Rob

I don't mind toning, and at £137 for a shilling in that grade because it was described as a sixpence I was quite happy. The shoulder armour gave it away. No video or photo. Sorry.

It's the area I've referred to in the past - the psychological limit for the masses. The limit of about £3K up to a few years ago which has increased to around the 5 or possibly 6K (hammer) mark now. It takes something rare or particularly exceptional to breach this level. Once it has however, it is a case of who blinks first.

Seeing as the other thread about mods has disappeared - here's Peck on his scooter.

The fifth coin looks like some of the silver I stored in pvc album pockets for nearly 40 years (not any more, I should add!), with a blue/green deposit caused by 'sweating'. It could just be the photos though. Accum, A quick dip in carbon Tet. will remove the green residue caused by polyvinyl sweating. Wear gloves though, it does not burn, but does absorb in the skin! If you can get hold of any. Wonderful solvent, but a no-no under H&S regs. It's fair to say that it's easier to list what it doesn't do.

Oh, the wonders of punctuation. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Metal-Detecting-Finds-Hammered-Gold-Coin-Very-Worn-Quarter-Angel-/380798888735?pt=UK_Antiquities&hash=item58a961eb1f The one thing that doesn't need the query is 'very worn'. Hammered gold coin? Maybe. Quarter Angel? Maybe.

For all the debate about toning and not, you do come up with some things from time to time that are genuine despite the initial disbelief. 6 or 7 years ago I acquired a 1731 shilling that was sealed in the bottom of a broken Georgian drinking vessel and which was contemporary. The only toning was a blackening to the outside of the reverse legend characters, which presumably was down to the heat applied when it was sealed in. In the end I cracked it out because of the sharp edges and the fact that it didn't sit in the trays very confortably, but wonder what would people think when you have a (genuinely) full lustre coin that's 280 years old without the knowledge of it having been hermetically sealed? Would they assume it had been dipped or otherwise cleaned? About the same time Michael Gouby had a 1750 shilling in a similar state and sealed in a glass bottom. The truth is we only have a short snapshot into a coin's history.

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.