Rob

Could be the same situation as with the dump halfpenny no obverse stops, where I suspect that a guide stop was lightly tapped in, but was never completely entered, leaving you with just a pimple that could easily be filled. To be a genuine 'no stops' I wouldn't want to see a trace of anything, even in high grade, and as a result I think the jury is still out as to whether it really exists.

Philip Hunt, whose collection of halfcrowns was purchased in part by Colin Adams in 2000 (who regretted in hindsight not buying the lot), with the remainder dispersed through Studio Coins (Stephen Mitchell). White tickets written with a black felt tip pen. I don't know if any other sizes were used, but one is 33mm and the other 39mm. The reverse is blank.

I remember being at the Baldwin's sale when he bought the P1236. He was sat in the middle, front row and I was by the window with Mick Martin behind. When he bid twice what we both thought was reasonable, we looked at each other and thought 'who is this geezer?' We both said at the time, we aren't going there. Rare coin though and the first time either of us had seen one.

Not sure about that. He only had 14 1797 pieces whereas Colin had 44 lots. With the gold penny you are at the mercy of when one appears.

I was pleasantly surprised at some of the prices today. I bought 3 lots today all for me - the W3 Y sixpence, which means the ex-Slaney coin will be returning to Manchester after nearly 2 decades on holiday in East Anglia. Also bought the 1821 6d and finally, the 1837 threehalfpence, which wasn't on my list, but it would have been rude not to bid at that price.

That's a fairly serious mismatch of tickets and raises questions. Obviously they are completely unrelated to the coins, but the prices of the ticket items is not insignificant and certainly considerably higher than the coins seen. The half pound is a four figure coin. The halfcrown pictured is a three figure coin. The shilling is a regular Tower issue (not Aberystwyth), and as such a hundred or more in value depending on the condition of the reverse compared to an Oxford 6d that books at £250 in Fine and £800 in VF. Is there any indication on the other side of the tickets to say where they came from? Nobody with a bit of knowledge would match these tickets with these coins. Were the other 3 correct? Could you put up pictures of both sides please of all the tickets.

Some of those prices were simply bonkers. I had a shortlist of 5 pieces. The gilt 2d (lot 11) cost someone nearly 8500 all in!! The KH11 I was willing to go 2000-2500, but 5K hammer? A couple of the gilt Moore pieces used to be mine (lots 157 & 160), but I sold them in 2009 because I couldn't live with them. Today they sold for 1200 & 1900 hammer, and I know which one is the nicer of the two. The Godless patterns all went for 6-13K! I think I'm losing the plot.

Many thanks.

Looks like it is missing the last page with James II onwards - the last two images are duplicated.

That will be the Weyl patterns. As I wrote in the article about 10 years ago, I think they are mostly unique with the exception of the aluminium pieces documented in the Murdoch sale. There was also an 1887 (unspecified metal) penny listed in the bronze and copper section of the Cholmley sale in 1902 which I found after publication. This sale took place less than a month before Murdoch died, and it may or may not be the same as the one that was sold in the latter's sale. Whatever, it debunks the theory that the Weyl patterns were struck especially for Murdoch, as it is inconceivable he would have disposed of something produced uniquely for him whilst keeping the rest. Freeman also omits those struck in tin.

The Soho produced bronzed coinage was typically consistently coloured. Taylor's restrikes showed much more variation in the quality of the bronzing. That is what I was showing earlier with the P1161 with mottled toning, which was one of his earliest attempts made before the dies had the rust polished off the surfaces. The Moore patterns are a separate issue, but given they were produced at various times over a 26 year period, you would expect some variation for the different die states in the same metal. Moore's bronzing appears to be a bit darker than Taylor's, albeit from a limited sample size. Given Moore's affidavit to the effect that a specific number of coins were struck in specific metals on specific days in September and December 1886, it should be possible to identify the copper and bronzed pieces purely from those with Peck's obverse B. The coronetted head P2135 is only known in copper. Again, that should aid differentiation if you had them side by side. You also have to consider whether the surfaces seen are a result of storage conditions. I can think of a few patterns with slightly impaired surfaces, which is why I said you can't take what I said as definitive. FWIW, my P2106 has a couple of tiny light blotches, but is certainly not copper as the majority of the surface is better, being evenly toned.

Both Taylor and Moore were producing bronzed pieces up to the mid-1880s. The process has to be the same as for medals, or for that matter, mint toned farthings and pennies. The colour differences will probably be down to the list of solution ingredients.

I don't know. I've looked but can't find anything written down. Logic says it has to be a fluid to ensure even coverage because anything else would give inherently patchy results, but whether that is a chemical solution or reactive atmosphere, I'm unsure. The Taylor restrikes sometimes have what appears to be powder residue in the recesses, which I think may be dried out bronzing agent due to insufficient washing after application.

For completion's sake, a pair of RM products, the 1867 bronzed proof and the 1879 toned bronze proof clearly shows the uniformity achieved with bronzing compared to the toning variation seen on the second coin. As stated earlier, when there is full original lustre, the copper (or bronze) attribution is unambiguous, but the main thing to look for is the evenness of colour/toning. Copper can tone in a multitude of ways. Bronzing reduces its ability to do so. Hope this helps.

You sometimes see a red residue resembling jeweller's rouge in the recesses as in the G, E and stops at the base. This is probably remains of the chemical used to produce the bronzed finish. As you can see, the bronzing on the R42 (P1053) is much lighter than the previous post. A comparison has been made with the same P991 obverse.

An example of the inconsistent toning is shown here with a P1161 showing blotchy bronzing (left), compared to the well executed P991 (right).

When you get to the Taylor restrikes, the difference between the two finishes is quite obvious, but his bronzing shows considerable variation in quality. This shows a bronzed (P1161) and a copper (P1169).

This is a comparison between Late Soho copper (P1367) and bronzed (P1370).

Next is an Early Soho bronzed compared to a Late Soho bronzed. Late Soho are appreciably lighter in colour than Early Soho with most a little darker than the P1370 shown on the right, but all are not as dark as the Early pieces.

On the OP - copper first, bronzed second. That's bronzed, but depending on the lighting angle as a result of the surface not being planar, it is possible to get considerable apparent variation in colour which is not always obvious in hand. Bronzed copper is correct. The flan is copper with a chemically produced bronzed finish. In hand it is usually fairly easy to say which is which, with the caveat that there will always be one of two which are a little ambiguous. The main thing is to ensure you are comparing apples with apples and not pears, because depending on the period in which a coin was struck, the bronzing can vary in colour. Toned copper examples however are reasonably consistently dark in colour with any multi-hued colours depending on the lighting angle. I've put a few things together to show some differences, but given there is variation even within a period, don't take these as definitive examples. The main point is that bronzing is done to produce an even surface colour which doesn't exhibit the greater variation in toning seen with copper. Medals are frequently bronzed for this reason. Obviously, when you have full red surfaces, the coin is clearly copper and not open to question. This will take a few posts, so bear with me. Sorry they are all unfashionable halfpennies and not pennies, but the same principles apply. First up is an Early Soho bronzed (P935) left, compared with a Late Soho copper (P973) right. As you can see, the bronzed finish has an even colour across the surface.

Am I right in thinking that if your bitcoin doesn't slab PF70, it's a bit suspect?

Many thanks

Anybody have any idea who made these or if it is in a reference volume. Aluminium, 31.5mm diameter, 5.21g and below the lion reads RD NO 572729/10 - the RD NO presumably meaning registered number.

And the other side

I too drive an asthmatic dog kennel. I remember once being asked why I hadn't waited a couple weeks to get the new registration, but had to point out that come the time to sell, nobody had ever cared when my car was registered. They were only interested in whether it worked, had a full complement of wheels, or an MOT or not.