Rob

Can't make it out.

Dear me, the labour and material costs must have been greater than £20

You need to find multiple examples with the same profile to have any hope of convincing him. They might all be lozenge shaped, but that still provides a myriad of identifiably different pieces. Arguably, you get so many rusted/corroded/pitted things on ebay that it almost looks normal when you see a cast, even if if you know better.

You have 4 discrete die pairs with the oval reverse shield (3B-3E). The obverses are also different in each case, but still given a single number based on the design with the tail behind the rear legs. Obverse 2 has the tail between the legs and is known for 12 discrete die pairs. Again, the obverses and reverses are slightly different in each case. The flaws appear to be where a previous die was engraved as you can discern details which agree with other dies. It is this that leads me to believe that the cylinder press theory proposed by Besly in the 1984 BNJ doesn't hold, or at least only for the obverse 2 shillings and possibly the threepences. The above and the other halfcrowns are individual die pairs used on a rocker press, and are struck from diestock that is of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown.

It is the laxity of the TPG that should be the concern. To make not too fine a point, it's bleedin' obvious.

Do you mean where the page loads and then a second later drops down a cm or so? If so, I get that too sometimes.

Warminster? Wrong thread old bean. Anyway, it is in Wiltshire.

Correct chaps. Given these are always struck from discrete die pairs which are never muled and I have never seen one without perfectly formed letters in the legend, plugging looks to be the right option. A lower grade piece but with the reverse flaw at a later stage says it all. I don't think the grader put much effort into his assessment.

This sold for $1400 hammer in the Heritage sale tonight. http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-charles-i-1-2-crown-nd-1643-44-au55-ngc-/a/3038-34717.s?x=21&y=12 Plugged or not? It looks fairly clear cut to me, but other opinions are invited.

I don't think the quality material is available full stop. We are all scrapping in the same bull pit.

The gold piece is the one I mentioned. The bust is of the same general shape, but not comical unlike yours. The reverse is completely different as you can see, with no MR divided by the shield. The legend is also different to the dated gold piece. The portrait on the 1st widowhood testoon is superb and superior to the efforts of the English engravers of the time. Copies or replica coins are often made by casting, with the raised line being the point where the two faces came together. You will probably find the remains of the casting sprue if you look carefully.

Oops. Should be gEF with a bare trace of cabinet friction to the highest points. I can't remember now but suspect a copy and paste generated inconsistency again, 3 coins before that on the list was a 1953 proof set, so I presume I copied the description and modified it, being in the same section. Thank you for pointing that out.

The latter definitely has to be true because however good a coin is there could always be a better one round the corner. No coin is likely to make 100, whether currency or proof.

Ilchester is indeed correct. It's a mile and a half away down the 303 on the left.

NFDC is equal to 12. On the basis that BU is as good as they come, then that must equal 100. The rest follows.

Better than BU?

Ok, how about Ilchester, Cricklade, Shaftesbury, Malmesbury and Winchcombe? 1 right.

Damaged punches weren't repaired. The design is raised on the punch, so any bits falling off couldn't be replaced - hence the addition of the odd limb using something else. You are basically taking a piece of diestock, placing a lump of metal with an uneven face on top of it and hitting it with a hammer. Nothing complicated. Broken punches are going to be used until unserviceable.

Crossbars added to V to make an A carry through until at least the end of William 3. A considerable number were made in the Civil War. I suggest that any time the required die was not immediately available then they would make do with what was to hand. If an H wasn't available, what would they do? Stop work and have a cup of tea or use their initiative?

That's probably his paypoo fees on £200 included with the postage.

Oops, really? I didn't look beyond the image!You're still looking for one of them, aren't you, Paulus? I think that's a tad unfair to make the description so small, as it is in normal sized font. He's also honest going by the description, just a little deluded with his concept of worth.

Punch identification should greatly assist in determining which are genuine and which counterfeit. Starting with the earliest Haringtons which should be the best indicator of what is kosher and what not, you should be able to build up a good database. The problem arises when you have composite letters made from more than one punch as these were quite common throughout the hammered coinage. I am also surprised that counterfeits would be made on a strip as the cost of the equipment would have been difficult to recoup. Time for a rethink?

No problem with the forum. I have noticed elsewhere that eBay keeps asking me to run "Silverlight" when logging in though. I've ignored it and everything seems to work ok.

ok, some work, some don't. The problem seems to be the ones where the rectangular box comes up in the picture. The options would imply it's a link and not a picture, despite seeing an image. I'll have to enquire about manipulating the images as the drop down options have changed since the rebuild.

That's why I said if anyone can save it and then open with a picture editor they can change the contrast which may reveal some detail. For some reason my image must corrupt when saving as it doesn't give the option to open with the editor, only firefox or word etc. This computer is on borrowed time. .