Rob

What's on the reverse? "Hopefully gone, but never forgotten".?

Their overheads must be so great these days that it's a case of every little helps when it comes to sales. I'm sure the amount of money tied up in the business together with the large number of (expensive) staff will ensure that Gibbons keep the prices sky high. I can certainly see the overheads requiring a mark up of at least 50%, so doubling prices compared to what is paid seems reasonable if a safety margin is to be included. The problem is they are paying full book at auction more often than not, so the prices are going up exponentially. Just looking at the two Exeter crowns on the list, the C15 is £3500 for what is a not particularly well struck coin. I would have thought just over £1K top would suffice. The D21 is one of the two better examples of that die pair, but a price of £7500 is plain silly as other die combinations have superior examples. There are over 130 examples of tower both sides 1645 crowns on my list, and I add to this on a near monthly basis. With the Spink VF price at £1100, £2K or a bit more should be more than adequate.

The basement is rumoured to be empty. Having said that, I'm sure they will still find something if they look hard.

Is the Daily Mail no more?

The 1863 has the date below Britannia, not Victoria. i.e. it's on the other side.

It is worth it's intrinsic metal value in that condition, i.e. a few pence. 1853 is not a rare date. It isn't 1863 which is a bronze issue.

For some reason I can seem to get this out of my head at the moment, so might as well add it to the appropriate thread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qK82JvRY5s&feature=kp

They are in Spink too. And the Sept 2013 issue of the Circular had the various busts used on the Edinburgh shillings, but with much clearer pictures.

If they are silver, then bullion content will set a base value. I would think that if you can't find any reference to a 50 piece set, yet can find a 43 piece set, then the larger one might be a 'less than official' product which in monetary terms usually means something closer to melt value.

They could always add in http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c2%20pics/01874.jpg which I have described as such on the site, but it doesn't come from a BNTA member, so is presumably unwelcome? There are a lot of people who have done a lot of work in this department. The existing thing on the forgery network, SEUK's contemporary forgeries, the ongoing monitoring done by Richard and a dozen or more other people....... Is it just a case of my forgery is better than yours? There are many sites with forgeries listed. Far better would be a list of existing references than reinventing the wheel.

Yes, but only the first time. Try to return to the page and you no longer have the chance to close the window down.

Maybe you've registered in the past?

Any witholding of info regarding copies can only lead to their further distribution by people who have a focussed moral compass unwittingly passing them on as good. For all the people who pass on copies even when told they aren't genuine, there are a good few people who will withdraw them from sale. Restricting info serves no useful purpose in restricting supplies of copies, which ought to be the first objective. If the BNTA had a monopoly, or near monopoly of dealers then it might work, but with the BNTA being no more than a zit on the face of world numismatics, I think it is self-defeating.

Not enough time to read without being required to register. Consequently it is only partially informative.

Isn't invading what is a free forum and advertising your competing business with that of the site owner a tad unethical?

First and last both look pretty porous. Not sure about the second because the picture is too blurred.

Just a bad case of unwarranted deference on the part of the vendor and lack of familiarity where the TPG is concerned.

True. Lack of joined up thinking there - don't need to make silver acetate as we aren't reinventing photography. I was thinking in terms of whether it had been glued to a surface using clear silicone sealant. If it is lacquer, acetone will not shift it very well. If it is the remains of glue, acetone might be ok, It does look like ponded remains though. Whatever was used to clean it previously was probably in insufficient quantity.

I was thinking the same, so if it is then it got to that state by being dissolved in something and probably ponded as the solvent evaporated. Get it cheaply and experiment. It is going to be soluble in something whether it's acetone, ethanol, acetic acid or whatever. Best bet is something non-polar.

It will be ok. There are many dies used for this and the shilling. Seuk might have done some in depth work on this, otherwise there is the 2004 BNJ which although primarily concerned with the shillings has a lot of info re sixpences in the appendices and the postscript has a list of references pertaining to both denominations.

It's a large catalogue of silly behaviour, all of which are used to present a business case. One has it slabbed to try to up the price people would pay. Said slabbing has got the description fundamentally wrong. Another says you need an opinion of an opinion to make sure that opinion is justified. In fact this whole thread is a litany of silly behaviour. We've just moved from a purveyor of rubber entertainment clothing to opinions dressed in plastic. Too many fetishes here.

Why would anyone bother to send it off for someone to read the legend for them? The ten or twenty quid would be better spent buying a reading for dummies book. Double that and you could have the reference book for posterity.

I've never tried gout, however, I can recommend red wine, red meat, oily fish, cherries, white wine, beer, plus a host of cheese varieties. Water I cannot recommend, as it is a poor substitute for item no.1.

Thanks Peter, I'll readily buy the Rotographic publications hadn't seen this one. Easy too to get it sent straight to Kindle. I just bought The Brussels Hoard of 1908. There's an article in BNJ from 1912 but you wonder how much ground an article from 100 years ago is covering and what has changed since then but there's something to be said for tracing the development of classification / understanding of these things rather than just cross-referencing against Spink. It's all a work in progress. A lot of the articles from a century ago are inevitable incomplete due to later discoveries, but in most cases account for over 95% of the material discussed, and sometimes all. The basic classifications of most series were laid down in the 19th and early 20th century. The only glaring shortfall from a 100 years ago was the relative absence of copper references. Montagu published his book in 1885 with a 2nd edition in 1893, but that basically covered what he had in his own collection. It took Peck's tome to get anywhere close to fully documenting the base metal pieces. The majority of silver and gold had been first covered in the 1700s. Snelling is nowhere near complete and was published in 5 parts over nearly a decade, but still mentions most things. Ruding was a step up in gear when published half a century later. It was followed by Hawkins etc. A good indicator of what was perceived to be the best references of any given time is to check a contemporary auction catalogue for the references used as these will be the most up to date volumes available. The classification adopted of any series will inevitably be the most complex to date. Today's nerds collecting by Freeman, Peck, ESC, Davies numbers etc are just the current upholders of this tradition. References are used until superseded by something that is either greater in depth, or can be shown to have corrected a previously held assumption. As you say, it is a perpetual work in progress.

I don't understand why people don't just bid what they are willing to pay. If the underbidder stops a hundred quid below where you would go, then it doesn't cost you your max.