Rob

I do think you should make a contribution to 'Readers' Wives'

Jesus. I don't know where he gets it from. My correspondence with him on the question of the 1806 proof halfpenny (not) has terminated. He has beaten me into submission. I didn't think it was possible for someone to take such a pig-headed view about a topic when they know so little about it. Apparently you can't rely on crap 50 year old research by the likes of Peck when the more up to date Spink has managed to reduce the number of 1806 bronzed proofs from double figures to 1 single type. I append the latest drivel: - On my 54 years of dealing with coins, i ever found a Dealer and/or Member of any Club like you! Summarise; Your uncertainty to accept a real explanation, you create a diversion, and opted for any other subjects, like the Chinese "not to loose their face".No luck!. I end very quick! Read/Buy the "Coins of England & The United Kingdom" from Spink '2012" an open on page 418. Capiche!!! Regards. If you go to Appendix 1 in your 2012 copy of Spink, the book I referred to by C W Peck is listed half way down page 616. All those references are specialist publications which go into their respective topics in depth. Spink's Coins of England is and always has been a general catalogue simply because there is not enough space for many varieties, so all they do is list the cheapest variety. That is why there is only a price given for each of the various metals. Following 10 years of research in the 1950s, Peck wrote at great lengths about George III's coinage (175 pages), listing just under 500 varieties (P934 - P1406) from the Soho Mint including all the pennies, halfpennies and farthings that he knew of. That is why you should get the book as you would be better informed. Any collector of George III copper cannot be without a copy as it remains the most authoritative reference for the series despite being last published in 1970 and forms the basis of all the copper, tin and bronze types listed in Coins of England. As for your comment about losing face, I don't have any concerns on this front and there is no 'uncertainty' about accepting a real explanation from me. All I'm trying to do is stop somebody wasting their hard earned money on a wrongly described item by trying to get you to see that what you have said is wrong. If you were to take the time to read more widely than your current knowledge, maybe you would realise that I have a point. Not sure what the diversion is that you refer to. Tks for the info of Peck quoted on Appendix I (Spink 2012). Regarding all prior correspondence, suggest to dot the i's and cross the t's. Regards. Hi. I see you still have it listed as a proof, which it isn't. I also suggested you get a copy of Peck to save you digging a hole for yourself. I stand by this. Please do something about the listing. Thanks. I fear to disagree with your comments, to bring a publication/study of 1950's as the basis for current values and grades. Also, my un-acceptance regarding your comments about Spink's Catalogue. Regarding their page 418, surface as 4th Issue and the registration of the coin in question through 6 entries, which are clear enough to bring to-day (2012), comparisons if suitable, but leave anything which had been exposed on Museums displays which were overturned by the major I quote " Last or new coinage, 1816-20"… The year 1816 is a landmark in the history of our coinage" unquote. In fact, during the last 4 years of George III reign, the mintage was resumed to Silver/Gold. Also, the mint resume of copper (farthings 1821) and pennies/halfpennies (1825) on the reign of George IV (1820-30). Regards Unfortunately, as the quality of language and logic used went downhill again, rather than buy a Dundonian-English dictionary or employ the services of 'Deep Thought' I've decided to leave him to it. I really believed I was getting somewhere when I explained the reference to Peck. Sadly I'm just a deluded and stupid twat.

Their provenance atttribution is a bit hit and miss when referenced to someone other than the person submitting the coin, just as the coin description is equally randomly selected from a list of possibles.

You can always boulder horizontally. We used to have a route around the caving club hut living room where you had to make a complete circuit without touching the floor. Easier said than done when you've had a skinful. More willingly attempted when you've had a skinful too.

Are you waffer(sic) thin, with tentacles stuck on your shoulders and hips? If you can answer yes to all points you will do well. I might add, this the softies way of climbing. Get out on the hills and find some real exposure - something that will make you remember to take the spare underwear next time.

Everyone should know how much they bid, so everyone should know if they won or not unless it is at their maximum

I checked my account with DNW online. They were pretty quick to put up the invoice. Nothing then . Cheers for letting me know. It depends, the sale doesn't finish until tomorrow, so they might not have done all of them yet.

Yes, but the estimates are less than half Spink book, so most are going for UNC plus a bit, or say 2-3x book. I see ... never taken notice of this series before, just left the audio running and was surprised so many of the estimates were so far out, is this common practice? I think the sovereigns were estimated low because there are so many of the same dates.

Ditto

Yes, but the estimates are less than half Spink book, so most are going for UNC plus a bit, or say 2-3x book.

Double strike. There are some bargains today, with a couple rather high. A real curate's egg of a sale.

DNW on 8/9/1999 had 3 lots (709-711) of 1765 sets (4d, 3d & 2d)! Unfortunately not pictured. Spink sold some 1765s in the past, but I don't have details. Is their search facility working? I have assumed not in keeping with the rest of the site.

Possibly not all that it seems. This example from DNW in 2008 is nowhere near a die match - different number of pearls on the crown arch for a start. Given the rarity of this year, more than a couple dies would have to be a no-no. Anybody want to do a search for more? The DNW site has been re-vamped and is now much faster, but images seem to be at a premium. Try that with the image included.

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies

I can feel a large HMRC bill coming on after the recent US sales.

Oi. What about the halfpenny and farthing? Both point to the N with the farthing marginally closer to the centre. So we can categorically state that pennies are the oddballs. Nothing new there then.

There's no VAT on books, so import duty? Wasn't aware of that and certainly hasn't happened to me before.

Provenance, tickets, links to any old illustrations whether named or not, people are going to have to start doing homework. All these will come to the market initially on auction sites such as ebay with a few good copies probably sold to dealers. If they start making copies of valuable Chinese coins, there is just a chance that action will be taken, particularly if a high up party official gets conned.

If I remember, the Adams catalogue showed three distint positions for the colon, with no need to measure with a micrometer.

Not a rare coin but not in a decent condition either, particularly the obverse which is quite flat. This isn't an issue/date/type that is known for forgeries or modern copies, so suggest it is real. At a few Euros buy it, you can't lose.

I can't find the email at present. I'll have to do some gardening as the inbox has 2500 emails in it.

There's a couple hundred in it before costs. I bought the gothic florin.

Did you win it? It was cheap enough at 875.

Later years. Avoid pre 1852. Many 1850s onwards, 2nd head 1860s with die numbers, 3rd head 1872, 1873 & 1874. 4th head 1879, 1883 - 1887. The 1839 (WW on neck) is reasonably common and quite affordable. Yes, but all those dates I listed are the cheapest you will find. There are many dates that are one step up in price leaving aside the acknowledged rarities. 1883 onwards may well be the easiest and cheapest.

I stand corrected Dave - 1922 penny on ebay- meant to bid on this but forgot. Flaw on both neck and ear are in the same postion as those on the 1918KN but this is a different obverse die. Must conclude that this micro variety is in fact a result of clashed dies Yes, it looks right for the folds in the drapery between Britannia's thigh and lower leg. So recessed ear types they are not. The illustrated has die clash earwax too.