Rob

Knowing that it has been repaired I would say so in any description. The coin was practically as struck with a large scratch/scuff to the cheek. Now it is practically as struck with a repaired scratch/scuff to the cheek. Ironically, it is probably one of the rare instances where a repair wouldn't matter as the coin is unique, or at least I'm 99.9999% certain it is. As it happens, I paid more for the one with a scratch than I did for a different variety without. In these circumstances it all boils down to whether you want the coin badly enough. The price you are prepared to pay is somewhat flexible as a result. My bone of contention is the indifference of the TPGs. A $20-30K coin brings in big fees, and it wouldn't be good to offend such a good customer by refusing to grade it.

'Gotten' is Old English and perfectly acceptable (and correct) usage to an American. I think it sounds nice. I've gone and gotten me a dictionary Yippee. A Jockinese to English translation service, specially adapted for the Ayephone.

Like the five figures somebody in the US spent on the gold halfpenny I formerly owned. Just because the heavy gouge was repaired and smoothed over, it suddenly became eligible for slabbing as a Proof 64 Cameo by NGC as opposed to XXXX details, scratches/environmental damage or whatever reason they would give for refusing to grade. Or maybe they just turn a blind eye to certain favoured individuals if the repair job is good enough? I'm sure repair work goes on all the time, with the best jobs going undetected and the TPGs indifferent as long as the repair work isn't in your face. I saw a piece of hammered gold once with a ticket where the (barely detectable) adjustment to the ticket indicating the coin was pierced was more obvious than the plugging done to repair the coin. The catalogue description for the date on the ticket was immensely helpful here.

I would think that for short runs of a few thousand, the time spent readying the equipment would nearly equal the time spent striking. Unless the coins are struck on an individual basis as orders demand (unlikely in the event of a few thousand), it would seem probable that a single run would suffice and so the numbers ought to be accurate as released to the public. The mint isn't going to produce 20 for Fred and 50 for Joe followed by a wait for the next order to materialise as the production run is likely to have been set long in advance with orders taken prior to production. There may be a slight discrepancy between numbers struck and the official mintage as I would expect them to produce sufficient numbers to cover the allotted mintage. i.e official total plus a few to cover any mistrikes. This would ensure only one striking period was required. Any excess can be returned to the pot. This would be the most cost effective method of producing proofs or commemorative issues.

Unlikely. You had nearly three years of fine silver output at the end of Ed. VI when every attempt was made to restore the silver quality to the original standard. Just leave it and move on.

I don't see anything that screams wrong, but I don't have a database of Mary groat dies to compare. The weight is light at 18% down but you can allow for some loss from the scrapes and wear - say 5%. The question therefore is what would the normal weight range be? The three examples in Brady were 1.91g, 2.12g & 2.12g, so on that statistically insignificant basis +/-5% ish around the theoretical 2.01g. If you aren't happy don't buy it. It doesn't have any redeeming features anyway, other than as a gap filler.

The withdrawn one has this design Not many out there. That's probably to be expected because they appeared in the first release packaged issue and not the general issues to banks for circulation. A genuinely circulated example is probably very rare given most if not all of these will have been bought at above face value.

If you alone have seen 2-3 then there must be MANY more than the "two known" which they claim! If the estimate is based on that spurious claim, then they are being a bit naughty. That's the catch/beauty of TPGs. Once you build credibility, then your word becomes gospel. It's in their interest to build a myth whereby they are the definitive arbitor of the total numbers extant. That's why the 1901 penny slabbed MS66 made $600. My example, which may or may not have made that grade or even exceeded it cost me £2.21. Do I care? All of these populations require a several decades long due diligence period. Find a rarity or a previously undiscovered variety and then suddenly the whole world has one.

The withdrawn one has this design

Why back to 1672 only? If you went there, it would surely make more sense to encompass all milled coinage. There is life outside of copper.

Something a bit more mundane for you chaps, if you can help. If anyone has examples of Henry IV & V pennies, I would appreciate any images available. I picked up this better than average example of a York local dies Henry V (S1791)on the bay this weekend. A few questions occur to me. First, do all the examples of this type have an annulet in the reverse legend? Second, do any other non-local dies York pennies attributed to these reigns have an annulet in the reverse legend, irrespective of whether there is an annulet in the CIVI quarter between the pellets which is supposedly restricted to the type G? Third, the marks beside the crown are given as mullet to the left and lis to the right. I can see the lis is correct, but the mullet is a bit odd. Although double struck, there is no way I can reconstruct a normal 5 armed mullet. The best I can do is a cross with a central pellet, but not in a void. This may be an overstrike. Thoughts anyone. Thanks. Obverse:

What was the rationale for attributing this to Henry IV as opposed to Henry V? I'm not saying it is wrong, just that it is difficult to make out the defining detail such as broken annulets etc which is the main method of classification and attribution. The quatrefoil in the centre of the reverse is common to both reigns.

That's what I thought at first, but the top left arm is a bit messy and so eventually decided it was probably a saltire. Definitely not a mullet though. That's why I could do with some more images to see if it clarifies the situation.

24th March 1603 is 24th March 1602/3 old style. New Year's Day was 25th. The use of dual systems where not clearly indicated can seriously mislead until you realise what is meant.

The reverse has a clear annulet after TAS, which being an episcopal mark makes me wonder whether the local dies coinage can be linked to the primacies of either Richard Scrope (1398-1405) or Henry Bowet (1407-1423), or the Sede Vacante period between the two. Reverse:

Double post

In terms of wear there isn't much so about the EF mark is ok, but it has been cleaned given the number of hairlines and the obv. edge nick doesn't help.

A few months ago I listed some dross plus a couple of £30 coins starting at £1 and no bids. Thankfully, the pieces I put on to save the embarassment of having them in the trays at fairs for a fiver max all made double figures. I won on both counts. And before anyone says I've converted to using eBay, no. They were listed by someone else. I still find the results too unpredictable to risk putting quality on. BINs on eBay are a reflection of the number of buyers who will happily spend for England on a dodgy photo or two, but won't buy from dealer's sites because they perceive they are being ripped off.

I've bought BINs on ebay many times. Sometimes people get into eBay final price mode which is frequently under on quality or rarity, but overpriced on the commoner pieces. Know what you are looking for and at and make an educated purchase.

Not a clue unless it's a deformed bell.

The sad thing is that you can put on a £30 or £40 coin starting at 99p and nobody bids, yet list a piece of s**t that would be rejected by most scrap merchants and it sells for pounds. As a seller, the logical thing to do is list it at the price you want plus expenses and forget the auction side of things. In the case of crap you are just happy to shift it. Alternatively, get collectors to buy from dealers at fair value as used to be the case rather than buying exclusively on ebay because there you can pick things up cheaply and have the chance to view in the flesh, or return if not happy. I was going to bid on a coin this weekend. Described as the rarest it was needless to say the commonest, so I informed the seller who was apparently deaf and unable to amend the description. Needless to say it sold based on the inaccuarate description. Funnily enough, the other item listed by the same seller was also described inaccurately and coincidentally as the rarer of the two varieties.

That's because there are probably four realistic options for selling on eBay. Wanting to make money is hardly a heinous crime. 1. BIN at the market rate or BIN with best offer. Accurately and fully described, you would accept the going market rate but take anything in excess of that in the case of the latter. 2. Set a reserve at or about the market rate. Again accurately and fully described. 3. Start rubbish at 99p as seen and let punters make of it what they will. 4. Start at 99p even if way below market value, add a description, cross fingers and hope it makes a realistic price. Emphasis being on the word hope. Of the four, number three is probably the best return on capital. Best offers attracts the speculative bargain hunters. BIN without offer is probably the worst from a seller's perspective whilst number 4 leaves you in the lap of the gods.

Thanks chaps. Coinery to the rescue.

Wonderful magazine even though I haven't bought one for 25 years. My favourite was Buster Gonads and his unfeasibly large testicles. Brilliant.

That's silly. It's in keeping with the mentality of the person who paid many hundreds of dollars for a 1901 penny on the basis it was in the slab with the best number so far. £400 for an unc 1901 is equally stupid, double Spink prices less so, but still OTT.