Rob

That should be in their shop for a while.

It depends on what you view as costly. If you are undecided what to specialise in, a good starting point is to go for a type set of anything and everything within your budget. You can worry about what to collect in depth once you decide what you like. Obviously the cheapest is the most modern and as a generalisation the further back you go in time the more expensive things become, but there are some issues even from a couple hundred years ago that are so common that they can be acquired cheaply. First thing is to learn how to grade a coin - it is very easy to overgrade until you know what to look for. Just about anything in the past hundred years should be collected in high grade and as a rule of thumb you should always buy the best you can afford. There is no right or wrong about a series or theme or denomination that you collect because it is each to their own.

It's less than Spink or DNW or St. James's or Baldwins, as all charge 20% + VAT - i.e.24%

I think we are probably running into the problem of what constitutes a significant variety again. Clearly this is a variety, but if the only difference is in the width of the date then it is not going to fire many people's imagination. The bronze date widths are associated with additional differences in Britannia and the lighthouse, not to mention the shield, so as a package the variety is relatively significant. I suppose it is obvious and therefore easier to justify. I assume it arose when the first 1 & 8 were engraved and the other two digits added with the same spacing.

Yes. Personally, I think the laurel looks a bit washed out, but that might just be the image quality. The unite looks polished and has been mounted - i.e. much value has been destroyed unless it is the only example or miles better than the alternatives. And I forgot to mention the scratches on the unite.

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher. please advise where you have seen better. Here's one I purged from the collection in the great refocus 4 or 5 years ago. Around the EF mark.

Surely "Chris" would have realised that a VF doesn't equate to an aUNC and cleaning is equally recognisable and very few dealers would refuse to accept returns. Why did this person not return them in the first place? After all, it isn't as if a person sending coins off to be slabbed is a complete novice and some appreciation of the finer points must be assumed. If somebody accepts a raw coin at the grades described without examining it, why should they have any more faith in a second opinion. Obviously for those that buy the slab and not the coin it isn't a concern, but without the collector examining the coin in the hand, it is difficult to have too much sympathy. Why did 'Chris' not use dealers that he could have confidence in their grades in the first place? It all boils down to the individual learning to grade properly in the first place.

Edward II penny of Durham under Bishop Kellawe. What there is left of the legend reads CIVI [ ] [ ] ELM with a crozier on the cross end. Don't ask which class.

This also is also similar,however possibly a later strike as the 8 has been restruck; I think when I first started with these,I thought as Peckris had said,collect one example and move on,however each time I upgraded,the coin was slightly different.Basically I have now dug a hole without a ladder. Keep digging. After 3 or 4 thousand miles you will start going uphill.

Found this in a list of things previously sold. Here is a similar one to your slightly angled 2, but from a different die as the position relative to the teeth and the 0 relative to the second C of PISTRUCCI shows.

HI just checked them over again nothing at all to suggest it being blocked,both surfaces are smooth and conform to the surrounding area. Oh well, never mind. It is always worth asking the question.

Not any more, I sold them about 6 or 7 years ago and they weren't high enough grade to warrant keeping images as one was only VF or a bit better whilst the other was aEF.

Both are clashed dies.

I've noticed in the past the 1820/19 has several dies. One had a particularly obvious 9 whilst another had a strong underlying 1, but the latter wasn't missing the 9 in the first place as it still had a trace - so not a 181 recut. How many obverse dies are there for the overdate?

Thanks. Certainly no obvious stop. Is there a small raised pimple which could be a guide for where it should be which could be a guide punch? Playing around with the contrast there is a circular consistently toned and stop sized patch in the right place, so possibly it could be blocked as an alternative. Rather more intriguingly, playing with the contrast brings out an 8 to the right of where the stop should be. There are no arabic numeral edge dates that I am aware of and a quick check showed nothing in L&S or ESC. Anything in the hand?

They were all hand engraved, so variations abound. Just comparing the two lines bordering the garter motto you see 15% difference in the separation giving a first impression that the lettering is a different size, but that is an optical illusion.

When the dies were hardened prior to use, it is quite realistic to expect a degree of inconsistency in the hardening process (slightly different temperatures or times). Therefore, you will most likely have a slight difference in the hardness of the two dies leading to the harder one leaving an impression on the softer of the two in the event of them coming together.

I think it is likely that more examples will turn up in the future. The collar is made up of segments, so for yours to have a missing stop after TVTAMEN I suspect that a segment from the 1819 LIX collar set with no edge stops was used. Could you get a picture of the edge for future reference and email it to me please? Then I can compare it with my no edge stops collar when I visit the bank next. Both coins are in similar grade, so we can eliminate wear from circulation in the comparison. What we need is to be able to accurately establish the position of the legend relative to the joints, edge and relative to each other in order to confirm the above hypothesis.

I think I could live with that. The tiny mark in the laurels is a real pain given the rest of it.

1820 LX crown with no stop after TVTAMEN. Not illustrated. Ex Glens 11th Dec 1968 (and not as noted in the 1997 catalogue as 12th Nov 1968, so presumably catalogued by an American) lot 128 described as mint state and a variety not recorded in ESC, where it sold for £105. Again not illustrated, this sale was the property of K Woodhouse of Shrewsbury. He had a good collection.

Thanks for the info Rob. I have never heard of these two overdates. Dracott has no mention of them. Mal Lewendon does mention a 1876 over 6 but from the Pic it seems to be a normal 6 over 6 and not a Farthing 6! The 6 over a farthing 6 is in the 'anything else' thread of the new varieties section. The 1862 over 26 I acquired from CC in 2007 (March 2007 list no.954) when I resorted to ploughing through their available coins looking for an excuse to buy something. They didn't realise as it is quite subtle needing the light to fall at the correct angle to see it and it has to be unc or thereabouts, otherwise the detail can get lost. It will never set the world on fire, but amply demonstrates the way in which dies were repaired or corrected. I know of another with full lustre (but the owner doesn't realise) So I take it that the dies were prepared without the last two digits of the date, these being added as and when the need arouse? In fact the preparation of two or three digit dates goes all the way back to Elizabethan times as the sixpence dies were produced with 159 , but due to the lack of silver minted during the anchor mark period there were a number of unused dies at the turn of the century and so these dies were recut with 1600 during cypher. The 'modern' incomplete dates potentially started with the milled recoinage of 1816 as there is a 181 halfcrown. There is also a 182 reverse (crown) and obverse (halfcrown), but it was certainly established for the Victorian silver and copper coins and perpetuated with the bronze as witnessed by the irregular spacing seen in the last two digits on many denominations. It wasn't until the 1880s that the dies were dated in full.

I paid over £50 about 6 years ago.

The idea of the last two digits resulting in mispunched letters seems eminently plausible as mistakes in both choice of punch and alignment abound. The dies were routinely repaired by filling and recutting, so anything is possible and there is no reason to restrict wrong punches to the legend only. The wide date 1876H halfpenny has a die with the 6 over a farthing 6, there is an 1862 over 26 die for example. This was the normal method of repair from the inception of milled coinage in this country until they stopped adding the last two digits towards the end of the 19th century.

I will own up to having had about a dozen of them, all contents are now sitting nicely in my mahogany cabinet.

I'm guessing the potential bidders were distracted somehow... Does that mean they will be out again for another 10 days. Nobody bid. When the item has been relisted a few times, someone buy it, then we might get a different background on the next thing. What is certain is that this was the best looking panda I've ever seen. A trip to Chester Zoo seems in order.