't much room for error and given the portraits of Tudor monarchs are in similarly low relief, I think it is probably better to applaud their efforts whatever technological period we are in. 500 years ago, regular die failure was part of the expectation, whereas today, die longevity is considerably more important given the capital cost of the equipment involved. It needs to be working to earn its keep. Scott. First time I saw the boar's head, I thought it was a woman with her possessions over her shoulder too. It's amazing how conditioned we are! The traveller in childrens' books is always depicted in this manner, but how many books contain a reference to a wild boar? Not many I suspect.

Here we go. A direct comparison between something contemporary, showing the fine detail of the tiara on a 2002 £2, and something current in about 25 AD. No prize for the winner.

I just like coins, whatever their purpose may have been. Plus I like patterns for a feeling of what might have been given the ornate designs regularly proposed but never adopted. I also like proofs for the better strike. Strangely though, i don't have any desire for a medal collection. As there are many issues which are not found as proofs, or at least not remotely available even if they exist, a few proofs alongside a few coins that don't exist as proofs gives quite a nice broad balanced collection IMHO. Nothing should be excluded just because of its identity. Even I have a dozen or so bronze pennies with a few gaps waiting to be filled for example. Irrational, but that's life.

The other consideration of course is that you might willingly start say a 1921 penny at £1, but wouldn't start an elizabeth 1st fine sovereign for the same £1. Very highly valued items are best dealt with off ebay, as it is in nobody's interest other than eBay to buy on this platform. Why pay 15% more than necessary just for the privilege of being seen to buy an expensive item. Very few people willing to spend seriously large sums are going to buy off a dealer on eBay when they can go direct in the traditional manner. Paypoo buyer protection is irrelevant in the case of established sellers, so yes, it should be used only as a showcase if the seller is wise.

He was online at the same time as Coinery posted yesterday.

That was to add the second line, not correct the response.

The X of REX looks 5g-i, the h of hENRIC 5f-i, the R 5d-i and the A 5a-7. The crown says 5g, so with Ricard only striking at London up to 5g and taking all the letters into consideration, that makes this a 5g. You now need a copy of North vol.1

No you didn't - you meant holey dollar Try again. Third time lucky.

It finished at over 400 with the juice, but that was when they went for 200 in a lightly bagmarked unc. Yes I do regret not going higher.

If they can sell overpriced tat, then good luck to them. Whilst we all look on in amazement at the prices they want and the fact that some people will pay that price, it is only the free market working as it should. The same argument applies as for overpriced slabs. If the buyer is happy paying that amount, then it's a good deal for all. Most of the disappointment arises when the time comes to sell, either the original vendor or the inheritor's realisation that their benefactor wasn't quite on the ball. You cannot dictate prices across the board, and for a business to survive, it has to make a profit. As a business you are better off selling 1 item at £100 profit, than 100 items at £1 profit each. That someone is willing to pay what you or me would say is overpriced is irrelevant. Should you want to buy the same items in the secondary market, the price you would be willing to pay would not shift from your current perception of fair value.

Sorry Richard, only 10 to gap. I've sent you an email.

Sorry, can't remember what dot to dot refers to - a clue would be good. All 10 pences have a beaded circle of dots inside the rim which can be joined using a fine pen. The larger, old style coins are easier to work with. Here's one I did earlier.

I want a mint state Godless and haven't seen one in the past 6 months. I thought I just wasn't looking hard enough. Hello Potlings. There was a really nice 1856 slabbed PCGS 65 in London Coins 117 (2007) which I stopped bidding on and have regretted ever since. I haven't seen one like it since. Super coin with a greenish tone.