Rob

This is partly where the discussion lies. To demonstrate, I don't have any pennies, but I do have a pair of 1876H halfpennies which asks the same question. The Heaton proof/specimen has much less sharp lettering than say the unambiguous 1867 bronzed proof, http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/halfpenny_merge/397.jpg i.e. it ticks some boxes but not others. For comparison sake, here is the 1876H which was slabbed as a proof in the Terner sale and was considered a proof by Freeman (this was his coin also). However, others considered it to fall short, preferring to call it a specimen strike and so the debate continues............

It looks like a poorly struck/defective punch T which has been reinforced with an I. The angled part claimed as an A wasn't totally convincing to me in Nicholson, though more so than this one. If an A, I would expect it to be similar in profile to the two other letters in the legend, but it looks to be different. The foot is almost at right-angles to the upright.

You said you were considering two and four pences? Apart from Vicky groats, those will have to be Maundy. 1838 & 1848 currency 2d. (S3914E)

Another consideration is that they are intended to be no H after being returned from Heatons, the H filled and the die used by the Royal Mint so that what you see is a trace from inadequate smoothing. I know they corrected errors and repaired dies by filling and recutting because I have an 1862/26 halfpenny, so filling only is hardly a great leap into the unknown. Trying to prove which is an 1882H filled with debris as opposed to filled at the mint because it was struck in London rather than Birmingham might be a tad problematic.

If you play around with the contrast and brightness there is a possible H shape, but I don't know if this agrees with the other 1882H dies. Somebody will be more au fait than me on the penny dies. I can have a look at it in a couple weeks at Wakefield if I remember.

This is all part of the question as to whether the Heaton Mint produced proofs from polished flans to the Royal Mint standards or a slightly inferior product that was an early strike from polished dies but not exhibiting all the characteristics one would experct of a proof. The same argument has been put forward for halfpennies and farthings. Freeman contended that the Heaton strikes were proofs, whereas Peck and others maintain they are not. Somewhere else on the forum I have previously posted images of a 'normal' 1876H 1/2d compared to a 'specimen' or 'proof' depending on your point of view. I can't find the relevant thread at present, but the reverse of the normal coin is prooflike in the hand. The specimen or proof is infinitely superior both in strike and brilliance of field.

There is no reason why any smaller O has to be a halfpenny. There are many denominations in Victoria's reign in other metals. There are digits with and without serifs. There are letters of different fonts. There are odd shape punches which were often used for repair work, any or all of which could apply.

Ebay still gives a limited number of free listings per month, so you can always find 20 pieces of rubbish to stick on. You don't have to bust a gut selling quality for OTT amounts as the margins are much better for items of negligible value. Just don't expect to make too much money.

Although it is quite a deep strike, probably from a fresh obverse die looking at the relief, there are still quite a few marks on it. 1838 isn't a hard date to find irrespective of mintage, so you should be able to find an unc example with a lot of red for not much more than 100 quid. It certainly wouldn't break the bank as it is nothing like as rare as 1843 to 1848.

didn't realise the two were separate videos

This is a different video to the one last night.

Don't do it too aggressively or you might upset someone.

1610 would be right for bell, but not mullet given the mark didn't start until 45 days into the new year. Presumably an old reverse die that someone forgot to change the date on. As the pyx was determined by the mark and not the year on the coin, it is obviously a surviving oddity, hence the wax. Which catalogue I don't know unless the lot description gives you the info. There can't be many sixpences in that condition illustrated in old catalogues. RD. The numbers of each denomination within a mark will depend on what was requested by the people bringing silver to the mint. Only when the market price of silver moved above face do we see a marked loading in favour of the small denominations. These were required to provide the poor with small change for their relief and as a result are more common relative to sixpences and shillings in the second half of the decade when the mint struck them at a loss. Shillings on the other hand are excessively rare for book, plain cross and spur rowel - less than a dozen examples for all three marks combined? Sixpences are also elusive at this time. The smaller values were only made by the mint under duress due to the difficulty in handling ever smaller pieces of metal. The terms of most indentures were that the remuneration was related to the weight of metal coined, making small coins unattractive. The overmark is clear on yours, but less so on the other two dies. A bit of double striking/off flan/not well struck up and you would only know it was an overmark by matching the visible bits of the die.

I explained what WRL means too. Feedback as a seller isn't exactly encouraging

WRL is in the heading Rob Yes, but that doesn't tell the average person it is a reproduction. It's a very sly way of trying to cover your own backside. It doesn't say 'THIS IS A REPLICA'. I know WRL is one, you know it is too, but an awful lot of people see wrl in images without knowing its significance. The description says wrl, but also says in very good condition for its age. Methinks deception is intended.

Read around the subject a lot, then buy a little bit of everything until you know what appeals. Some things you will like more than others, but that only comes with experience.

To expand on this, the amount of silver in the Bell pyx on 9th May 1611 was £9/12/81/2d. The amount of silver in the mullet pyx on 22nd May 1612 was £9/11/4d. So the scarcity of the two marks is roughly identical. To put the values into perspective, the highest was 1606 Rose £154/13/3d, and the lowest 1620 Spur Rowel at £-/5/4d (excluding those marks where no silver was present). So both marks are scarce (as is any silver for the period 1610-1620), but not that difficult. As the amount of silver set aside for the pyx at this time was 2 pieces out of every 30 pounds of coined silver, it is possible to make an estimate of the quantity of silver coined, if not the relative abundance of each denomination - which can only be guessed by taking a census of surviving coins. As the largest denomination in the pyx and with no smaller denomination standing out as particularly common, (1s, 6d, 2d, 1d, 1/2d), shillings are likely to have formed the bulk of the silver. At a sampling rate of one every 1200 pieces (ish), this suggests an output of say 10000 shillings for each mark. On that basis and given it is possible to identify three overmarked obverse dies, the overmark is likely to be as common as the straight mullet, if not more so. To correct the post on CCF where the dates for the marks are a year out, all the overmarked coins would have been produced after 9th May 1611 and no later than 22nd May 1612 and not in 1610-11.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=141359066359 I must be bored to be policing these things. Reported.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-III-MAUNDY-SIXPENCE-1787/111424190138?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D23777%26meid%3D8714659146741698375%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D10165%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D10%26sd%3D181457127553 The sunglasses are obligatory. Sorry for including the face.

Peter, you work for yourself. You can retire when you like.

None in particular. It's just that ebay is worse than useless for sellers these days. You either have to list it as a BIN for the price you want, or expect to sell it for a pittance. It isn't in a high enough grade for people to chase it, and unless desperately rare (which it isn't), the graffiti will affect the price and demand significantly.

Happy birthday too.

Try an auction. eBay is a disaster at the moment as nobody is bidding on anything to speak of unless it is 99p. The graffiti won't help your cause. I paid £130 for mine in 2005. Better grade than yours, but mullet over bell on the obverse only. From a different obverse die, so that makes at least 3 obverse dies with the overmark including Ashby's.

I sold a copy two weeks ago. Got none.

That one on eBay is a joke at £89. If the obverse was as good as the reverse, you might be in with a chance at 89, but it looks like one to avoid. It looks like a classic case of pricing to the best side rather than the worst.