Rob

If anyone has copies of the following, please could they send me scans as follows: Royal Mint Report 1963 (pages specifically referring to the Petition Crown) The Mint by Sir John Craig p.151-158 Thanks.

Welcome . We have already met.

Yep. Been there. It's basic, but good. And the locals eat there too.

I was assuming it had been deciphered correctly in hand. Anyway, the date doesn't matter because it's a grotty example of a base forgery/token whatever, so no real value.

I thought that at first, but if it is 1810, then I'm not sure there are any forgeries of that date. I thought the final digit loked like a 0

It isn't genuine, whatever it is. Size will determine what denomination it purports to represent. It's a brass or copper token of some form.

Ah, the good old days of 70s curries - everything was chocolate brown unless it had Tandoori or Tikka in the name, in which case it was bright bright red For anybody going back to the 70s in Manchester, the Plaza cafe on Upper Brook Street should bring back memories- some good, some bad. Choice of 4 curries, mild, medium, hot or suicide, differing only in the amount of red oil on the surface. Ended up in hospital once after 4 curries there in a single dysfunctional weekend. The one for Sunday breakfast was a bit hard going.

I think the penny should stay. Collectors of pennies will be satisfied and there doesn't seem any prospect of the mint issuing commemorative pennies to flood the market with unwanted tat.

Poor quality control in positioning the coin when assembling the slab. If they don't care what it looks like (irrespective of whether it is deemed to be worth a grade or not), why should anyone care about the service? It may be loose in the plastic insert, in which case poor quality control applies.

Slabbing may have a value. It may appeal to those who like slabs and are driven by numbers and similarly to those who don't - the latter because they like the coin if not the plastic. Out of the slab it will almost certainly only appeal to those who don't.

That's just a fact of life. The analogy could easily be extended to the 999 pages out of 1000 of totally uncollectable, indeterminate pieces of shi*e on eBay. Cleaned, holed, broken, featureless, wrinkly pieces of metal that the seller usually claims were coins at some point judging by the descriptions used. Nobody wants them, but we have to live with it. The same goes for someone who wants to call cents pennies, after all, I've got half a nicker in my pocket. heh, heh, heh.

The best part is I have both the picture and the unsullied original coin. Yeh, ok up to a point. How do you get the colour off the spare?

The weight is at the top of any receipt given by the PO. see attached. Ask for a scan of the proof of posting. If sent by SD it will have your tracking number and address. Assuming these are correct, the weight will say where they went missing.

Discolouration from what? You are removing the surface toning and metal, to expose......metal. Any discolouration would have to be from whatever environmental conditions were present.

Most likely partially dissolved in an acidic solution, whether as a lost coin, or wilfully as a practical experiment/prank.

If it goes SD the packet will be weighed by the post office. If the weight dosn't tally with their figure it has been removed in the post, if it is the same weight as when it was posted, then the seller hasn't put them in in the first place. Should be simple to establish when it happened.

'Where have they hidden the extra leaf?' If you are JN Coins as per your signature, why talk about yourself in the third person? Sorry, I'm confused

I'm quite sure this is the case, but I have no idea how one gets on that "preferred" list. I'm a collector, not a dealer -- what happens off the books between dealers and "good-ole-boys" is anyone's guess. I get the feeling there is a lot of nepotism and corruption in general among coin dealers this side of the pond. in all walks of life, in all countries. If there's a dollar to be made, someone will always make a dollar twenty. Or in Italy $2 given the black economy is estimated to be roughly the same size as the official one.

They're a bit bright for me. What many people find incomprehensible is the premium paid by some folks for these. A reality check is in order given the ease with which you too could achieve the same results with a bit of effort. There does seem to be a significant anti-rainbow collecting element from the posts above which is encouraging. I think it was a Churchill crown that someone in the US wanted 5 or 6 hundred dollars for with a similar colour scheme. (greattoning or somebody like that) Nobody in their right mind would pay more than a couple of quid for a good one. Most will remain unloved forever. Well done Eme-bag for spotting a marketing opportunity and patenting the idea. http://www.eme-bag.com/about.php

Hmm .. there is that aspect isn't there? The buyer might need to dig deep to keep the standard of the rest of the collection on a par. After all, it would be sad to have one coin that outshines all the others, no? Not really. If you go for an expensive denomination such as the 5 guineas or similar you are only looking a four or five dozen pieces for a complete set. You probably wouldn't make it either. Murdoch had the most complete collection of 5 guineas, but was still a handful short. Many top collections can only afford to have single figure numbers of coins such as these. TBH there aren't that many different types to collect either, and those that are can be elusive. A fine sovereign of each of the monarchs from Henry VII to James I is only half a dozen pieces. You would need to add in a few other denominations to make it more rounded. Money is unlikely to be much of a restriction either. If you are happy spending 6 figures on a few pieces, much of the rest will come in for about the price of another one.

Using my limited resources for the period 1839 - 1887, the sale references I have specifically pertaining to the Una & the Lion are as follows: 1. Sotheby 23/2/1844 Thomas Thomas lot 1034. 'Only 10 of these pieces are said to have been struck and it differs from that in the set, in having a plain edge and in other trifling detail: weight 1oz. 4dwts. 10grs. The field has unfortunately received a trifling injury; it is otherwise fine (£6/2/6). 2. Sotheby 8/6/1854 J D Cuff lot 1795 is a plain edge silver proof from the Una die, reads DIRIGE lot 1810. Reads DIRIGIT with inscribed edge. lot 1811 ditto with plain edge, both this and the previous lot without the garter on the Queen's shoulder. 3. Sotheby 13/7/1875 J E M Rishton, lot 175, Victoria proof crown,half crown, shilling, sixpence and groat 1839, plain edges, a very fine set. lot 176, pattern £5 piece, reads DIRIGE, with the garter on her shoulder. Plain edge. lot 183, Mint proof set in case. This is in the silver section, as is the previous lot 176, so we can assume that 176 is silver because there is also a gold section to the sale. 4. Sotheby 21/4/1879 Wm. Yorke Moore lot 348, pattern crown with badge of the Garter lot 367, gold £5 DIRIGIT without garter star, plain edge lot 368, gold as above with inscribed edge DECVS etc and of much greater weight (thick flan presumably) lot 370 set in case £5 to farthing 5. Sotheby 2/2/1880, G Sparkes lot 175, Proof £5 in silver, inscribed edge 6. Sotheby 27/5/1880 Lake Price lot 205, Gold, DIRIGE, with garter, edge inscribed in small letters. 7. Lord Hastings - one full set 8. Sotheby 7/4/1881, Halliburton Young lot 541, gold. DIRIGIT, without garter, plain edge only 10 presumed struck. (ex-Wigan, collection sold to Rollin & Feuardent 1872) lot 542, gold, DIRIGE, with garter star, plain edge. From the Marshall cabinet. 9. Sotheby 3/5/1876, Harrower Johnson lot 402, silver DIRIGE, with garter on shoulder plain edge. lot 424, gold DIRIGE, with garter, edge inscribed. Ornamented diadem and fillet. lots 425 & 426, gold. DIRIGIT, without garter, plain edge, plain fillet lot 436, Set in Morocco case. bt Webb. The sets are usually just described as such without elaboration. William Brice Duplicates Sotheby 15/6/1881 146 was a lot of plain edge proofs, 2/6d, 1/-, 6d, 4d and a maundy set. 149 was a lot of 6 copper proofs dated 1868 - penny, halfpenny, farthing, 1/2, 1/3 & 1/4. bt. Lincoln (a dealer). The question is whether they were copper or bronze. Sections were divided into a generic gold, silver and copper, but the presence of proofs of other years suggets that the two terms were interchangeable. Digressing somewhat, Peck lists all 1868 proofs as bronze, whilst Freeman lists copper proofs for the farthing and penny. Peck's hand-written notes had copper, but subsequently erased and replaced with Bronze. Freeman doesn't give an analysis for allegedly copper pieces, so I wonder if an analysis was actually done? Ruding 3rd. ed. (1840) p.132 states that the order of council made on the 8/6/1838 stipulated a £5, £1 & £1/2 should be all of the same type and have the wreath and crowned shield reverse, with the £5 inscribed DECVS etc. The new coinage (£5 - 1/4d) was proclaimed on 5th July. On the 18th of July, a proclamation was passed directing that the double sovereign, sovereign and half shall be received and pass as current money. Where did the double sovereign come from as there are no currency £2 pieces in the first coinage? There is no mention of the Una & Lion reverse on the £5 and the plates cast no light on this. on first impression I'm not sure there is much to be established from this small amount of data. Rishton 175 may possibly indicate that the plain edge proofs were from a silver short set. Brice's duplicates are the same except for the crown, but these are likely to be the lesser of his examples suggesting mix and match had already taken place. The Thomas description implies the boxed sets were edged and the plain ones single pieces(?)

All set for the Morgan Dollar Slabbing Convention? https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=914&q=paints+colors+dulux&oq=paints+colors+dulux&gs_l=img.3...40933.42429.1.43056.6.2.0.4.0.0.127.171.1j1.2.0....0...1ac.1.35.img..5.7.521.sx4-Hs-ZkKM#hl=en&q=paints+colors+dulux+with+dog&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Zm5xIWS-LQBf8M%253A%3BcPrMIbpQle2SZM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.becausexm.com%252Fuploads%252Fimage%252Ffile%252F695%252Fbanner_Dulux_CR_CS_Banner_3.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.becausexm.com%252Fwork%252Fdulux-colour-run%3B1360%3B520 The colours are remarkably lifelike when applied. WELL DONE DULUX.

If he only has 3 20p pieces without a date on the tails side, he can't have done much shopping in the last 5 years.

The bottom of the 1853 earhole is apparently a different shape, but this is a photographic red herring. All are the same shape under a loupe.

Apologies for the usual photographic skills, but in an attempt to show some colour differences here are 4 halfpennies imaged together. Top row is 1839/41 and 1839/43. Bottom row is Norweb's 1853 copper proof discussed in the latest SNC as being doubtful if bronzed, and finally a currency 1858/6 with virtually full lustre to help put the colours into perspective. If you combine this image with the thread on the 1839/41 proof in the unlisted varieties section, that scanned image is a less glossy version of the milky chocolate colour the coin is in hand, but is not wildly out. As you will see, in comparison to the 39/43 it is much lighter in colour. Any proof that approaches the colour of the 39/41 would be useful if an image of both sides was available as would any image of an 1839 proof halfpenny with an inverted die axis.