Rob

I would say the straight 1888 is at least x10 rarer. Pricewise though maybe only 3 or 4 times the normal. Many people don't realise it exists, and not being in the books means you are fighting an uphill battle to get a lot of buyers to appreciate or accept it. As for the second, I haven't a clue.

Here is where the crescent and fingertips show. The tun is sat on top of the mess which is presumably due to too much reworking of this area. A die link to a crescent marked obverse would be good, but you can never exclude a partially, but seriously recut die such as is found in the case of the Charles I Worcester shilling obverses C & D, and also the Rose and Lis marked Worcester groat obverse.

There isn't one. I'm afraid it's a Captain Oates moment. I've just embarked on cataloguing the imaged hammered gold and Saxon/Norman pennies in the library. I am going to restrict it though, to VF or better unless it is rare for the mint/type etc. On the subject of the above coin, I had listed it on the site, but nobody bought it because it was too messy and not particularly attractive despite the nice tone. That's why I made the effort to decipher the mess. Initially I had thought it was just a tun over hand, but to the left of the finger tips is the left horn of a crescent. First one I've seen, but it meant another line in the collection criteria database.

Here's an interesting obverse die. Never going to win a beauty contest, but the obverse mark is tun over hand over crescent and the reverse is dated 1592. This die must therefore have been in intermittent use for at least 3 years.

How do they get away with it. Because people (like yourself) buy what's on offer. If nobody bought, the problem might just go away or at least reduce in volume. If 75% out of a bag of 100 pieces of crap sells for even £3-4 each, the chances are that represents a profit of a couple hundred quid. As a seller, that's a no brainer.

No missing colon. It looks like there is a faint pimple where the lower stop should be. Given the low grade of the coin it is almost inevitable that what was probably a weak feature in the first place can only degenerate further.

Midnight oil is the best lubricant. Available from all good and understanding wives.

Is this reply in the right thread should it be in a parallel universe? What has wine, steak, a couple pints and the Midland got to do with a forecast for 2013? Sorry, confused.

There is nothing to stop you getting a £30K coin. If your collection is worth £50K, then sell it and buy the £30K coin with the proceeds. The problem most people have when they say they can't afford a large value coin is that they factor in the existing collection as having no realisable value. The problem in reality is one of attachment to what they already have or a fear of selling out too cheaply. If times get hard, I would say a £30K coin will be easier to shift than £30Ks worth of me too coins. A £30K coin isn't going to become a £30 coin the minute you buy it. You just have to take the plunge.

I used to see one in my change every time I visited Thatchers.

I always liked the basic concept of the business. Drive up, reverse back through the gate on the right for 20 yards past the lean-to that acted as a cash point to the building overhang where the barrels were kept outside. Staff and yourself both pouring if the quantity required was large with a pint or two while you were waiting. Dry, medium or sweet as the options, gallon or 5 litre containers when they changed over to metric and no marketing crap. Although I prefer dry, I always bought some sweet and let them sit to ferment further. A dangerous situation ensued if you didn't release the pressure. I had two footballs that exploded over the years.

It's over 10 years ago since I last went in. Turned up once and they were shut - disaster. Not to worry though, I just used emergency services and went to the farm on the other side of the road and down a bit.

Lucky b****r. I had to drive to Thatchers. I always used to go and fill the van up on trips home before it became too commercial - 60 or 70 5 litre containers on every run at less than a couple quid each. Much easier to fit in the van than the 144 gallon barrels they had there in the barn. Taste as much as you wanted. Wonderful. It's all gone to pot now they've gone national and exported it outside the local area. The little family business is no more.

Port and kippers? Euwww. Peck you should go for it.Everything cancels out for an afternoon lovefest. This really is TMI, Peter! Depends. Could be a sales pitch. Double port and kippers anyone?

With the exception of the half sovereign there is nothing of value. As to collectability, that is up to you. If you want to start collecting in depth, you first have to decide on what you like. Your focus will change over time, and there is no right or wrong. For obvious reasons it will be easier to find British material than foreign, but the latter tends to be much cheaper reflecting the lower demand. Junk bins such as you find on market stall would be a major source of foreign coins. At the end of the day it is up to you.

1926 halfcrowns suffered a similar fate with the No Colon variety, as I recall! Also 1961 halfcrowns "E.F. designer initials missing reverse" - I bought an example of this in 1978, but at no great premium, so I'm not downcast! However, there are clear cut 'no stop' varieties which aren't blocked dies - the 1787 shilling comes to mind. Even then a spanner gets thrown in the works because the no stops at date reverse die ends up with the first adjacent stops on both sides blocking to produce a 'no stops at date and in the immediate vicinity' variety!

In the overall context of a collection it is unlikely to have much effect as very few people have a collection that could be counted on their fingers. For any single coin in a collection, when the time comes to sell, it may or may not recoup the amount paid. Collections should be looked on as a whole rather than as individual pieces and accordingly will only register a loss if coins are routinely bought way in excess of current market values. A balanced or diverse collection will probably increase in value over time as long as long as the bottom doesn't fall out of the market across the board. With the exception of Scott , we all overpay for something along the way. The key to building a collection that will hold its value is to only do this occasionally.

Mmmm. Blue cheese.

I think you are on the right line, coincidentally the only other year that saw this number of overdates/reuse of dies was 1848, and the same numbers were in use as well 3, 6 and 7 In the case of 1848 there was a lot of concern regarding die longevity which was documented in the mint records. Whatever the reason for this may have been, it is the most likely reason for the 1848 overdates. In the case of 1858 the reason may well have been a delay in the bronze coinage. Quite a lot of the 1857 and 1859 patterns display laminating flans, suggesting they were struggling to get conditions right for the new thinner flans. A further consideration may be that they were using up old dies before being forced to cut a new obverse. It is in 1858 that the no WW bust is introduced. WW died in 1851, so obviously couldn't have produced a new bust punch in 1858, but without any initials on it, do we know whether the no WW bust punch is the old one refurbished or a new one that is practically identical to the WW below? Anyone?

You've included several alloys there Rob - shouldn't the "Silver 0.500" be amended to show the various compositions of silver alloy used from 1920 to 1946 (and 1986)? Probably, but that is a research project in itself given there was usually little or no controls over the purity of the additives. I have used the nominal finenesses as proclaimed or indentured in the case of the precious metals. Any trials in lead or tin are likely to have varying degrees of the other element as impurities, but there would likely be no strictly adhered to specification for metals such as this. Metals other than those indicated in the indentures are therefore quoted as observed with no regard for the accurate percentages. I could probably add a couple more for the variation in bronze during the war and immediately afterwards. Even in the case of some nominally sterling standard silver issues there was variation in the fineness, for example, the Civil War coinage was never pyxed although an attempt appears to have been made to retain the standard. In practice though, this was variable as different prices were paid for touched and untouched plate, but you can rest assured that all the silver brought in would be used. The figures for York halfcrowns analysed by Besly (BNJ 1984) show that the purity of the silver varied from 91.1% to 93.2% with varying amounts of copper, gold and lead together with other traces in the mix. Touched silver could be melted and used without assay, but other silver needed to be refined. The figure higher than 92.5% was probably due to the inclusion of ducatoons or similar in the raw material, as these were 0.940 pure.

These are the metals from which coins have been struck in this country that I've identified so far to be included in the collection. METAL TYPE Aluminium Aluminium-Bronze Antimony - Probably doesn't exist. Freeman gives P2114 as Sn/Pb 2:1 Barton's Metal Billon Brass Bronze Bronzed Copper Brown Gilt Copper Cadmium Copper Copper/Brass Copper/Nickel-Zinc Copper plated Steel Cupro-Nickel Gilt Copper Gold Gold 20c (0.8333) Gold 22c (0.916) Gold 23c (0.9583) Gold Fine (0.979) Gold Fine (0.992) Gold Fine (0.994) Gold Fine (0.995) Iron Lead Nickel Nickel-Brass Palladium Pewter (various alloy ratios) Phosphor Bronze Platinum Potin (Cu/Tin alloy) Silver 0.999 fine Silver 0.958 fine Silver 11oz3dwt (Ed.VI) Silver 0.925 fine Silver 0.921 fine E1 5th iss Silver 0.916 fine (11oz) Silver 0.833 (Ed.II) Silver 9oz2dwt Silver 8oz2dwt Silver 6oz2dwt Silver 0.500 Silver 4oz2dwt Silver 4oz Silver 3oz2dwt Silver Plated Copper Steel Tin Zinc

Oooh! Real James Bond stuff! Snap open the Calcium, drop it in water and stand well back! I think you mean Caesium.

Thanks John. May as well and stick it all in the mix. I think the main point to be taken from this so far is that the flawed die where the line runs through the base of the digits is unambiguously the same on quite a few coins, all of which have been previously considered 8/3, but based on my example would not appear to be. The varying states of the last digit also show that you can get the impression to a greater or lesser extent that there could be an underlying 3. On the two images posted above by John, the line flaw clearly links the die, but the inside loops of the 8 show curves which would be compatible with a 3(?)!. My coin, which doesn't show any sign of what could be a 3 is presumably a different state of disintegration of the filled digit. The problem is compounded by a choice of methods whereby the die can degenerate. You can have detail that can be progressively blocked with time, but you could also have a filled die where the material used gradually comes away. You could also have subsequent infilling of the areas where bits have fallen off the filler - ad infinitum! It beggars beleif that the die could be filled with a piece of metal that was exactly the same shape as that of the digit on the die and so we must consider the possibility that the die was filled using material that was probably the best achievable fit, but that this may have been repeated a few times until no more material could be added. A variation on this theme would be to force a soft piece of metal that was slightly larger than the hole into it using a vice or similar, polish it down level with the field and then reharden the die. All options considered, that could potentially result in any apparent shape you care to mention at any point in time depending on the integrity of the material used as filler. The angled lump superimposed on top of the 5 on my coin is consistent with a smaller digit and ties in with the top of the 7 as regards alignment. I've not seen this elsewhere, but reinforces the argument that what appears to be the top of a smaller 7 is correct. It is also a logical and well documented overdate known from a few dies.

And under the microscope from a different angle

different colour and contrast