Rob

Someone who shall remain nameless paid £23K for the Durham House portcullis counterstamp in the last Spink sale. That was fine or slightly better.

Maybe they are just crap photographers. I can supply as many grotty images as you want that certainly don't look like the coin in hand.

Personally, I think people should avoid this as it is the 10 leaf version and not the 11. Therefore not extremely rare and not worth............ how much? He's avin a larf

And the BoE dollars. Verifiably so given there are examples with undertype dated at least as late as 1811.

As he is our society secretary I can confirm that Geoff's alive and well. He is just tied up with work most of the time.

Prior to the introduction of RM token coinage in 1816, the amount of silver coined depended on how much was brought to the mint, which in turn depended on the price of silver in the market. This resulted in long periods of time when no or little silver was coined (e.g. most of the period 1610-20) as it was stupid to take more than face value to be coined, yet receive face value in return. It also meant that any full weight coins would be hoarded having an intrinsic value higher than face. When these were coined, according to M & G, they were issued to customers as Christmas gifts etc as mentioned above, so in this respect the BoE was acting in a normal manner by bringing silver to the mint and converting it into coin. It was also absorbing any silver market pricing differences which during the late 18th century and up to 1816 afterwards was regularly higher than face. This is why the BoE Spanish dollars traded at up to 5s6d despite being of lower weight and fineness than a regular crown for example.

I'm fortunate in a way because most of the info on mother's side is recorded in the family bible back to the early 1800s and on father's side I have a good number of marriage cetificates going back to the 1850s. Coupled with a letter from a long lost relation in Canada who wrote to mother shortly before she died, a lot of the work has been done for me. I just need to find the time and inclination to fill in the gaps and push it back. Given most came from villages there is a fighting chance of finding parish records.

Agreed. Fairer would have been the balancing statement that he also saw a replica Coenwulf in the museum shop for £1.50.

2.00 in the morning and a rather succinct answer... A heavy night, Rob? I haven't had a heavy night for ages. I just don't know the answer to the question. However, a possible explanation can be found in the 2004 article by Manville & Gaspar, which notes the following. The coins were made for the Bank of England and not the government. The Bank was continually pressed for a supply of coin for gifts etc, and had them made due to the shortage of currency prevailing at the time. They were not issued for currency, and although some or likely most entered circulation, an above average number were saved as momentos or keepsakes.

Welcome to the forum Random Word. What? Can someone run this past Bletchley Park for me please. Ta.

Good question. I'll have to think about that one.

I think a good number have been polished

Cheers, Paulus...there's a fair bit in there you'd like I reckon!Just looking through it now! Me too. For example he has a simply gorgeous 1806 penny : priced as a Proof; looks like a Proof; but strangely not described as a Proof. Certainly their prices are reasonable Peck 1350, a Taylor restrike (R97). Common, so wait until one comes along without the lamination flaw in the obverse field.

Just a trace of rub on the bottom half of the reverse to my eyes.

As I said, someone is going to get badly burnt. On the plus side, if he actually had a Richard III you could get a bargain as it wouldn't correspond to any of his 'Richard IIIs' which everyone knows read Edward or Henric etc. Just a variation on the short cross pennies idea. Question: 'What's your name?' Answer. 'John, but call me Henry'

As numerous as penny collectors are, they still only represent a small fraction of the collecting fraternity - certainly no greater than single figures, and I would hazard a guess in saying that there are probably more decimal collectors than penny ones given the low entry price and the ability to collect from change. It is therefore unreasonable to treat the penny any different to other denominations or periods? Every popular denomination is far outweighed by the numbers of those who don't have an interest in the same, with some alternatives particularly popular. Charles I shillings and halfcrowns spring to mind with most collectors of this type of material aiming to get an example of each Sharp variety shilling, with others aiming for the various initial marks within the group for example along with the halfcrown equivalents. Saxon coinage would be very popular if listed by type and mint rather than the current type listing for the cheapest mint. Given the order of magnitude or greater difference in price for certain rare mints compared to the common ones, this would be instantly comparable to the penny variety listings. The Saxon moneyer/mint combination would be the equivalent 'nerd' detail to those who collect by missing serif for example. Ultimately it is something that is impossible to resolve without making a paper tome that would be impractical in size and weight. That is why I think the basic references should be kept as simple as possible with the minor varieties covered by a denomination specialist reference. What, no more than 9 penny collectors? I think you make some good general points Rob. However, surely varieties in the machine age (post-1797) are more 'significant' to collectors, in that 1) they are more modern and therefore represent more collectors, but 2) any deviation from the 'norm' stands out much more, unlike the numerous punching errors of early milled and the massive unpredictability of individually produced coins of the hammered era? I do think - possibly in vain - that a line SHOULD be drawn however. I think I'm probably among the majority here who would rate the wide/narrow date spacings of bun pennies as significant, and the variations in final digit spacing of OH pennies as not, to give one fairly obvious example. Point 1, I meant to say percentage, not fractions, but only realised after the edit cutoff had passed. Doh. Point 2, I didn't include legend errors which are large in number all through the hammered period. Nor do I include underlying characters due to the fact that die pairs were essentially two lumps of round bar which had one end engraved with the design and when it wore out was rubbed down and they started again. This accounts in part for the underlying detail that is often seen and referred to as double struck. Sometimes it is double struck, but other times it can't be as the underlying detail doesn't occur on the die in its then state. For hammered coins I would draw the line at substantive type and mint. Individual moneyers would represent the third level - on a par with the minor varieties in terms of collector interest. For small mints there would only be one moneyer in any case and serious collectors of a series will know which moneyers are rare. Legend errors don't have any significance in the hammered series as there was no accepted standard for language and people were as illiterate/careless as they are today. Point 3, I agree that something as obvious as a wide or narrow date should be included. I also agree that differences in the last digit or two as applicable should not be included. The latter arise from the production of 18, 181, 184 etc dies with the last digit or two omitted. This allowed the dies to be dated as required, hence the inevitable variable spacing. To move onto Colin's points, the reason I would give for including overdates rather than recut dates is that overdates will appeal more to the date run collector, whereas the whole spectrum will probably appeal to the specialist only, who by definition will be in a minority. For more than one digit hand punched, see point 3. As to the case of the 1879 farthing, if this is down to the existence of a 1--- die with the remainder hand punched, then no I wouldn't include it. But if the whole date was hand punched and misaligned then I would as this clearly is not in line with the normal mint methods. If narrow and wide dates occur on substantially different dies, I can't see a reason for excluding them. I guess it boils down to how obvious the differences are.

And this one is? Richard II.

As numerous as penny collectors are, they still only represent a small fraction of the collecting fraternity - certainly no greater than single figures, and I would hazard a guess in saying that there are probably more decimal collectors than penny ones given the low entry price and the ability to collect from change. It is therefore unreasonable to treat the penny any different to other denominations or periods? Every popular denomination is far outweighed by the numbers of those who don't have an interest in the same, with some alternatives particularly popular. Charles I shillings and halfcrowns spring to mind with most collectors of this type of material aiming to get an example of each Sharp variety shilling, with others aiming for the various initial marks within the group for example along with the halfcrown equivalents. Saxon coinage would be very popular if listed by type and mint rather than the current type listing for the cheapest mint. Given the order of magnitude or greater difference in price for certain rare mints compared to the common ones, this would be instantly comparable to the penny variety listings. The Saxon moneyer/mint combination would be the equivalent 'nerd' detail to those who collect by missing serif for example. Ultimately it is something that is impossible to resolve without making a paper tome that would be impractical in size and weight. That is why I think the basic references should be kept as simple as possible with the minor varieties covered by a denomination specialist reference.

There are two possibilities for the 8 over 8, one of which is to prolong the life of the die after blockage or the second is crap engraving skills, but I would have difficulty deciding which is which. The overdate on the other hand is a clear decision to reuse an existing die.

What is or is not included surely boils down to the space available and I would consider is best addressed as layers. If we assume that at least every substantive type issued as currency must be included from the date range covered, then that is the top layer and would include distinctive bust and reverse types. I would leave out individual proofs despite my liking for them and only include the sets made available to the public which were issued. Next down I suggest should be the dates including overdates issued together with distinct varieties such as legend errors, any die axis varieties or bust types where you have to differentiate by leaves with raised or incuse veins or a number of berries. Given the dire state of many examples, the novice collector isn't likely to worry about these details unless the catalogue has a large pounds sign against it, so this could possibly be partially relegated to the next layer unless obvious to the eye with minimal magnification. A periodic issue of an updated 'all varieties' catalogue for individual denominations might be a possibility if done say every 10 years. Prices need only reflect the average price paid around the time of issue, as the majority of high grade items are fought over by collectors with deep pockets, and so any prices may not truly reflect the broader market. As said above, there is no right or wrong and as Peck says the market does decree what is collectable or not, but the original discussion was what should be included and that doesn't have to encompass everything. RLC's reference to the narrow date 1877 is a different case as the whole of the date has equal spacing and thus was intended to be narrow. My problem lies with the obsessive concerns over the spacing of the final digit or the last two which vary solely on account of having been entered by human hands rather than an engraving machine.

I think that something should only be included as a major variety (which is the basic remit of a price guide) if the difference was say the result of an intentional change of design such as a migration from obverse 1 to 2 to 3 etc or the parallel use of slightly different, but nominally similar designs, such as legend errors where corrections have taken place. Things like a redesigned bust would clearly be intentional, so if the depth of the effigy was changed as a mint experiment to alleviate ghosting, I can see that this should be included in just the same way that a total new engraving in a different style would be. If any design is radically different, this should obviously be included. Similarly, overdates are the intentional use of an old die at a later date and a conscious decision to repair it. The O'NE is clearly not an intentional design as it is a flaw which develops. Similarly, the difference in spacing of the final datal figure is down to it being entered by hand. These are almost inevitably never going to align when comparing dies and whilst it may help to establish the number of dies and would be integral to a die study, it is not the result of intention. Also excluded should be those attributable to die fill such as the length of bowsprit on the ship halfpenny reverse or the numerous missing stops or colons in the punctuation. Slight font differences are problematical because they could be due to a new set of punches, or the result of an existing punch disintegrating. Part of the problem is that someone in the past has decreed for their own reasons that some feature should be considered a variety, and the sheep like behaviour of collectors (box tickers) means that these are by definition, desirable varieties. Obviously it is a case of each to their own, but I do feel that anything beyond the obvious entries in a price guide such as in your face design differences or prominent legend corrections or overdates is overly complicating what should be a rough and ready reference to carry around with you. i.e. compact, concise and cheap, for easy to read ballpark reference info. The finer details should be left to specialist publications. I'm not saying that people shouldn't collect them, but the potential expansion in the number of varieties included negates the concept of a quick reference, so why not restrict the general references to the general coinage? People who collect a series in depth will know what is rare/more valuable in any case. What is also clear is that in the absense of any accepted standard of what should and shouldn't be listed, it becomes a free for all. As long as all the minor varieties are not covered universally by the references, we can extract the info we desire from the reference that contains that most relevant to our needs. As always, there is no real right or wrong, just many different opinions.

I kind of agree with you on many of the micro varieities, but I think the O'NE should be included. It has been in Sprink for a long time, and has a value of 100-1500 pounds! I concur with Vicky. Whilst the collecting of serifs present or not, digit wide or not quite so wide etc has a place in die studies, including these varieties is a very long piece of string. You could probably have a volume the size of Freeman just to list the bronze post-1860 even after cutting out the blurb. I also think that it should be restricted to genuinely intentional design changes or mint corrections as these are deliberate mint actions. Filled stops and the various states of these are nothing more than general wear and tear, which whilst not infinite in number, would rapidly feel so. The O'NE flaw is one such variety and I don't think value should have any bearing on whether it is listed or not. That it is so highly valued is a complete mystery to me, as is the midge's narrower 3 in 1863. IMHO, nothing resulting from die use should be included as a variety.

This isn't funny for the eventual purchaser. Do eBay ever do anything about wrongly described items? I know and believe in caveat emptor and all that, but with the price of Richard III coins whatever the denomination, all these buyers are going to get seriously burnt. Now Saxby's can't be a complete ignoramus with a feedback of 18000 odd, so one must assume that the misattribution is deliberate. He's either right up there in the hall of shame - or a complete ****.

Nobody said it looks like Lockett 2588 - that was Nick saying he could see something on the octagonal piece resembling RD or something, so nothing to do with your coin. The KD or RD is seen in your original post to the right of the tower with the letters rotated 90o to the right, i.e. rotate the image the same amount anticlockwise to view these normally. The S D for mark of value is not questioned, just the punches used. I'm sorry, but it doesn't tick any boxes for me. Even starting with an open mind.

That doesn't help its original status. These things are cut from hallmarked plate, i.e. from 0.925 silver. If genuine, the weight of 1 shilling and 6 pence would be about 9 grams, though the weights of the noted pieces do vary a bit. 4.3 grams is far too light. Given these were supposed to be struck under siege conditions, there is a possibility that they would be slightly lightweight to eke out the silver available. So for example, the Carlisle siege pieces (which are attested from contemporary documentary evidence) are struck 10-15% underweight. Your piece is over 50% underweight.