Rob

Lately? I've spent the last 10 years actively pursuing NGC mis-attributions on the grounds that there are some real bargains to be had if you are awake.

The main problem here is that if it was a privately commissioned box and not a Soho product, then it would be almost impossible to date based on the box design, which presumably would be at the whim of the person having the work done and the location. A combination of early and late Soho pieces suggests a later assembly date than time of issue, unless Peck is wrong with the chronology and these particular types were issued concurrently. What is the contents of this box and how does it compare with other examples? i.e. is there any consistency of contents which would lead you to deduce that the types were issued concurrently? We know that 'Late Soho' is a fairly elastic term covering a prolonged period as the DH11 halfpennies ascribed to it show a degree of recutting, with some Peck numbers showing early strikes only. The silvered P964 for example is early, whereas the P966 brown gilt is later.

This is a standard FoB crown with the original box. Perfect condition, £10 max though probably less.

They have always put a notice in when I have pointed something out previously. The serial offender when it comes to not issuing notices is W&W, with a couple of the London salerooms being in between.

If it's the only one available, or not listed elsewhere, I'll take it irrespective of grade as long as the salient features are clear.

Easy to do. You have a nice unc, then later on you see another which appeals so you buy that too. Then spend a ridiculous amount of time comparing the two and deciding which to get rid of before being overcome by indecision.

All of which encapsulates the absurdity of paying such high sums for what is basically a particular die which would otherwise be indistinguishable from the rest, in a defined state of wear. You can make a case for die identification, but I'm struggling making one for a certain period in the die's life.

Mine sits in a square 2x2 cutout somewhere. I haven't seen it for quite a while. The only 'coin' I own which doesn't fit in a cutout is one of those macabre, iron Lusitania commemorative medals. We must all have one of those somewhere! Not me.

I use wooden cocktail sticks to dig them out. Have pierced trays in the cabinet and you don't have a problem.

davidrj is your best bet as he collects some French pieces and has the reference books. He generally turns up on the forum in the early hours of the morning.

Looks like it is mounted within a ring as seen.

Detail can be missing as a result of die fill or die damage. Fine relief detail on the die can be blocked with debris from the flan surface, whilst fine die detail can be broken off the die if relatively delicate enough. Six of one, half a dozen of the other and each individual case on its merits.

The example I used to own cost me 1c + $3.99 P&P on ebay in 2004. Ahhh. Those were the days.

Not your type. He deals in hammered, with only a very occasional milled piece.

Pictures of any example of an H C halfcrown please if anyone can help. Ta.

Message sent... Yes that's ridiculous, GF/NVF? I think you've rather underestimated it. I'd say minimum VF (the reverse a bit better). But yes, still overgraded. I concur with Peck

That's complete and utter bo***cks. Virtually flat or better would be more appropriate. I assume Virtually Flat was deliberate Rob? I couldn't possibly say.

That's complete and utter bo***cks. Virtually flat or better would be more appropriate.

An example was mentioned on this forum on 1/9/2007 according to my notes, but I can't find the image at present to say if it is the same coin or not. As for the large numerals, I also have examples with large digits for 1700, including one paired with I/E in GVLIELMVS. The 1701 P705 has at least 4 dies with one of them having a large 0 over a 7 and the 1 looks to have a trace of a 0 underneath implying the date was cut too far to the right.

Not even a clever mod, just a misprunt.

Have you got one, or do you want one. I can't seem to find one listed anywhere...spink, freeman, peck? Am I missing a few pages? No, just a few grey cells. The reverse changed to the ship in 1937 for Edward VIII onwards and G5 died in 1936 which was the last year of the Britannia reverses. Could be a 1931 with the last digit changed to a 7? Or a 1927 modified to a 37? Got a picture or a link as it's obviously not right?

I don't know what their success rate is in attribution, but I looked at half a dozen Anne farthings a while back and 2 of the 6 were wrong together with one which had the label as 1714 despite the evidence to the contrary on the coin (1713) and an MS63 which shouldn't have made better than 55 unless of course MS63 means many scratches (63).

I missed this thread first time around but am astounded that anyone could part with so much money, without doing even cursory research. 2 minutes on Google would have shown up the errors, particularly with the supposed 1/2d numerals! Incidentally I'd not heard of Teletrade but notice it states that only US or canadian citizens can use it! Don't complain. Not being allowed to bid helps the country's balance of payments, especially when crap like this is on offer.

You can also apportion it - bank/home in whatever split you think best. That gives the opportunity to do research on a section of the collection whilst leaving the majority in the bank. Then rotate according to what you want to study as few collections would require the whole spread of material.

Just trying to place where you were sat, as most of the people in the room were dealers. Yes, it was interesting trying to find the venue. Luckily my son was at Plymouth at the time, so at least we had a rough idea. I was sat one row in front of Ras on the left facing the rostrum. Good day though with a couple of halfpennies and a penny.