Rob

Sorry to be a cynic, but it looks too good to be true. Especially the fact it's on eBay - with a coin like that, why not sell through Baldwins or Spink? Because it's regular bread and butter coin at an auction. Not a rare mint, not a rare type and you get your money in a week or two rather than 6 months. Sure it's scarce, but the return is likely to be little different than selling through an auction house, just quicker. Plus a lot of sellers on eBay wouldn't have a clue about Spink or DNW etc

Difficult to confirm because you no longer have the coin, but on the bottom example are we looking at a recut G2 reverse die with a recut 2 over a 9 or possibly an underlying 1 for 1761 where the die wasn't used? Debbie and Peter - thanks. I must try to remember ebay and the piles of shite found thereon. I'm afraid I have virtually blanked it for the past few years. Interesting point. I always suspected a 1 but, as you say, a 9 is more likely. The mintages of the various denominations can't have been too high and so it is easy to envisage the dies being recut for further use. The intermittent dates encountered suggest that demand wasn't that high. Going back to an earlier thread that I posted on the 1766 penny, I remain convinced that this is the unused 1765 die recut, or at least the die used for my coin. The big problem here is that no one has done a study. Dave Seaman would probably be the best authority on this, so must remember to ask the question next time I see him.

Difficult to confirm because you no longer have the coin, but on the bottom example are we looking at a recut G2 reverse die with a recut 2 over a 9 or possibly an underlying 1 for 1761 where the die wasn't used? Debbie and Peter - thanks. I must try to remember ebay and the piles of shite found thereon. I'm afraid I have virtually blanked it for the past few years.

The detail is ok, but it might be slightly porous looking at the obverse legend.

I think it's a 1. You have serifs top left bottom right on a 1 and the two vertical section is usually quite thin and leaning backwards. I think the vertical stroke on yours is too fat and straight for a 2.

It's about right.

Not to mention the 'supper rare' (sic) description.

Thanks Scott.

And equally can't spell - note "luster" for "lustre" Blimey, even at the quoted 'aUNC' his asking price is a tad on the high side! In some parts of the world -- that is the correct spelling Sorry, balls up on the quote

Without a few examples coming to market there isn't a clearly defined price for them, but given the mint makes things in batches it would seem likely that a batch was made before the dies were changed. This would imply a value of about the same as the undated 20p's with a reduction because it is less obvious than the no date coins. Unless it catches the imagination of the general public it will only appeal to collectors which will reduce the price paid considerably as it is likely the supply will outstrip demand from this quarter.

Can't be done - decent stuff sells, but the crap gets continually recycled via "free listing" weekends Rob, Peter - you both miss my point, I'm not complaining about the relisting BUT recycled listings make any attempt at statistics impossible. Court's suevey is valid because his samples were on the way to the melting pot - ie no coin was counted twice Well, maybe there is an outside chance to do a survey by trying to replicate the experiment. You can certainly collect as many piles of low grade pennies as possible and ensure they get melted and hence not double counted. That would be good for everyone as the supply of crap far outweighs the number of collectors and their demand. What you cannot overcome is the 40 years of cherry-picking to remove the rarities from the accumulated piles. You are comparing two different populations - the first was for circulating coinage, the second non-circulating collected accumulations by people with a probable interest in coins. That will inevitably skew the results.

In his (1972) article he states "the project started 4 years ago" but they knocked off for 6 months to do halfpennies - never seen any results from that survey though Pity he didn't include the veil head Vicky pennies either - there were still shedloads of them in circulation at the time Can't be done - decent stuff sells, but the crap gets continually recycled via "free listing" weekends For many items that is the only realistic way to sell. Very few items are desirable enough to ensure that they sell first time round for what would be fair market value elsewhere, and for the rest that would invariably mean starting at 99p and selling at any price. If people don't use a free listing weekend they incur fees. What are they - 10%? Whatever it isn't zero, so you would be an idiot not to list when the cost is zero and it negates the failure to sell. It means you can load the costs incurred onto the postage. You have to ship using a signed for method for anything collectable, though I think that winners of practical items are less likely to abuse non-delivery claims. That's a minimum of £2 these days, and for anything over a kg £5. People moan a lot about the postage costs on ebay, but it is only fair for sellers to protect themselves and for buyers to acknowledge this right.

Repunched letters and numerals are common as it was done to extend the life of the die. As regards your date, it is impossible to say without removing all the crud blocking the digits.

I stopped going to Croydon in about 2004-5 when I found far too many descriptions that were over-generous and downright wrong. One sale had a 1905 halfcrown described as UNC, that I suspect had a provenance of Attila the Hun given the large chop mark across the head. The coins were typically things that go quite cheaply in the larger salerooms (which is where they get much material from), listed in a generous grade. Very few things that I have bought or looked at previously were good enough to be keepers, with many uncs being 'nearly there' for example.

Thanks Rob, just ordered a copy from Galata for £8 (a lot cheaper than £50+ for Pridmore ) My copy has 5p on the cover, which came as part of a larger parcel of books. It's a super little reference volume, even if only 40 pages of less than A5 size.

Guernsey Coinage by W. Exley, printed in 1968 by The Guernsey Press. It describes all the dies up to 1966 and also includes the sequencing established for the 1864 8 doubles dies. Included in the blurb is a note that quote, "Marshall-Fraser and Pridmore separate the obverse dies fairly successfully, but practically ignore variations in the reverse." It would suggest on the basis of the above note that this is a better reference. Who knows? Another reference is Currencies of the Anglo-Norman Isles, by A L T McCammon (1984) ISBN 0907605133

The numbers in the field on coins from 1860-1868 are only very lightly scratched whereas your example has been mutilated. The halfpenny below is typical of the condition in which they occur and is consecutively numbered with the example used by Michael Gouby. The implication of this is that for every ton of coins, a new scratched coin was made meaning there could be 600 or more of them in existence. It is unlikely that all have survived though.

Apparently a Proof also. All the shite you need from 1 auction I do wish he hadn't listed it with the mouse over zoom facility. That came as a nasty shock.

Hi Rob, brilliant work yet again... Sherlock Holmes has nothing on you! It certainly looks convincing as a Johnstone coin based on the blue Peck numbers. Also the pencil sale details on the back of the ticket seem to be in the same hand as on your coin. The only question is, do you think the ink description on both tickets is in the same hand? I note that the 'ic' of victoria on my ticket is not linked, whereas the same letters in 'Richmond' on your ticket are. What do you think? Ras told me he didn't write 'copper?' on my ticket, so it must have been added by someone else. Yes, I think they are the same hand on the basis that the t of Victoria and the t of pellets on the P147 ticket are similar, and very unusual in character. The crossbar on the t starts at the top and goes right whereas I'm sure that 90%+ of writers would have the t crossing the upright slightly below the top. The Peck numbers also limit the writers to either Johnstone or Baldwins given the book didn't appear until 1960. I have to admit the 't' is very distinctive. Also the auction dates on the reverse are clearly in the same hand, particularly the separating dots and the '4'. On mine the date is in pencil. How about yours? Also, mine is clearly Glendinings. Is yours "Brugge Salle". If so, presumably that refers to a Belgian auction? Brigg sale. M A Brigg (North Country Collector) sold his gold and silver at Glens 23/5/1939 and his coppers on 12/7/1943. A quality collection with both sales containing lots of desirables. I have a mixture of pencil and ink, but the handwriting is distinctive enough to say it is the same hand.

Hi Rob, brilliant work yet again... Sherlock Holmes has nothing on you! It certainly looks convincing as a Johnstone coin based on the blue Peck numbers. Also the pencil sale details on the back of the ticket seem to be in the same hand as on your coin. The only question is, do you think the ink description on both tickets is in the same hand? I note that the 'ic' of victoria on my ticket is not linked, whereas the same letters in 'Richmond' on your ticket are. What do you think? Ras told me he didn't write 'copper?' on my ticket, so it must have been added by someone else. Yes, I think they are the same hand on the basis that the t of Victoria and the t of pellets on the P147 ticket are similar, and very unusual in character. The crossbar on the t starts at the top and goes right whereas I'm sure that 90%+ of writers would have the t crossing the upright slightly below the top. The Peck numbers also limit the writers to either Johnstone or Baldwins given the book didn't appear until 1960.

A bit more progress. The blue inked number (1683) is the Peck number. I have half a dozen farthings with the various Peck numbers inked in on the tickets. Crucially they were all coins that Colin Cooke bought from Baldwins, ex-Johnstone in 1974, so there was no time for an interim ownership. It therefore seems more than likely that all(?) or certainly many of the Johnstone coppers had the Peck numbers added for easy reference and weren't added by CC because the style is wrong. Some of the farthings had prior ownership indicated, and all were bought in the late 30s and 40s, but which ended up with Johnstone and have the same handwriting. An example of the P147 tickets for comparison below. Whilst a sample size of half a dozen isn't conclusive, the consistency of provenance for coins with this style of ticket and no exceptions found makes it very likely that what I have described here is an indicator of prior Johnstone ownership. Given the above and similarity between the writing on the back of the ticket and yours, it seems reasonably certain that your coin is ex-Johnstone and the acquisition details noted are in his hand. The copper? may have been added by Ras. You could ask him.

Haha just noticed the mistake, thanks Also I bought a Cartwheel Twopence from the same seller...what do you think this would be graded at? VF or a bit better. Say gVF where the g stands for green. There's quite a lot of verdigris which you could do without.

Forget grading and slabbing as it is damaged from being in the ground and so you would be wasting your money doing so. Wash it in soapy water with a soft brush to remove the crud from the surface and see what transpires. You may rest assured that cleaning this will not harm its value. You don't have to buff it up, just remove any material sticking to it.

Looks like a halfcrown from the hair curls below the truncation. It was quite a decent coin before it was lost. It looks better than VF, but not good enough for EF and the damage from being in the ground for a few hundred years hasn't done it any favours. It is probably only worth tens of pounds as opposed to hundreds. High grade with environmental damage will reduce it to probably say somewhere between £50 and £100 if it cleans up to give a reasonable coin. Here is a better example struck from a rusty obverse die which is not quite EF for wear, but the die was quite worn and on its last legs.

Large shields, later harp, stops in the reverse legend and it certainly isn't a proof! So S3488, ESC543. They are all effectively 1st bust given the 2nd bust halfcrown is unique. No idea on the mintage figures, but it isn't rare.