Rob

Both games on Saturday were quality viewing

John Croker

At the risk of being castigated as a dinosaur, if it's Facebook related, I can see me not liking anything. I don't need Facebook and I can't see why I should have to get p****d just to post a few obligatory pictures of myself mooning on Ibiza High Street.

Unsurprisingly I was familiar with the Devon version for many years before I realised there was a second one.

Superb? Date, monarch and denomination are correct though.

I think the 11008 is their in-house sale number whereby all sales are given a year (11 for 2011), then a 3 digit identifier for the sale. This allows them to include stamps, medals etc in the running total. The 207 is a hangover from pre computing days whereby coins and medals were numbered from 1 upwards following Spink's decision to hold their own sales.

There is a list of prices on Spink's site, but you will have to register/log in to access it.

Further to the above, if anyone has any examples of a 1st coinage Warham halfgroat with a clean(ish) mint mark on the reverse, I would like images of the whole coin plus a close up of the mark please. It can have either a pomegranate or long cross fichee mark

For appraisal, one Henry VIII 2nd coinage halfgroat struck under Archbishop Warham at Canterbury. Apologies for the grotty state of the coin, but it is in sufficiently good grade to raise some questions The obverse mark looks distinctly like a pomegranate overstruck with a C(?), however, pomegranate is a 1st coinage mark and not known on the second as far as I am aware. The reverse looks more like a C superimposed on top of something, but what is not very clear other than it is not a pomegranate. Both of these would give rise to a shape roughly similar to what is known as 'Warham's uncertain mark', but which has never been satisfactorily explained. The reverse is a bit grotty in definition, but the obverse is clearly an underlying pomegranate. The most obvious reason for an overstruck mark would be either a change of engraver, or a change of mint status where the temporalities were suspended or a new archbishop appointed. Warham occupied the position for nearly 30 years before he died in 1532 to be succeeded by Abp. Cranmer in March 1533, which effectively rules out Warham's appointment to the post, but does give a 7 month period where there was no resident archbishop striking coins, and although not clearly identifiable, the uncertain mark may be indicative of this period, as may the halfgroat without WA by the shield (but this may also be an engraver's error). To place these in the sede vacante period from August 1532 to end-March 1533 however is fighting an uphill battle in the case of the mark as seen which has all the signs of a conventional Henry VIII pomegranante underlying the C, as the mark would have been obsolete for over 6 years by this point and I can't see them leaving a die unused or unrecut for this length of time. The reverse mark is also quite informative as a case could be made for the uncertain mark to be over both long cross fitchee and pomegranate (but missing the foot). Again these are 1st coinage marks. If this is a true representation of Warham's uncertain mark, then it ought to place the (over)mark at the head of the 2nd coinage chronology, but doesn't explain the change of mark as a means of identifying the differences between 1st and 2nd coinage which are blindingly obvious and the marks superfluous unless there was a pyx trial at the time of changeover. A check of the cathedral records at Canterbury might shine some light on any potential reasons for the introduction of the new mark. I will try to get some better hi res images of the areas in question. Thoughts ladies and gentlemen, please. This was going to be sold due to the quality issues seen, but has become too interesting to get rid of and is no longer available.

Sadly no. Till's stock/collection was sold post-mortem in four parts at Sothebys on 6/1/1845, 28/7/1845, 20/4/1846 & 12/5/1846 plus the library went on 15/5/1846. Henry did not have an identifiable sale. It is on my list of catalogues to acquire.

That's probably it, Nick! I'm glad you found an article in the DT, not the DM…. Peckris would never forgive me! LOL - the DT is pretty poor, but compared to the DM it's on a par with The Grauniad What do you name? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Surely in the interest of open debate, it is only worth 'liking' something if the name of the person doing the 'liking' is attached? If I say I like A, B & C, then a person agreeing should be identifiable in order to expand the discussion, or am I missing something?

Mr Perkins is nothing like Mr Perkins.

Here's the obverse mark, which is quite clear, but the reverse mark looks nothing like in the hand due to the inability to vary the direction of the illumination.

Does 'liking it' confer any advantages, or is it the forum equivalent of celebrity adoration? TFP.

Most collectors use a numerical collection reference, but I have seen collectors' tickets with a cost code of their own showing. Owen F Parsons springs to mind along with others.

http://www.colincooke.com/ go to collections and then Cooke (farthings) and Nicholson (halfpennies), for a somewhat lengthier list of Anne coppers. I could do the halfpennies, but might clog up the forum.

If not a cost code, then it would have to be the place where the coin was bought. Every dealer uses a cost code. A 10 letter word or short phrase where every letter is different is required.

Which takes me back to a thread I posted earlier and had no replies. What was Geoffrey Hearn's cost coding? It will help me determine what he wanted for the 1807 silver halfpenny in 1954. I know what he paid for it in the Foster sale (Oct 1953), but his sale list of the following year only has a series of letters against the lot number.

Where did you get your P718,720 & 722? And the undated ones before P718?

It's what I referred to earlier, the 'quick sell' listing form that eBay offers suggests categories for the listing and so the seller clearly hasn't read it and just taken eBay's suggestion as gospel. Never used it, so don't know.

It's difficult to grade with the reflections and image size, but looks to be somewhere between VF & EF. Edward's hair is always low relief, so if flattened may not show up as obviously on the reverse detail for a corresponding amount of wear. If you collect modern milled, try to get a copy of Derek's (Red Riley on the forum) grading book. I don't know how many he has left though. Then you will know where to look for wear on the various issues.

It has to be a dealer's ticket accompanying the coin. mux is probably a cost code. $4 sounds like it is from the late 50s/early 60s. One for Bob possibly given we are talking around 50 years ago.

Still don't understand why anyone would list a fridge in the coins section though. It's taking lateral thinking a bit too far to my mind. For the record, my fridge is called Steve (Beko).

They were in sale 77C which is a blue green cover. Sometimes the catalogue comes up, others not. The website seems a bit troublesome at the moment as I couldn't log in or bid, or even find it most of the time. Lots 3265 & 3267 refer.