Rob

French 1793 2 sols, but I've no idea what mint as it is flat at that point.

Wow, what a revamp! 1368 in my 2013 copy is 25 65!That's because they split them out. The majority are 5b2 where the price hasn't moved. 5b1 is the rare one, but presumably this kept the 1368 designation as 5b1 comes before 5b2. Another case of it helps to know what you are looking for. anyone working with an old book and minimal knowledge would refrain from spending £100 on a 5b1 because the book only says Vb

1368 is 135, 450

1500p is closer. 25 fine, 65 VF

Almost. S1368A. The crown has pellet ends, not fleurs

I make it a 5b2, DAVI ON LVNDE. Interesting that the N diagonal has its own diagonal. I see the odd example on the last page of North, but not a huge number. X is normal

Any letter is only going to be as sharply cut as the quality of the punch. A worn letter punch would have former right angles rounded off, I would have thought, so maybe we are talking older and newer punches. The E looks more rounded than the C.

Brilliant. What's disconcerting is how any of the images could ever be confused with coins. A single image, ok, but to add 5 wrong images beggars belief.

I'm assuming the coin is quite worn? If it is worn, then unless it is the rare 1* obverse you will not devalue it by cleaning. Just because it is a dark colour doesn't mean it is a good idea to clean it. Coins are valued on the degree of wear, the less there is, the higher the value for that variety. Little or no wear and a dark colour just means you have a toned coin which is quite acceptable. What you cannot do is restore lustre to a toned coin. The best you will get is a cleaned and/or polished surface which will devalue it as collectors would not in general be interested.

This is the page that shows the Ed.II letters and crowns. Fig. 5 is described as angular. The base is round on this one too.

Based on what is written in North, I would say an angular back. Fig.5 on p.35 is referred to on the following page as angular back and it matches the C profile.

I think it's ok. Mark is halved rose and castle at 7pm after SPI

As you will be aware, the penny was struck in 3oz 2dwt silver during the reign of Edward VI through to the end of Philip & Mary. Edward VI is stright forward with the London coins bearing the scallop mark and York the pierced mullet, the legends being [CIVITAS] LONDON and EBORACI respectively. The coins of P&M are slightly more complicated. Mint marks are halved rose and castle or castle for the London coins. Pennies (at 3oz fine) were also issued for use in Ireland and bear the rose mark, though were struck in York and read CIVITAS EBORACI. They were struck from called in base coinage of Henry VIII and Edward VI after being further debased. An example of the York penny struck during Ed.VI is below. The London penny of P&M with halved rose and castle looks like this

Thanks Colin & Joey.Both the single coin on the database and the one pointed out by Joey have the halved rose and castle mark. The castle is very clear, being in higher relief to the rose sticking out of the left side and is of a consistent size when compared to others with the same degree of clarity. This must suggest a single punch was used for the mark. Compare that with my halved rose mark and you will see that my coin has a very blundered mark which is typical of filled and recut dies. The castle appears to have a rose shape superimposed on the coin, i.e. the castle was punched to a shallower depth compared to the rose. This would be expected if the die had been hardened previously. Surely on a forum where the number of penny collectors is on an industrial scale there must be someone with an example. The silence is deafening.I'll add this Here also Rob Thanks Dave

Welcome. You have joined the inmates at the asylum.

If it is mark free don't dismiss it. Any gold (apart from modern RM output) without blemishes is always going to be worth a premium, and rightly so.

Try a gold quarter stater

The cheapest Ed.VIII is probably the halfpenny reverse uniface. It's currently in a 65(?) slab and last sold for around £3000-3500. You might find another pattern uniface for less than 10K, but after that you are talking £20K and up.

291419056878 291419061211 A long time ago I did overpay (£28) for a 'Montreal' copy of a Pontefract shilling because I wanted an example .. these however .. no idea! . Why pay £25 for a Cromwell shilling copy when you can get the real thing in decent grade for £2500? Resale value of the copy will be about a quid. Resale value of the £2500 coin will be about ........... £2500. In fact you would probably lose more money in total on the copy than the real thing, despite the price difference. Bizarre.

You need a copy of Peck. Appendix 9 p.608-12 refers. There was rumoured to be only three in existence in Feb. 1802. Then only 2. They changed hands for £400 and up. One sold for 750 guineas at auction. Finally, in April it was noted there were 11 already advertised for sale at between £100 and £400 each. Someone offered a gilt one for £500. Someone even offered to pay off the national debt in exchange for a patent to make Queen Anne farthings. Mr Average UK was, is, and always will be gullible, ever anxious to chase after that elusive pot of gold without question.

If you consider the die, where the open mouth is requires a raised sharp angled point. This could break off leading to a variety of angles within the mouth, level with the end of the mouth or even impinging on the field, though the latter is less likely because you have a large area of unworked metal. I'm still going for a bit falling off because it would be surrounded by quite a depression making it more susceptible to damage.

The profile of the closed bit looks to be different for the two images you have posted, which would imply by damage rather than design. The one immediately above slopes out towards the bottom of the mouth, but the first one slopes in.

No idea, but maybe they thought the size was large enough. As it was token coinage anyway, there would be no obligation to make them pro-rata. Maybe it was a practical reason from a striking sense. A heavier coin would have to be either larger diameter or thicker, which would put it close to that of the superseded copper pennies in one dimension or the other (haven't done the sums, but it seems close).

Gut feeling is that it is a bit fallen off the die in that year.I don't know how many dies were used or the numbers struck, but would think that survival rates are going to be the same across the board for all dies. A census would be meaningful. What would almost certainly tie it down to a damaged die would be zero examples from other years.

I'm not sure they would be that helpful. Hocking only lists an 1893 crown together with the 1893 matrix, punch and die. Nothing later. Just a thought, but what do you see on the 1902 crown. There must be literally thousands of images of these available to do the same checks, and the horse punch is likely to be the same as used in 1899.