Rob

Depends on whether the seller wants the item to be insured. If you want £x of cover, then you need to declare this value on the customs label too.

Official cupro-nickel and silver crowns are both nominally 28.2g, so that doesn't mean much. Only something on a thinner flan or made in tin to the correct dimensions would be underweight. The missing elements are far more persuasive for it being a modern replica. Better still, search Chinese sites for more examples.

I'd say it was damage to the die in the absence of a different font 3. Is it any different to a filled numeral such as the internal angle of a 2 where it is clearly due to the loss of a tiny fragment

It's been mounted previously. Ironically, if the ring had been left on it might just have been worth $12.50 to someone, as it then had a purpose. Now it's just a piece of highly polished scrap of use to neither collectors nor jewellery afficionados.

Not usually, but maybe I guess. Normally it's for illustrative purposes in a catalogue or an article, and yes, you can see the wax in the pictures. For an example of this, Nicholas(?) posted a Chas.1 halfcrown with a superb provenance going back nearly 200 years where you can see the wax on the image in Hamilton-Smith's 1919 sale. I can't remember which thread, but it's probably Coin acquisition etc. However, museums also took a wax impression on occasion, if they wanted a record of the dies. e.g. My Edward the Elder penny is unique, so when Lockett bought it at the Vatican Hoard sale, the BM took an impression which left a tiny blob of wax.

Ah. Excellent acquisition. That's a box I still need to tick, so when you get fed up and sell things off again - yes please.

Rob (Predecimal Forum). It might help to send a few more people here.

Yes. I bought it as I needed an example of a cud in the collection and didn't have one. Ticks a box.

I've only this which serves as an example of a cud. Nothing special.

1824 bare head halfcrown obverse die struck in Barton's Metal. With flaws out from the centre in several directions, this die was unlikely to have lasted much longer

VF is too low - look at the shield detail. Having said that, the quality of the dies is crap as they look to be a bit long in the tooth. I'd go somewhere between the two grades.

It looks too small to be double struck, so Stuart's suggestion is more likely.

It certainly looks like it is muled marks, but could be crown over grapes. For some reason, the legend is often a but squashed in at the mark on a few shillings I've seen, so I think it is probably genuine. The harp strings look a bit crude, but the blocked letters such as the E are often seen in this period and a copy is unlikely to replicate this. Weight is ok.

4 over inverted 3? He'd have the 3 punch to hand.

I bought a mint 1927 for £30. Mind you, didn't have the bagmarks which must have accounted for the premium. The estimate at $60-100 was reasonable, allowing a slight premium for the high grade label.

Dunn could be J Dunn-Gardner, sold at Christies 29/4/1902. Timing is right. Neck's collection was bought en-bloc by Webb in about 1887.

Virtually every dealer is asking where these people paying high prices are. It appears that just as you have people who only buy on ebay or facebook, so there are people who have decided to buy at auction to the exclusion of other outlets. You often see something that you make a mental note is worth £x and it opens above this level. Add in the premium and mark it up as you have to, and you have something that nobody will touch. Selling at fairs, everyone expects you to come down a bit from the ticket price, but these are almost mostly lower than you would have paid at auction in the first place. It's a parallel universe.

Luckily nothing in there for me and given current prices, nothing affordable for stock. I went for a walk, had a thoroughly pleasant day and don't feel I missed out on anything.

3b, IORDAN, Winchester

Which lot?

Or has the plastic aged over time to a gold colour? That is the normal packaging for a Cu-Ni crown.

I've got the F3/1 which I acquired in 2004. It rings right compared to the dull clunk of the casts and is as the copies except that the sharper detail is narrower in profile as one would expect compared to a cast copy. I didn't bother putting the genuine piece up as it won't help given the profile is the same for the copies. There were quite a lot doing the rounds 10-15 years ago. It was Richard who first alerted us as he questioned whether I had sold the coin which was then on the website - which I hadn't. After that I took it down and kept it. Both this one and the Elizabeth have been mentioned on this forum previously. A mm plume shilling with C R over the oblong shield is another widely available copy. I know who has the original Edward I cl. 9b of Newcastle too, which was around at the same time. Others copies include a 1713 Anne halfcrown. Somewhere there is a thread with a few listed.

There's a seller on ebay - daviddexter1, who is selling a copy of the Charles I F3/1 shilling I wrote about in the Circular 10 years or so ago. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275070559449?hash=item400b7ba4d9:g:tycAAOSwQ8thvp0B He's also selling an Elizabeth I shilling which is the cast copy of the holed first issue shilling, i.e. with the pierced hole filled in!! Bleeding obvious to all and sundry except ebay buyers. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275070567171?hash=item400b7bc303:g:hRkAAOSwjChhvqFn Can we have as many people report this as possible, as his get out is that people can always return it if they aren't happy. I suggested that knowingly selling a fake as the genuine article was attempted fraud. We shall see what happens. For future viewers, the first item is another copy of the attached. Obviously cast, the degree of pitting varies, so is not a specific identifier. The original coin has a wavy flan, which when an impression of each side was taken, meant that below the bust the coin didn't extend to the edge, leaving a 'laminated' V-shaped notch when the two sides were joined together. This is specific to the copies. A close up of the area is in the second image. Third and fourth images should convince disbelievers that they really are copies.

Which pretty much makes a cast iron case for having a library. Sorry, don't have a copy here and haven't sold one, so assume it was foreign only and I didn't get the catalogue for whatever reason.