Rob

Looks like 6+G, but the pictures aren't the best.

There are no die numbers on halfpennies. A few 1862 halfpennies were struck with letters by the lighthouse, but numbers were only used on some 1863 pennies, silver (2/-, 1/- & 6d) from 1864 -1879 and gold from 1863 - 1874 sovereign and 1863-1871 half sov.

Legends and dates are frequently seen overcut. This was done to either change an old die to the current date, or to recut blocked characters. With use, a die becomes blocked with compacted rubbish - usually metal dust from the act of striking. As the die is otherwise ok, i.e. not cracked, recutting letters allows it to have further use, thus saving on the expense of a new die. It is particularly common in the Victorian period.

Given the legitimate owner, I think you can safely assume they have been researched. Conspiracy theory says it was Scottish Nationalists , after all, it was the Scottish coins that were stolen, not the English.

It's not that simple. An idea of the target together with approximate numbers to each section is as follows: Persons in whose name a coin was struck, including the episcopal issues. - 250 Denominations - 130 Metals used including the various degrees of fineness or debasement - 50 Examples of an attributed designer' handiwork - 190 (This is the one with the largest prospect for expansion) Initial or privy mark including overmarks - 330 Mint locations - 150 Miscellaneous which includes errors, metal sources, minting techniques etc. - 90 This list makes some sections difficult to complete without duplication, and in some case impossible. eg. the 26 new designers used for the Olympic 50ps are on coins with the same basic obverse as are most of the decimal issues. There are a number of mints which only existed for a short time which coincided with historical events. These will also be impossible to complete without duplication.

I don't have a main focus area. That's the point of the collection. Anything which offers variation in design is acceptable from Celtic through to the present, but although I try not to duplicate, sometimes it is necessary to have different years with the same basic design. e.g. the maundy reverses are essentially unchanged for nearly two centuries, but occur with a reamped obverse every time the monarch is replaced. I will confess to being unable to completely break up the Soho G3 halfpenny section and so only disposed of approx.30 pieces with the aim of having an example of each Peck type (DH1, DH2 etc). The cast -offs were examples in different metals of the same design.

Me, specialising...............in diversity The ultimate oxymoron.

I don't understand P&Ms. They aren't rare, or at least some aren't, but invariably go for silly money. I used to have one in gVF which was a bit short, so sold it as I couldn't live with it given most are full. Lo and behold the price then rocketed, to the extent that I couldn't even buy a VF one for what I sold it for. I know the facing busts are a novelty and it is unusual to have a foreign monarch on a British coin, but these prices are simply dumb.

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.