Rob

The penny is back on ebay so not all is lost. Thanks, but it wasn't for my benefit - I don't want one.

I see my penny on ebay thread has disappeared. Was that the reason for the screwed up posts? I can now see Chris's testing thread that was previously impossible because there was a conflict deciding which one I was trying to read. Could it be that things have settled down now?

Just a die flaw. It looks like the edge of the incuse detail on the die has come adrift and left a larger depression.

Yes, I bought the Durham House groat. Still waiting for it to arrive though. It isn't the best one available assuming that Carlyon-Britton 198 (1921) is still doing the rounds, but I don't know where that is. As they go quite acceptable with just about every example showing weakness somewhere and quite collectable for the reverse legend variety which only occurs on this groat and its rather rare companion halfgroat. The BM has a superb example. here . One word of warning, the reference numbers and the attributions are all hopelessly screwed up in this section at least and probably elsewhere. Many Edward VI groats are in fact facing bust Edward IVs, and the museumm accession numbers are all to cock too. The coin given as 1896,0609.208 for example should be ex Montagu 827, but is in fact Huth 324 as it is plated in the 1927 catalogue. This was acquired by Clarke-Thornhill and passed to the BM in his bequest. The reference number for the coin illustrated should therefore be 1935,0401.1758. The former Montagu coin is under the reference 1935,0401.1759, which is allegedly one of those from Clarke Thornhill. The coin actually gifted by C-T is that listed as BM214, which entered the collection prior to the systematic cataloguing used from about 1830. All the others of this type appear to be wrong too. Another good waste of public funds.

I think you'll have to wait until the site is working properly again for a reply. Most people can't log in or at least haven't been able to do so for few days.

Mixed bag. The better pieces flew, but anything with problems or of indifferent quality struggled. I had a good day.

Good to see that Spink have abandoned their in house bidding system in favour of The Saleroom. Took a punt today that it would work - and it did!! So well in fact that the internet frequently got ahead of the room, so that Richard would be taking room bids at 500 say, when the internet was already up to 700. But that's infinitely preferable to the inability to bid at all in the case of Spink, or the funereal pace of the last DNW sale where the parting words heard over the internet before the link was closed at well gone 7pm were - "Christ, that was...".

Looks cleaned. It is too shiny with a flat tone. In the hand it will probably look bright. In answer to your other points, pre 1816 milled shouldn't be any different to later coinage in the way you grade it. Just because it is older doesn't mean that it has to be assigned a higher grade for the same level of wear. The main reason for grade inflation is probably the price paid for high grade pieces, but that is just a reflection of their absolute rarity. The key to storing coins is not to rub the surfaces. i.e. Obviously slabs fulfil this, as do capsules if they have a sprung retainer inside to impede movement. Sat in the bottom of a cabinet will do the same thing if you are careful. Obviously with capsules you will need a deeper tray than without.

I couldn't agree more Stuart, I really don't believe that those that collect (especially) US slabs and grades 67-70 have the same collecting urge as we do ... which is fine, each to their own investing/collecting criteria, but right now we are increasingly (if only gradually when it comes to British / hammered) chasing after the same coins. If it was a totally separate sphere of collecting we wouldn't give a damn, would we?? The elimination of choice pieces from your average collector's reach has always been an ongoing problem. As a prelude to this week's Spink sale, I've been doing a bit of research on the Edward VI profile groats. They aren't particularly rare as touted as I've found about a dozen decent collectable examples from different dies, but always in demand because the catalogue usually states they are rare. Montagu 826 (1896) was a nice one for example. ex Cuff (1854), Dymock, Murchison & Addington before Montagu. At the latter sale, J S Henderson paid £21 for it, which was a huge amount of money in 1896. He later bequeathed his entire collection (which was full of top grade pieces such as this) to the Fitzwilliam . As a result, collector expectations have to reduce, because the pot is smaller and of lower quality. He wasn't alone. Weightman supplied the BM with many of their copper/bronze/tin examples - see the appendix in Peck. Clarke-Thornhill allowed the BM to take what ever dies were missing from their collection before the residue was sold in 1937, also many noted in Peck but including others outside the scope of the book. It is an onging reducing supply, which is why the top pieces are flying whilst the me-toos are relatively static.

Fingerprint on the reverse, possible hairline scratches on the cheek and a crud/verd in the border below the ship plus a couple of spots in the rev. field. The hair on the bun looks a bit flat too. I think you would want to see it in the hand before paying unc money for it.

I know.

That 1820 is a clear VF I'd say - a nice coin. You could do a lot worse than major on halfcrowns - as long as you don't go in for date runs, they will be generally cheaper than crowns, but are still a good size for seeing detail. For types : going forward, there are Victorian Young Head where you should avoid anything before 1874 in a good grade as they will empty your wallet! One from 1874 - 1887 in GVF should be your target (unless you can afford to bump up to EF?) Victoria Jubilee Head : 1887 in EF up to BU Victoria Old Head : 1893 in EF or better Edward VII (difficult reign) : 1902 is far and away the most affordable George V .925 silver : 1915, 16, or 18 minimum EF George V .500 silver : 1920 or 1923, but minimum EF as the head flattens very quickly on that type George V M.E. : 1927 George V new reverse issue : 1928, 29, or 36 in AUNC or better George VI .500 silver : 1944, 45, or 46 in BU George VI CuNi : 1948 BU George VI last issue : 1949 is arguably the easiest Elizabeth II : 1953 BU Elizabeth II 2nd type : 1966 or 1967 in "Gem BU"! Oh, I forgot to mention the other 'machine age' types you don't have: George III 'Bull Head' : minimum VF George III Small Head : ditto George IV 2nd type : 1823 VF or better George IV 3rd type : 1826 VF or better Those are the main types to collect, and the easiest dates to find. Thanks for all the information its most helpful. Can anyone recommend at good website to purchase nice coins? The previous three posts?

There's got to be a chance, I suppose? There would be space for the stop to be entirely hidden under that i, and there could've been more than one die re-used this way. However, I wouldn't buy it as one, though, as I'd definitely want a 'peeping stop' die-variety to substantiate the claim. There must be endless varieties out there, which are now impossible to 100% confirm, it's only in cases such as your suggested part showing stop, that you can name it. Unless other die features clearly link it to a li obverse.... Without a long-winded post, I think you know where I'm coming from. Basically, without other die identifiers, I don't see how he, or anyone else, could ever call it ii/i He can call it what he likes and that is the rub. Listings on ebay are full of spurious claims, and the higher the catalogue value the more frequently they are encountered. I too would like a little corroborative evidence in the form of an identifiably identical 1851 die to say for certain.

If you would stretch as a far as foregoing the penny change, I'm sure you could get a museum copy.

Try the link at the top of this page, or barring that, John (argentumandcoins), Stuart (coinery), Derek (redriley) or me on this forum. I don't think Clive (historiccoinage) has things this modern. Others - Michael Gouby, Colin Cooke, the list is endless. Apologies for anyone I've forgotten. You've forgotten yourself Rob (rpcoins). No I haven't.

Looks like you are throwing up after consuming one of those horrible blue designer drinks. Serves you right.

Try the link at the top of this page, or barring that, John (argentumandcoins), Stuart (coinery), Derek (redriley) or me on this forum. I don't think Clive (historiccoinage) has things this modern. Others - Michael Gouby, Colin Cooke, the list is endless. Apologies for anyone I've forgotten.

I need a Henry VII sovereign to tick the dragon mintmark box for the collection. It's a good job I can fill that slot for a mere £110K book in VF for the type IV. Better remember to do the lottery next Tuesday

My collection suddenly feels very inadequate.

And what a good choice that would be!! Don't trust this man. His name belies his true character. He accumulates farthings so prodigiously that you won't get a look in. Collect something else. I don't care what as long as it is something other than pennies - too many penny collectors at the moment.

You must have been collecting for a while now, so presumably you will soon decide what to specialise in. Farthings and fractionals by any chance?

I always take choice to mean that it has very good eye appeal. Choice for grade would probably be more accurate as it can apply to any grade.

I concur

Right about the too many. What was the attraction? I hate to think how many I would need to drink to pluck up the courage and purchase that one. Hey. That's a perfectly acceptable grade for a rare date. Mine isn't much better, if at all. We're not all stinking rich, you know! Right about the too many. What was the attraction? I hate to think how many I would need to drink to pluck up the courage and purchase that one. My one is so worn I like to upgrade...even the horrible pennies. I would like to get a top 69(wouldn't we all chaps ) The 71 was an example and I can get rid of the existing. Speckled Hen or no, I think that's a perfectly good example for the date. When I dealt I had no end of 1864's ranging from poor to VG+ - they were all snapped up. So an 1871 in Fine is not to be sneezed at. If I could afford a GVF or better example, I'd buy one. This one of those situations where I find the red felt in the bottom of the tray recess quite aesthetically pleasing. Anyway, I have an example of a bun head young features penny, so I'm sorted. Just the Minton required.

Right about the too many. What was the attraction? I hate to think how many I would need to drink to pluck up the courage and purchase that one.