Rob

There will be rare die numbers, but the only person likely to know them is(are) the nerd(s) who made a full listing of appearances in sales. It will not add value unless you can find two people both in need of the same die number. Date rarity versus condition will determine the price paid. Most die number collectors trawl through piles of dross given the potential size of a complete collection and rarely want to spend more than a few pounds i.e.melt.

He's even got a misprunt on his eBay id. 'thewinnertakesiall' should surely be 'thewinnertakesfall'

Hmm, not sure. There is some damage to the edge of the coin at that point, but superficially it does look like 'L' upside down. There is an I over V variety, and it could be that what looks like the horizontal stroke of the L could be an extended serif of the top of a V joining the serif on the I. Do be aware that there are many lettering errors on William coins due to the scale of the Great Recoinage going on, and the low priority afforded to copper. I over V in TERTIVS is probably the most unambiguous of the legend errors as it is clear all the way down the grades. It is also 1700 and not 1699. This is the Peck plate coin for P702. Apologies for the crappy photography - the camera was in autodefocus mode however hard I tried.

It's a bit dark to say, but the pit immediately next to it makes an id difficult. Pitting, corrosion lumps etc make false identification easy. Please post lighter pictures if possible. Thanks. William III copper is littered with legend errors, so it's not impossible, just that the quality of the strike and the typical condition of the coins leads a lot of people to see errors where they don't exist. This is particularly relevant on ebay where every other coin seems to be a 'rare, unrecorded variety', so start out as a sceptic and be prepared to change your mind.

Ok, what do you think of this theory.. We know that milled technology goes back to Elizabeth I but was initially rejected - violently - by Mint workers who thought it would put them out of a job. Also, it was apparently noticeably slower at producing coins in the early days. What if "finework" coins where quality counted for more than speed as only a very few specimens would be produced, were milled rather than hammered? This seems even more likely with Briot's issues, as his milling presses were introduced to the Mint in this reign. What I'm saying is, that BM example looks too high quality to be hammered, and it looks in all respects identical to the milled issue. Although regarded as a hammered coin because the currency strikes were indeed still hammered, the finework specimens could have been milled, yes? Don't know at the moment, but if so you would expect the flan to be of even thickness throughout. Gut feeling is still no because the flans are still not perfectly round and were produced at times other than when Briot was making his milled coinage (e.g. James I). There is also a degree of excess metal which is not normally seen on either Briot or Mestrelle coinage. I think it quite likely that the flans were cut out using a circular punch as was the case certainly in the case of Saxon pennies.

It's banter one that causes all the grief.

Yup, but some bloke called British (who apparently owns a museum) has it. Museum Reg GHB.582 HSBC.1361 Location G68_12_33 AN356726001 I'm guessing it's the best of the known examples and a bit nicer than the Fitzwilliam coin (below). Although if anyone happens to have one like the Fitzwilliam coin, I would be prepared to compromise and give it a home. It would be interesting to know where the BM coin came from. It must have been there a long time because the Fitzwilliam has the Montagu piece and he would have acquired the BM one no question had it been available. The Fitwilliam's is ex Henderson, Dimsdale, Durrant, Cuff, Bergne, Brice and Montagu, so goes back to the early 1800s. I don't know who bought it at the Montagu sale, but a good bet would be J S Henderson, who had a habit of buying very nice coins and whose collection was left to the Fitz along with most of his library.

Can't help wondering if this is part of that strange phenomemon associated with the internet where people seem to get overly aggressive and abusive at a distance, yet are mild mannered face to face. Forums are littered with such examples. On the PCGS forum the world coins section is always praised for being a haven of civility, whereas the US section is usually mentioned for being its antithesis.

I was lucky. The listing mentioned it was from "an important collection of English coins" so I did an auction search but didn't see anything recent. The Bole collection of sixpences was next (the DNW listing is still online) and when that turned up nothing, on a whim I looked in Brooker (Coins of Charles I, The John Brooker Collection, volume 33 of the Syllogue of Coins of the British Isles, by J.J. North & P.J. Preston-Morley, London 1984) and there it was with the provenance above. Where it's been since the Brooker coins were sold I don't know. Maybe Rob might be able to track it? As to the dealer, I've seen his ebay listings before, but don't know anything about him I'm afraid. Andy Holds has a sensible grip on munismatics and is ok. I was chatting to him yesterday at the Midland. I've known him since St.James's 3 (2005) when he bought a pattern halfpenny because I was asleep and I had to buy it post-sale from him. I had a run in with said Mr Holds about 2 years back when i sold him in auction an 1820 Closed 2 variety Sov. I posted it after he's paid etc and when it did'nt arrive to him in good time he got a little snotty (not that i deliver it to him) A few emails here and there then he opened a dispute then told me i'd better kiss his ass if i did'nt want a negative which he gave me anyway and he got his coin. P***k in my eyes. Oh well, disagreement here then.

LOL Nothing wrong with a diverse collection if that's what appeals. I think Rob's is based on examples from each monarch, but not restricted to particular denominations. And if you can afford to buy quality then I'm sure you'll enjoy your coins and it will ensure a better chance for a reasonable return if you ever wish to sell. In the end there is no right or wrong way to collect. Though obviously I'd recommend doing so in a way that preserves the coins so having the all mounted as jewellery or stuck to a board with araldite wouldn't be my choice. Me, I balance my likes with my limited budget. Plus I prefer my coin trays the same size! But how you collect is .. up to you, as long as you enjoy it and don't have to do anything illegal to fund it! Including an example of each 'Person in whose name the coin was struck' including the episcopal issues, Denomination, Metal type including various finesses, Metal provenance, Minting processes, Minting features, errors/faults, Attributed designer's work, Initial or privy mark, Mint location, Type example (where not otherwise included) and finally, the very important Too Nice to Sell. I try to avoid duplication of the above criteria where possible, though usually fail miserably when the last one is invoked. I have many gaps.

I was lucky. The listing mentioned it was from "an important collection of English coins" so I did an auction search but didn't see anything recent. The Bole collection of sixpences was next (the DNW listing is still online) and when that turned up nothing, on a whim I looked in Brooker (Coins of Charles I, The John Brooker Collection, volume 33 of the Syllogue of Coins of the British Isles, by J.J. North & P.J. Preston-Morley, London 1984) and there it was with the provenance above. Where it's been since the Brooker coins were sold I don't know. Maybe Rob might be able to track it? As to the dealer, I've seen his ebay listings before, but don't know anything about him I'm afraid. Andy Holds has a sensible grip on munismatics and is ok. I was chatting to him yesterday at the Midland. I've known him since St.James's 3 (2005) when he bought a pattern halfpenny because I was asleep and I had to buy it post-sale from him.

Sixpences are probably the most difficult denomination to get in decent grade on account of the fact that they weren't normally hoarded to the extent of shillings and halfcrowns. A quality 6d is always worth buying. I'll have to dig out any provenance. Oops, too late. I started this reply over an hour ago.

Nonsense. Mine was English language - and I got top marks.

I would happily buy said fake. The similarity with the milled Briot issue is explained by the fact he did both.

For shit. Is that correct? Have I passed?

I have emailed him twice. The first time telling him it was a pewter replica. The 2nd time asking him why he hadn't added this to the listing. Reported to ebay who do diddly. I reported it this morning too! He's a 'top' seller with a lot of feedback, bet they ignore it! What really annoyed me about this one was the blatant 'what is it'? You mean he couldn't actually read ELIZABETH on the edge of the coin and, putting two and two together (ie the date), realise it probably isn't Elizabeth II? And another! 170906386505 please do add link please! Link is here: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/170906386505?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_nkw%3D170906386505%26_rdc%3D1 Also reported by me. I cannot believe the earlier one went for £84 and this one is at £30+!!!! WTF are people who clearly know nothing doing bidding on replicas? There should be the equivalent of a driving test or you need to have your IQ checked before joining ebay. Seriously, I don't know whether I feel more annoyed at the sellers ripping people off or that these numpties deserve to get their fingers burned for being taken in. OK, because I'm nice it's obviously the former, but people need to learn before they spend. If I had a couple of ebay accounts to burn I'd relist using the seller's photos and a blistering description showing these things aren't worth more than the couple of ££ they cost at most museums and stately homes. It's now been removed. He even emailed me to say it was tested as silver. Knowing the name of the person who tested it might help too.

i havnt got a clue what you just wrote,havnt heard of nicholson but if it helps will put a pic of full reverse on.thanks for input Basil Nicholson had the most comprehensive collection of halfpennies in recent times, sold via Colin Cooke in 2004. This link goes to the William III section and 122 is the 1699 stop after date. Your coin is not from the same reverse die, but the picture is too dark and the pitting makes it very difficult to say for certain what is in the exergue. A different die doesn't exclude a stop after the date, but the condition of the coin raises questions as to whether any apparent stops are genuine or artefacts arising from corrosion.

Does it match Nicholson 122? i.e. is it from the same reverse die? The image is too dark to tell and it would help if the whole reverse was present.

The second coin I believe was probably struck at Worcester in Jan-Feb 1644/5, while the first was probably struck a few months later after New Year 1645, maybe in late June or July, but also at Worcester.

That is the crucial bit. The only person you have to please is yourself. A 1p coin can give as much pleasure as a £1m coin because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Things can get even more bizarre. First up is a 2d obverse with a 4d reverse. Followed by a 3d obverse with a 2d reverse!

Quarters were only made in 1718 & 1762 for currency plus the 1764 pattern which is also too early. 1790 & 1803 half guineas on their way. Sorry. That should have been 1790 1/2 and 1803 1/3 guineas. Didn't matter though because I couldn't attach them to the email via your contact link in the profile.

Quarters were only made in 1718 & 1762 for currency plus the 1764 pattern which is also too early. 1790 & 1803 half guineas on their way.

Individually all dies are right for a particular moment in time, but people make mistakes. The 1711 3rd bust shilling is the rarest Anne shilling. The 4th bust 1711 is the commonest. Just as engravers pick up the wrong letter and punch it in, so mint workers pick up the wrong die and strike coins until the mistake is noticed. Mules are more common amongst patterns. A good example of this is the large number of impossible die combinations produced by W J Taylor in the 1800s after he acquired the old Soho Mint dies in 1848. Yes, you might pick up an undated 20p in your change.

Mules are where an obverse and reverse die have been paired that don't belong together. The most recent example of this is the undated 20p where the old 20p obverse die was paired with the new 20p reverse to give a coin without a date. If the old reverse had been paired with the new obverse, you would have had a date on both sides. Most mules are a little more subtle than this. So for example, the third issue Queen Anne shilling dated 1711 is a mule because the 4th issue shilling was introduced in 1710. There are quite a few throughout the coinage, but most are rare and you would be unlikely to encounter them. The easiest way to get a mule is an undated 20p (but don't pay more than £30ish).