Rob

Are you using auto-correct? My phone insists on changing no to on despite 50% of all texts requiring a yes or no answer. It's a pain in the a**e. Normal for Samsung?

Smooth edge or smoothed? These were struck without a collar and had a diagonal milled edge. Filed down edges and made round could be due to making it fit jewellery or something. Any trace of a mount on the edge? If it looks like it was originally struck in a collar, then it's a dodgy one. The missing 17 isn't something I would worry about. A full date is nice, but you do get weak characters at random places in the legend from time to time. It doesn't look right though.

I think it could be a sub variety. My coin is a straightforward Withers type 7, whilst I think yours may be a type 7(i) - described as unusual reverse, very large pellets, almost no inner circle. From punches intended for penny dies? But having never seen what he was referring to when he wrote the book, it is speculation. 'Very large pellets' could use a relative reference point, as could 'almost no inner circle'. Unfortunately, he didn't include an image, so I'm guessing. The three pellets in each quarter can be separate or take the form of a trefoil depending on the placement of the pellets, which are usually relatively small points on this issue. And as for S1557 or S1558, it depends on the legend and not the bust style, which was made from several punches - shoulders and neck, face, crown, hair. You can't always trust the Spink picture to represent your coin, or at least not for the finer detail on a hammered coin.

Nearly. It's an Edward III Florin halfpenny, S1557 and not 1558 as the legend ends in REX and not REX AN. It's one of these.

It's definitely got a mascle stop, but I'm not so sure about the pinecone(?) before DON. If it is a pinecone, then the reverse isn't listed in Withers. Is there a leaf on the breast? If so, then it could be a leaf issue. Withers notes the Walters example, but says there is a leaf after CIVI, which this one doesn't have space for. The key will be trying to see what is after HENRIC. Try cleaning it up a bit.

They were made by Kempson, a documented producer of tokens, and not by some murky individual. The allegation they were intended to deceive is questionable given the comical nature of the portrait. They are quite common in decent grade too - must be if I have one.

Any way you could make it 3/5? It would probably depend on the shape of the top half of a 5, which at this time were slightly slanted forward, so not a right angle top left.

And the 1824 which shows much deeper cuts to the hair, but the 3 strands pointing to GR are in better agreement with the ebay piece. If it wasn't for the reverse, I don't think many questions would be asked.

I agree with Paddy that the reverse looks too deeply engraved. The bead count is the same as on an 1824, 1825 and 1829 I have images for here, so that appears to be constant from pattern through to currency. There are minor detail differences in the hair between this one and my 1825, but the hair is in better agreement with the 1824. Conversely, the profile of the earhole is a better match with my 1825 than the 1824. It's probably reasonable to assume that there were several bust punches made, all nominally the same, but needs someone to do the spadework to confirm. An 1825 here which differs slightly in the three hair strands pointing to GR.

'Necessary' is a very small box in the context of life. 'Desirable' on the other hand covers a multitude of sins, many of which are conveniently shifted into the 'necessary' box to justify the expenditure. You only have to look at the vast amount spent on vanity and ego to see that. How much is spent on clothes that never get worn? How many people feel the need to be seen in a high end motor, and for how many is it necessary expenditure? For a few it will be a spacious car with seating at bum level for ease of access on account of physical issues, but for the vast majority it will be a case of 'because I can afford it', or 'look at me'. Once you have risen above the destitute, this blurring affects all levels of society, so I'm not sure the safe is any different.

No, it was broken almost to the base.

You're already there - you have a house, a car, you go on holiday, you save for a pension etc etc. All of which you have already determined are more desirable than buying coins.

This was liberated from the base of a Georgian drinking vessel which had the glass broken nearly down to the base, so the original shape is moot. Judging by the grade (the reverse is pretty much as struck) it must have been made in 1731 or soon after. Also helpfully listed on ebay as a sixpence. Happy days

Mine. Ticks the Peck R13 box. It was one of those sold by the Boulton family 15 or so years ago.

Et voila.

Many of these collections named other than the person involved contain an oblique reference related to the collector or where they live(d). e.g. North Yorkshire Moors - he worked there at some point. Slaney, middle name of the person who put the collection together. Alderley and Cheshire collection - they live there. etc etc. To throw people off the scent, I shall name my collection the 'Oddball Collection' given its eclectic character.

It's not too much over melt and the reverse shows it to be an 1899P which invariably sells at a premium. Even if the obverse is a mess you can only lose 10 or 20 quid at the most. I don't think the vendor had much idea of what he was selling, o/w he would have put up a wrong image of an 1899 P.

You can get quite reasonable rates on insurance - say 0.4-0.5% of sum insured, and that figure will halve if you use a bank for storage. In reality, you will never look at the collection in its entirety more than a handful of times, but a policy that will give you cover for a smaller amount outside the bank/home allows you to study groups of coins of interest or gives the opportunity to show a couple pieces if giving a talk. You can set the lower limit at what you feel you will need.

I've just taken one out of a slab and increased its value. With hindsight, I probably should have doubled it. Same description for type though I lowered the slab grade. Unslabbed, it was free of the baggage of a small number which frightened off all those collecting by numbers.

Despite my lack of enthusiasm for pennies, I still regret being underbidder on the Adams coin. Such is life - must put money where mouth is.

I can't confirm if it is true, but I'm lead to believe there are only two mint state examples available. There's one in an MS65(?) slab with questionable colour that was on Cooke's site for years and another in a private collection which definitely doesn't have any problems.

A tad steep, but I'd still give him £100 for it and would go higher but for the spots. It's the best year by a country mile. Book of £90 is mean.

It still requires someone who believes in the slab and his valuation to buy it. There's a huge number of people who only buy the slab number, so someone might go for it at that level.

FEATURE The counterfeiting of British Victorian £5 gold coins in the 1960's The Public Records Office, Kew, has been recently given a "make over" and renamed the National Archives. Here are deposited the record books and official files of the Royal Mint. British law usually allows these to be examined after thirty years. One of these files, prosaically named: "Requests for examination of £5 pieces", Ref.2, allows us to find out about the glut of counterfeit £5 pieces which entered Britain in the late 1960's. The file is documented to cover the periods 1965 to 1969. It starts with a request, in November 1965, from the Customs and Excise to the Royal Mint to examine a 1887 £5 gold piece. This piece was one of a number imported from Kuwait by a Mrs.Akel, a Birmingham jeweller. It was alleged she was selling these pieces on to other small jewellers in the English Midlands. G.P. Warden, a principal scientific officer at the Mint, reported the piece was a counterfeit. This was based on the low weight and density of the piece, the incorrect number of millings on the edge and a number of visual defects on the coin. From the density of 17.05g/cc Mr.Warden estimated that the coin contained about 89% gold as against the 91.66% found in the genuine coins. The file contained a photograph of this coin and it is reproduced below. Photograph showing the 1887 Jubilee gold £5 ex. Mrs.Akel Type Weight Density Millings Mrs.Akel counterfeit 39.7204g 17.05g/cc 188 Genuine coin 39.87549 to 40.00507g 17.45 to 17.55g/cc 184 The file does not detail the visual faults of the counterfeit but examination of the photograph reveals a number. On the reverse, the body of St.George had not been completely "made" during the striking operation. Both The file does not detail the visual faults of the counterfeit but examination of the photograph reveals a number. On the reverse, the body of St.George had not been completely "made" during the striking operation. Both sides contained a large number of pimples and depressions. The pimples were especially noticable on the table next to the body and leg of St.George and on the bottom part of Queen Victoria's veil. There is also a small die crack visible near the top right hand side of the I of Victoria.

There was a piece written about the 'Beirut' copies of 1887 £5 & £2s that came out of the middle east in the 60s. Attached are a couple of images showing the approximate die axis of the two copies and the bit that was written. Note the milling differences for the £5. FWIW, I think the £2 looks a bit iffy and the weight is low. Dodgy 1887 5 pounds.docx Doesn't seem to want to load