Rob

Now you are just showing off! Makes my spreadsheet look like something I done at Playschool! Lots of nice ideas for me to add now, thanks everyone. Like it has been suggested, the good thing about spreadsheets, is the ease of being able to add more columns as I need to. I guess recording the coins you have is all part of the fun of collecting! It's not a question of showing off, rather finding a means of recording the data relevant to your collection in an easily viewable and retrievable manner. As long as you have the ability to sort data, the important consideration is the number of fields you might need to sort. If you don't need to sort data, keep that in a file dedicated to the specific item.

I have two databases. The first is the collection by reference number which links to a file on that specific coin, but also has the denomination, date, description, acquisition date, cost, source, reference (Peck/Freeman/Spink etc), catalogue value (for insurance purposes) and collection note which details the appropriate collection criteria. The second lists the collection criteria together with all the components of those criteria which are person in whose name a coin was struck (including episcopal issues), denomination, metal type, metal provenance, minting process, error/fault, attributed designer, initial or privy mark including overstruck marks, minting location, type examples, sundries and finally too nice to sell even if it means duplication. So for example, there are over 200 rulers or bishops in whose name a coin was struck, or nearly 200 attributed designers. By trying not to duplicate types or designs, it should end up as a nice eclectic mix with a bit of everything encompassing most of the things seen on British coins. Some duplication is inevitable.

He's done well to fairytale a bell out of the foot of the P! I think the 11o'clock'ish legend double-strike is actually showing the upper left-hand component of the V? I'm only making that assumption based on the locations of the double-struck P&O of ferry! Actually, just revisited that reverse...it can't be the V, it's in the wrong place comparative to the P&O, very strange! I think I've got it. The clue is in the right hand leg of the double struck cross. The bell is an offset P which is also not fully struck up and so resembles the side of an A which is the main cause for confusion - I couldn't reconcile AO in the legend and the O could not be the D of ADIVTORE. POSVI is there twice, rotated and displaced outwards to NNW. Detail would help, but hey, when you have an impossible error you must take what comes.

I like this one best.

This guy's lost the plot too. Long cross over bell as a mint mark? 1580 was two years before the first ever issue of a bell marked coin. It is clearly double struck as you can see an O (or similar) or part of one superimposed on the adjacent P along with a couple of other characters in the general area. E1 sixpence. Although it must be due to double striking, I'm struggling to reconcile it to the existing legend on either side.

Just checking through the ebay listings for error coins, it's amazing what is claimed as an error. Here's one that is claimed as an error because GVLIELMVS is correct and as such an error because Spink doesn't list the spelling!! Help me God. GVLIELMVS without error, in error if you see what I mean

A lot of W3 copper varieties are only available in crap. Even after Baldwin's basement was emptied, most remain unobtainable in better than VF with quite a lot fine or a bit better at best.

Nonsense. Yesterday I was congratulated on converting the previous day's anaemic offerings into something really tasty second time round. It was only braised beef though with veggies, and browned mash sealing in all the flavour. Maybe it is me but I think us chaps cook better given the chance.I can't eat Mrs Peter's spag bol without a chop or chicken portion. Her Pork in lemonade as well as her asparagus and kippers will be remembered for the wrong reason.I have also endured dill with a bit of salmon. I often cook on a Sunday with fresh veg,a good cut of meat and plenty of gravy and good wine To be honest, I'm not surprised. An unlikely combination.

Although rarer than 1700 or 1701, 1699 isn't that hard to find an example of, certain varieties excepted. It is a much commoner date than 1698 date in exergue for example which were only struck for a three month period and then not extensively. I agree it isn't a bad example, just a shame about the weakness as you can't be certain what you have without die duplicates to compare.

Nonsense. Yesterday I was congratulated on converting the previous day's anaemic offerings into something really tasty second time round. It was only braised beef though with veggies, and browned mash sealing in all the flavour.

Lot 298 in Norweb pt.1 hammered at £7500. Previously it was obtained from the Seaby's Bulletin for Nov.1957 (7317) where the price was £160. So Mrs. N did ok there (or at least her family did). It is thought there is one other known.

Probably someone experimenting with producing moulds and casting using electrical solder (tin/lead) or some similarly low melting point alloy. You can do it in the oven at home and easily engrave the edge milling too given how soft solder is.

Copper, silver and gold being in the same group of the periodic table share the same basic atomic structure. If you have one metal plated on a different metal of the same group, over time there will be some migration of the two materials into each other under the right conditions. You would not expect this to happen on a large scale and quickly however. If the area of contact was great enough, then it might happen, but coins are hardly a flat surface and so the actual contact points are minimal in relation to the surface areas of the two objects. A solution based explanation seems far more likely. At a bimetallic junction, a voltage is generated - that's how thermocouples work. Voltage generated, circuit made and current will flow, allowing for the migration of atoms within the crystalline structure.

Long tail Q, Davies rev. A Thanks Rob! I was actually just looking at the ones you have for sale, I might go for both types you have on offer. Then I will only have to find the long tail to complete the set! You can have one of those too if you want. Thanks Rob. My coin pocket money is spoken for this week, so I will have to stick with those two for now (along with one of those stock box's I asked about). Will put my order in on Thursday for those 3 items Thanks

Long tail Q, Davies rev. A Thanks Rob! I was actually just looking at the ones you have for sale, I might go for both types you have on offer. Then I will only have to find the long tail to complete the set! You can have one of those too if you want.

Long tail Q, Davies rev. A

No reason to believe it isn't real. The date could have reinforced on the die at some point which would give the same effect. It's pretty dire and difficult to imagine too many people wanting it, despite the rarity of the date. Having said that, it's eBay, so anything could happen.

Not an area that I can help with I'm afraid.

Ok, let's for the moment consider it is a die flaw... So can anyone quote which variety? I have found some fairly close matches but not this exact die. Thanks There are a few options listed in Peck as follows. P687 GVLIELMVS. TERTIVS. BRITANNIA. P693 No obverse stops P693* No stop after GVLIELMVS There are also a number of varieties unrecorded in Peck but which are impossible to ascertain due to the weakness in the legends on both sides. It isn't the reverse die with the abnormally tall unbarred A for the last letter on the reverse. You will have to check very carefully to establish whether the stops are present or not because they can be very weak or filled. I don't have an example from either die to clarify the readings and there is no die duplicate in Nicholson.

moon.c et al have cornered the market in hammered copies.

I'd say it's a die flaw rather than an inverted A. An A was produced almost invariably by using a V and inserting the crossbar manually which usually results in a thin line. The line is also usually lower down the uprights. Your crossbar is somewhat bulbous which leads me to think it isn't a die sinker's error.

That's why patterns hold such an interest for me. So many things that might have been. Patterns are the hidden gems, and frequently cheaper than currency rarities as a bonus.

Not afaik, Rob. The Prestbury (creased) and tun over crown coin I got from Bob Lyall. The latter has a couple of tiny spots of red wax on it, but whether that's of any significance I don't know. He didn't tell me where he got it and there was no ticket. But apart from yours I've only ever seen two others, so I think it's quite rare with this overmark (though obviously, it's not the easiest to spot). Perhaps I should ask more for it? The photographs are frustrating. Our old camera which just eats up battery life is fine. This new one, despite having a supposed macro facility (and the pic looking nice and crisp on the screen) just doesn't produce such sharp images. Grrr. The obverse die is the same as my E2/3 tun with the apostrophe only obverse stops and I had an E2/2 from Mike Vosper a while back from the same obverse but different reverse die to yours. It is the only die I have seen with the point stops missing below the wedge and not recorded as a legend variety by Francis. Mind you, at that time there was only one E2/3 tun known. Now we are approaching double figures for tun with a couple of these tun over crown on the obverse. I just checked the Francis papers and the one with the wax wasn't illustrated, but is probably worth keeping and doing further research in this department. I also sold a tun over crown both sides last month from different dies. Obv.

Any of these wih a provenance worth having? I sympathise with the problems of getting decent images - I've just spent a full evening trying to get images to upload to the site and managed a total of 6 sort of acceptable ones, though not all fully focussed. I don't understand how it can focus on one side of the coin and then when you turn it over, defocus the other side. The flash converts an FDC proof into a severely defaced dog of a coin too. Tempted to revert to scans, or better still not bother with the site. Particle physics and chemistry is a darned sight easier than photography. Humph.

Bizarre. Text-speak in the 1600s or is it modern?