Rob

I drive an asthmatic dog kennel. Keeps cutting out, the elastic band takes a long time to wind up and it starts to complain beyond 70mph. But it gets me from A to B A car salesman once commented that if I had waited two weeks I could have had a new reg car on 1st August. I replied that when I sold a car, nobody cared what reg. it was and I had never been asked how old it was either. 2 questions was the norm. First was it working, second how much MOT left on it? Usually I get rid when the engine dies.

It should say Ar or Arg for silver. I think it stands for Agent 999, who joined a hell of a lot later than James Bond The OP is correct. Ag (argentum) is the recognised symbol for the chemical element silver. I know that, but AFAIK the coin world has never used the chemical symbol for silver? Spink, for example, uses AR for silver. I'd never noticed that, probably because I don't generally collect silver coins! Better that AR incorrectly refers to silver than the chemically correct symbol for argon. You might find your investment disappears into thin air.

I concur. You have used a 5 where an s would have been more appropriate. This is a very helpful forum.

Rob you snob. We did the lounge,dining room and hall in laminate. We now have a cartoon dog. The first 20 strides he stays in the same place....especially when the front door is rung BTW I've just had a speckled hen with the remains of Fathers day brunch...trouble is it was the last one.....a cuppa then 40 winks looks on the cards. It isn't my house, just one I'm doing up. As it cost marginally more than laminate would have done, it should add to the resale value. The problem I have is that our kitchen yet again resembles a builder's yard. I recently moved a full kitchen out of our kitchen and fitted it - only to replace it with a couple cubic metres of wood.

The US one has been reduced from $85K. Maybe he thought that it was too much to ask .

They are consistently inconsistent. They also list the 1807 proof halfpennies, which were not Soho products, but made by Taylor much later. See my article in the 2007 BNJ showing how Taylor made the 1807 obverse die. The coin which provided the evidence is in the unlisted varieties section of the forum. They also list the 1848 godless florin, again a pattern, though one obverse and reverse design were eventually adopted. Golden rule - don't make rules because you will inevitably break them. Thanks Rob. It's good to know I'm not missing the obvious! A reasonable division could perhaps have be made between coins that were legal tender (currency & proofs) and those that weren't (patterns), but clearly this isn't the case. And the Petition and Reddite crowns, and the Cromwell coins which were never authorised by Act of Parliament, G3 five guineas, 1787 pattern shilling by Pingo - specifically noted as a pattern, Dorrien & Magens shilling - specifically order to be melted as they were unauthorised etc. etc. It's all over the place.

Getting replies out of the RM, museums or any academic institution is like getting blood out of a stone. I have literally dozens of questions somewhere in various institutions' inboxes which have been ignored. Rule of thumb appears to be if it can be answered without searching then ok, o/w forget it. This would be ok if the information could be obtained by some other method. Unfortunately, the status quo tells me that most things have been saved 'from the nation' as opposed to 'for the nation'. You could try an FOI request. Personally, I have found the RM museum to be worse than useless with a score of 0 in response to requests (7).

Yes, put it away and use a proper computer. iPhone pictures or any other taken on a mobile are usually too poor to be of much use.

First thing is don't clean it other than with soapy water if it is garden dirt. If it is silver and tarnished, leave it. Post a picture under 150kB using the attachment facility below the box you type into, or alternatively use a link to a hosting site such as Photobucket. When we can see what it is, we can better advise what to do.

Only a bottle of Old Speckled Hen for me. Oh, and I picked up a few tons of new solid oak flooring. Slight overkill for the house, but selling on the 80 sq.m we don't need should pay for the quantity we require.

They are consistently inconsistent. They also list the 1807 proof halfpennies, which were not Soho products, but made by Taylor much later. See my article in the 2007 BNJ showing how Taylor made the 1807 obverse die. The coin which provided the evidence is in the unlisted varieties section of the forum. They also list the 1848 godless florin, again a pattern, though one obverse and reverse design were eventually adopted. Golden rule - don't make rules because you will inevitably break them.

Did you make a note of any prices? I had bids on a few things, mostly farthings. There were some nice ones in the sale. Ahh so you were one of my competitors!! Quite possibly. Were you there, and which pennies caught your eye? I was there...but it was Rob's post I was responding to, I had my focus planted firmly on the farthings I came second on two, a bit short on a third and blown away on another. (farthings)

Trial in 4 languages. Spanish, English, German, French in the order on the coin.

I concur. Question for anyone. It says 999 silver. Is the 0.001% paint?

These marks go back to the hammered era. You can't rely on the presence of a mark in the centre of the face as a unique identifier as it is the one point that ought to remain consistent. Every die has a central point. It is just that some have a larger mark than others. If the engraver was any good, then you would expect the central point to be at the centre of the design. i.e. it isn't very helpful in identifying a die.

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between. The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here

I think the buyer is genuine as all the purchases are either coins (mostly French) or music cds. It can be done in 4 days, because everything would go special delivery at that price, so despatched 26th, returned 27th, new coin sent 28th and feedback would be possible by the 29th.

Yes, the lettering seems deeper & sharper than the kings head does...... Thanks Rob - I never considered it could just be an odd bit of scrap used. Maybe a trial gone wrong before they start production? Or some idiot arsing around...... Try the second.

Maybe even yestodtom is having difficulty reconciling the coin in hand with the description.

It might be a filed down halfpenny blank, or even an impression made in a scrap piece of bar end. Weight is obviously wrong for both 1/2d and 1/4d. I would go for a farthing obverse impression on the latter unless you can match up the vague relief detail on the flat side to a farthing obverse.

The 1839 sixpence with the c.1880 obverse that sold at Heritage earlier this year has medal alignment. Ah, thanks. Faulty memory. Which may imply that these late sets were made with the die axis opposite to the normal currency coinage. Peck gives the inverted farthing die axis as very rare, same as the inverted halfpenny. Groats also occur in both axes with Spink pricing the inverted one higher. Davies doesn't mention the inverted die axis at all, which is presumably an oversight, but maybe an indication of actual rarity given that ESC quotes rarities of S (upright) and R2 (inverted).

The halfpennies are normally upright, but my 39/41 is inverted. It's the only example I've seen with this die axis. This could possibly be contemporary with the late strike sixpence which also has an inverted die axis and which seems to be equally rare. It is also worth pointing out the mint refurbished in 1882 with new equipment, so any dies from the old Boulton presses may well not have fitted the new equipment which in turn would give us a terminal date for the issues.

"Care in the community" has a lot to answer for. Im new here so thanks for introducing me to this bloke got to love this one, ebay No 370831082109. Mint lustre specially created with a piece of Scotchbrite!!! whilst being held with a pair of pliers! But folk are buying this rubbish for silly prices! see this 1870BB 5Fr piece £205 is a reasonable price for EF+ but this coin struggles to make Fine (€22 in TB25) the ribbon is just visible on the neck The minimum criteria to make VF (TTB45) a €30 coin, requires the point of the moustache to be clearly visible But then I'm just using the grading standards from Le Franc Was this a BIN as I can't see any bids on it. I wonder if the 8 page views is accurate. BIN with positive feedback I wonder if 'very considerate seller' means the coin was returned? Certainly should have been, but there again shouldn't have been bought in the first place.

Sounds typically nonsensical given they keep far more than that in post offices to pay out in benefits. As this removes the uncertainty as to whether there is sufficient money to make a robbery worthwhile, why don't they close those down as well?........ Oh, they are. Also sounds like a stereotypical public sector response. I received a reprimand for filling a van up too quickly while I was a student - this van takes 10 minutes, this one 25 etc. Very depressing if you aren't of the right mindset.

How did you calculate ESC1738's ob to enter the scene in 1880? Any idea who the late re-runs would be for? I'm just thinking, if the RM were to re-run a G6 set, would I really want one as a collector? The obverse die uses the bust punch employed on sixpences from 1880 onwards, but is dated 1839. One went through Heritage(?) earlier this year. This is the basis for the assumption that 1839 sets were made possibly up to 1887. We know that there were at least 3 halfpenny obverse dies used (the latest being an 1843 recut and also a number of dies for the £5 Una & t'Lion. The 1839/41 obverse die is heavily polished and the hair not in very good shape (see unlisted varieties section) implying a heavily rusted die was bought back into use. The condition of the die is such that you would think there was none better available as any die for sets made pre 1860 would surely be taken from the normal die production activities and dated accordingly. It isn't cast in concrete, but I assume the recut date coins are later than 1860. Sets were made for collectors. Post date production applies to the early 1970s RM sets too.