Rob

Correct. In common with most other people, neither of us win the lottery. However, many 'rarities' known only to that man in the pub or on social media are found on a daily basis.

Everywhere's in lockdown at the moment, so I doubt there will be many people around as the BM will be closed. I'm not aware of it being on line. I do have a copy here, but not for sale.

I don't recall having difficulty with either reverse for either 1895 or 1896. I'd wait.

Taken over by CNG 1991-2

It could well be the Batty coin, with the 9 altered to a 0 by removing part of the loop and closing the circle at the 9 tail. The join at 10 o'clock suggests that is one end of the added bit, but the bottom is a bit blurred. That coin was in Peck's collection, but I can't find any reference to it being sold by Spink out of the Circular, nor an article in the Bulletin if HAS bought it from Spink.

It could be an issue with the metal supplied for the dies as documented by the mint, just as it was 12 years before when the halfcrowns managed a mintage of 91872, mostly struck from recycled 1846 dies together with a few new 1848 dies. The same problem was probably the reason for the number of 1848/6 & 1848/7 pennies as the bar used for the dies was presumably the same for both denominations. The metal stock used for a particular die would probably come from the same bar and be made as a job lot, not singly, so a wholesale failure of a particular reverse or obverse would be expected for that group. I'd go for that over a particular die being a trial because the basic design had been approved, so slight changes in the finer detail would be down to new punches, not the overall design.

The overmark doesn't have to obliterate the old mark. If they had to do this then the old mark would be polished out - it just needs to be superimposed so that the mark for the pyx period is confirmed. The different marks are not all the same size, and even within a mark there are different size punches for the various denominations. The profile of each mark can help identify an overmark, but you do need a modicum of detail to differentiate between them. In the case of your coin it was the right hand lump which leads me to think it is trefoil over tower. Sometimes it completely covers the old mark, which means you have to identify a die from the previous mark in order to say it was changed.

That's worse than useless! Try and tease some detail out of the obverse mark. It might have slightly more rounded petals than the attached (which is from a 6th bust coin), but the general shape will be the same with a wiggly tail. There's definitely a tower there.

Certainly 5th bust and not 6th. Could be trefoil over tower. Reverse pic?

A pity the only face on image or clear image is the museum picture - but perhaps not surprising. If it stays low enough it might be worth buying just to leave crappy feedback.

I reckon a squirrel buried them for future recovery. They'll take anything that's about the right size for a nut and hide it nearby.

Different coins going by the rim marks, particularly the one in line with the trident point and at 12 o'clock obv.

Happy New Year. 2021 will be better.

Yes, it's probably rarer than the unmounted type

Maybe not as silly as it sounds. The in-laws house took a direct hit and the whole layout of the electrics was neatly outlined on the walls as the circuits fried. If it had run along the walls or floor internally without touching an earthed conductor, then an open door might have allowed it to escape on its route to earth.

Can never have enough books and £25 isn't going to break the bank. They're also protected from internet down time.

Looks like the website with the digital BNJ has been revamped and the one article you want hasn't been uploaded. Shirley Fox's piece on the Edwards runs to p.206, not 286 as listed and the article you want immediately precedes the further notes on James I. i.e it's not there. There's a copy available on ebay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BRITISH-NUMISMATIC-JOURNAL-VOLUME-9-1913-485-pages-COINS-ILLUSTRATED/361681578454?hash=item5435e6e9d6:g:4F0AAOSw9NdXqtLb

The digital BNJ is the only place I know where it is listed. I don't have a spare copy of the volume, and nearly 30 pages scanned isn't going to fit into 500Kb. I'll try looking at it tomorrow.

It might be 'someone mentions you in a post', but there's no mention of tagging anywhere. The alternative is when someone quotes you, but that seems a bit general. Not worth losing sleep over, whatever. The list of options seems rather broad and a bit excessive in quantity.

Nothing in my inbox, nor a bell sign (never has done so). The latter works for a 'like' though, so big on irrelevance but a chocolate teapot when it comes to providing a useful function.

I've no idea how tags work - I certainly don't get any notifications that someone wants a reply. i.e. I reply when I see something that needs attending to. Henry Symonds, BNJ vol.9 p.207-233, The Mint-Marks and Denominations of the Coinage of James I, as Disclosed by the Trials of the Pyx, with Historical Comments on the Procedure and Notes on the Mint Accounts of the Period.

There's more than one collector with adequate funds to throw at the hobby, and there's fewer coins than sufficiently liquid collectors to fill the demand. Even half a dozen potential collectors in total would send the price sky high, and I'm sure there's more than that.

It's ok as long as people have a sense of humour. Some just think you're taking the p*** rather than being honest.

He might have it listed several times at different prices. There's a few that do that. Sometimes I've countered with a higher offer in the past. When people refuse to accept that you have no downward leeway possible and they ask time and again for you to move a bit, I sometimes agree to move by upping it a fiver. Means I've obliged by moving the price, and often means I get what I need.

That's good. Might pay a visit if I can get organised.