Rob

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.

Not a mule for me either. Generally speaking, a mule is an anachronistic die pairing, or one from completely different or unrelated, but contemporary, issues.

Yes, and very recently. I put in a bid at the last Warwick & Warwick for a 1953 proof set, which given the amount I was prepared to pay, was surprised to win. When it turned up, it was just the exhumed contents of a plastic packed uncirculated set put in what looked like a mint case. It went straight back and I've now received a refund. To be honest though, this is absolutely basic - it's like putting in a bid for a horse and receiving a donkey. As Peckris says this is not a mistake that professional auction houses should be making. Which is precisely the point I have been making for the last 4 or 5 years about them. You can point out catalogue errors but they just ignore what you say. I almost get the impression that they catalogue them as the vendor describes, whether it is right or wrong. It's a fundamental reason why you would be very foolish to bid blind. Sure you can send it back, but that just enriches the Royal Mail. I've pointed out maybe half a dozen things in the past, all of which resulted in no auction notices being issued. Peck is right when he says it isn't a mistake that professionals should be making, but I don't consider they are. The description has to be particularly esoteric for me to consider potentially wasting a day.

If you are able to come across two examples, it seems likely that they are going to be rare (not) like the undated 20p, i.e. once people are aware of their existence, this stimulates the general population to look for other examples. It may be that they have a localised distribution having been part of a batch that was shipped to a specific region. It might be a good time to sell one while there are relatively few examples known, because the price will stabilise at a realistic level once there is a feeling for ballpark numbers. The question you have to ask is 'Do I win the lottery?' If you believe that you are the only person finding these coins, then I suggest you buy a lottery ticket too because you really are luckier than other punters.

I don't think so. Just very elaborate lettering giving it an odd appearance. I'm going to have to remember to take a better look on the laptop tomorrow, it looks really N like on my phone screen! Bloody thing! Well, if you will use an eye phone when most people apply them to the mouth and ear, don't be too disappointed when Ls look like Ns and the world is square. As regards the blood, I suggest you check yourself rather than the phone. Regards Peregrine R Clyde-Brown

In view of what you've said, the upright does seem far enough left to allow an F...also there does appear to be a small triangle that could represent the end serif of the top bar of an F, plus a faint crease where the lower crossbar might be? Maybe another block, as in the 1700 NO STOP after DEI?? This doesn't mean that it 'isn't' the IRA for FRA that's described in Spink's, of course, just that Spink's may not yet have resolved for themselves the issue of the genuine existence of the variety or not, or whether it is instead a block that produced a run of I for F looking coins! It's a great period, and great looking coins, especially the halfcrowns! That's why I am sceptical about the so called GVLIEIMVS coins. Blocked lower bar Ls with the upright too far left is the order of the day, but that's because people see what they want to see and we all know a listed rarity commands a higher price, just like all those proofs on eBay which appears to have a monopoly.

Get a full image of the reverse up so the I of HIB can be compared with this one. Same defective serifs would be a good start as the same punch would probably be used. Another consideration is the spacing of the legend. Was there room for the F in the first place? You can use the E as a template for the F. If an I, you would expect the letter to be central whereas a defective F upright would be off to the left.

I wonder if IRB could sue for use of his design or for using his initials on a readily identifiable product? There must be some copyright legislation that would cover things made/sold in the EU. It might be a tad late for Pistrucci to get involved, but a living person could possibly reduce the flow of these copycat products.

Not sure that processed Chum is any different whether it's passed through a terrier or a lurcher. I suspect that someone thought it might be a good way to get the garden cleaned up.

If you want good portrait Lizzies sell your house now.(I have a few nice ones under wraps) Being at the right place at the right time helps. It is not a subject you would race into unless you had 5 bullets in each of your Colts and several years study. I know Tom (Richard) goes for Ch1 1/- and Stewart (Coinery) love Liz 1. I'm 10 years behind both. We all have our Nr 1 subjects Georges 3 and 5 do it for me The odd ones?

Which particular item on that page were you talking about Rob - the large quantity of free soil??? It's been taken down. The original item offered for free was this ad. 100% free dog manure mixture of terrier and lurcher Salford, Manchester lee on 07760930418 100% FREE dog manure i have a garden full of dog manure free to a good home its a mixture of terrier and lurcher collectoin only I copied it as I thought it might not survive very long.

Any takers? Collection only