Rob

I think so. But im not sure. Clearly thats what appears to have happened. But it seems unlikely for example two Cupro nickel coins to strike one another leaving the impression. The impression is quite defined and also the font appears to be from something like 1922 2 french franc coin. The 9 is the giveaway. Maybe the coins were stacked up in a box some force upon the top caused the softer coin to receive the impression. Or someone lined up two coins and hit it with a hammer. After a coin has been struck I thought it would harden the metal..? It hasn't happened by accident in a bag. The hammer theory is the most likely option.

Interestingly, the ebay seller is a double d dallas. Does this infer anything?

Yeh, but it's going some when the contents of a slab are worth less than the few pence value of said slab. I would suggest that 61 of the 62 slabbed 1967 pennies are samples and that Bill's coin is the only one in a collection.

But the 1922 is a mirror image, so what (presumably) coin was used to impress the new date?

If you want to see what they should look like, this is the Nicholson collection. Lots 201 onwards dated from 1729 refer.

I wish they had split it in two with the break around 1662. That would currently be 50:50, though the new material would soon expand part two. As it stands, the size would reduce by about 100 pages, whilst part 2 will be 100 pages and growing.

I wish!! These are the images Colin88 was trying to upload earlier Take it in payment for the uploading job, and if you two can't agree on this, offer a discount and take one side only.

You have acquired this?

The link doesn't work.

Ironically, this is one example where the TPG input is likely to have little weight. People who are looking and willing to spend serious amounts for letter by lighthouse halfpennies are rarely, if ever, not up to speed on the variety.

The basic problem for both sides in this debate is a lack of trust, irrespective of whether you are for or against. The only indisputable advantage of a slab is that you can drop it without damaging the coin. Pro-slabs will argue that individuals do not grade consistently whereas a slab will provide a grade based on a defined scale. Correct, except that the slab grade is assigned by similarly fallible individuals (who wouldn't be trusted to grade a raw coin) and as a consequence, all TPGs suffer from grading inconsistency. On the odd occasion that I have bought slabs blind, about half would not have been purchased had I seen them beforehand. You are not guaranteed to get the same people grading all the coins of the same type. In the case of a CGS graded coin, I bought blind a 3/- bank token graded UNC 85 as I thought it would be ok for the collection. Silly me, or perhaps I should have realised that the coin was only 85% unc as it said on the label - couldn't live with it. Needless to say, I moved it on and am still looking to fill the gap. Although to be fair, that was the only CGS slab I've had a serious issue with which compares very favourably with the stream of misattributions and crap grading that emanates from across the pond. A raw coin can be fully examined, including the edge, which is only partially visible/invisible with a slab. Therefore to protect myself, I will always err on the side of caution and tend to mark down the price a little in order to alleviate nasty surprises when the coin is cracked out. MS65 George I halfpenny, George III proof shilling, Victoria halfcrown....etc. There are a few thousand pounds at current prices in this list and I don't like being taken for a ride. The argument that the coins were slabbed for protection and were not meant to be cracked out should be irrelevant as defects are defects whether visible or not. Although I have not had a cracked out CGS coin with hidden edge defects, it would be irrational to assume that the working practices are any different because we are all human. I too find the relationship between LC and CGS all a little too cozy. When you have an auction, the catalogue has sections for UK graded coins and foreign graded coins. The MS63, MS64 etc coins will often be graded 'we grade as EF or gEF'. It might inspire a little more confidence if they applied the same critical eye to UK graded coins. OK, I accept that's an uphill task when the same vested interests are involved, but surely that is at the core of the issue of integrity and independence? For the same people to grade, sell at auction and produce 'current price' lists for slab grades which are typically twice the going rate for raw coins is simply too cozy to do anything other than raise suspicion. If you would willingly pay twice the Spink price for a coin in a slab with a certain number, nobody is stopping you, but a reality check might be in order because you are now buying the slab in the case of registry sets rather than the coin. Competing for the highest average score may have nothing to do with aesthetics and could lead to a selection of dogs. In the case of CGS, population reports are a bit misleading given the relatively low number of coins slabbed to date (compared to the US TPGs) and can lead to misrepresentation of rarities for the 'investor'. We can't hold everyone's hand, but we can expect an objective opinion to be given. Are they trying to promote slabs as 'investments' in an advisory capacity or just as a straightforward sales pitch? The first could come unstuck legally, whilst the second as always should carry a health warning. As I haven't seen any note on the website to the effect that they are regulated by the FSA or anyone else, you have to assume that the second applies but with the caveat that they are promoting investing in coins on the LC website. This could potentially be very dodgy territory. Ultimately nothing has changed in the two camps and as always it is each to their own. If you are happy with slabs, just carry on as before. For those that don't like them, nobody forces you to buy.

Had my head in the book while you were responding! I was initially thinking inverted 8, but the reverse devices say 1569. Fortunately, the lions are the very distinctive punch 52 (which instantly gives us 69-72) and, as TGH has already pointed out, the coronet MM was finished in '70. The Lis are also identifiable as 34 (1569-1571). Also, the shield's right for the year, so 1969 is your year (as we can already see the 6). This reverse was the common pairing with obverse 2 (BCW CN-2). However, whilst it's not a recorded pairing (as many aren't, yet) the obverse Privy mark does look like it might very well be over a lion (BCW CN-1), but that is something that can't be completely confirmed without a die-match, which wouldn't be so difficult, as the Lion privy mark is much rarer. So, either: BCW CN-1:CN-i4 (coronet over lion obverse) or BCW CN-2:CN-i4 (straight coronet obverse) Your bust is 4B by the way Damned modern copies. They get everywhere.

Found it. Here

I don't believe 1858 over 3 exists. The 'traditionally accepted' one with the flaw across the date I think is over a 7. I posted something to this effect in the last few months but can't remember in which thread.

Spadework. Checking through auction catalogues from time of issue and noting previous sales if listed in the lot description can give a more educated guess than how many people have seen on ebay, or simply reiterating what is written down.

It isn't in Withers' Small Change, which only lists 3 obverses (one for each initial cross type) and a single reverse. However, this list can never be comprehensive given the number of dies produced as variations in the legend such as additional saltires or legend errors. They have attempted to list various legend differences where known, but I am not surprised that unlisted types come up, as they frequently do.

And exactly why there are people defending these as original toning. If there were a multitude of these sitting in sacks but in rolls and only the nearest to the sack were toned/tarnished, there seems a hell of a lot of coins. 1 or 2 coins per roll would tarnish, top and bottom coin, but it seems that nearly 1 in 2 are rainbow toned That's because they either ran out of time - or blue rinse.

It looks to me as if the reading is VIL [ ] CAL I'xS. i.e. the abbreviation stops and the S have been interchanged. The annulets are in the right quarters though.

I think ESC is reasonably accurate on this one, as I would put both at somewhere around a dozen examples. Certainly not down to R3 and R5 seems a bit tight for documented examples. Some sales must be the same coin resurfacing, but others in museum collections won't be known to me.

My 1923 weighs 5.68g.

My nickel shilling is a 1923 if that helps with pop numbers. I don't have any of the others mentioned. Edited to add - Sorry, I also have a 1929 proof halfpenny.

Every cloud has a silver lining. With 656m Morgans struck over the listed period, less than 20000 are impaired with this toning. That still leaves lots of unadulterated examples for collectors, even allowing for melting.

Presumably a penny. Choose your own date, 1806 or 1807.

Probably Henry VI Annulet or Annulet-Trefoil (less likely) issue. The mint will probably be Calais if not London. There are several types of cross used for the initial mark.

Yes but it reads "JACBUS" or "JAOBUS" rather than "JACOBUS". It appears the legend is turned through one complete letter while the portrait is only slightly doubled. Kris Sounds about right given the legend to the left of the mark reads RREX. It just means the last blow only affected the edge of the coin in the 11-2 o'clock region. i.e only a small portion of the die was used as the blow was at an angle to the perpendicular.