Rob

Weren't there some sheep mintmarks (at least one) on hammered coins? The closest you come is woolpack. I guess with a badly flawed die you could end up with an additional head, 4 legs and a tail, but I'm not sure the coin would be very attractive. Dragon, greyhound, ostrich head, boar's head, crowned leaopard's head, lion, swan, martlet and Everson's 'turtle' are the only animal marks.

BAAA??????????? At the risk of lurching off at a tangent, I've got a GODESBRAND ON BA penny. No sign of a sheep on it though.

The top one looks to be a short cross Class 5c, WAL[TER ON]LV, so London. Bottom left is difficult, but possibly class 8 based on the waisted shape of the N which is about the only identifiable letter. ND at the end of the reverse legend suggests LVND (London). Bottom right looks to be long cross type 5a or 5b based on the wedge tailed R. The moneyer is probably [DA]VID, so London

Looks like I must have been eliminated in the past. Seriously though, you can see why people list junk - if it is going to sell anywhere, it is on ebay. Before I stopped selling on ebay a few years ago I listed a fairly low grade 1882/1H 1d, say no better than nVF. It made nearly £60 despite being described as such. An 1846 1d, good fine at best, made £66 despite my feeling embarassed to even consider listing it. Flat discs that sell for £1 - WHY?? A pair of QEII crowns sold. They may have been mint state, but when you sell these you think the good times will never end and it gives an incentive to try even harder.

I actually rate the Cromwell reverse quite highly. I like the subtle difference in shield shape and the design with its stippled decoration which was a characteristic of Thomas Simon's work. Though for a parliament that had abolished the monarchy less than a decade previously, the reintroduction of a crown above the shield seems a little strange and smacks of hypocrisy. A clear case of "The King is dead. [hopefully people have short memories] Long live the King".

Splendid! The only other coin I've seen with this error has had what people on ebay call good honest wear. In other words, it's a complete mess! (see here:) Yours looks much better and the overstriking error makes it even more interesting. Your earlier photo isn't very high definition but I'd hazard a guess that it is a die duplicate of this detector find as the obverse looks a close match too . Have you any plans to add to your Charles I shilling collection? Your coin has the C & R over an inverted C & R, so presumably the correction was made after the shield had been punched into the die, this being the simplest remedy. Below is another of this type with the C punched over an inverted R, but no sign of the R being over an inverted C and as you can see from a different die to yours. For the record, the reverse only is also portcullis over harp, so this die may also appear on a harp shilling.

Spink reference numbers for Charles I tower silver changed a few years ago, so you are probably both right but not singing from the same hymnsheet. I'm on holiday at the moment, so don't have the references to hand, but anyone with a curent Spink can answer the question as the former numbers are in brackets. The die axis can be anywhere from 0 to 359 degrees.

Crucial error. Look at the mintmarks used during the reign at the beginning of each section in Spink. It's a scallop. Sunburst was current only in the reign of Henry VIII and is thought to commemorate the birth of the future Edward VI. For silver, only the groat is even vaguely common with this mark. Smaller denoms are rocking horse poo rare with e.g one penny known in the post war period and only 3 halfpennies known at the same time. The numbers might have doubled by now. Don't even think about a sunburst.

Looks like 1673 as there is no clear sign of a 2 for 3/2. V QVINTO wouldn't apply to 1675/3 because the regnal year was V.SEPTIMO

I concur with the above argument and think this is a constructive spanner. Any die 39 with a clear WW should I think be conclusive. It is worth noting that Davies doesn't list a highest die number for no WW and stop after date, which suggests he may not have seen one, but could also potentially imply that there was no die number visible either if he did see one. I suspect that the absence of a die number means the former and that the entry was made based on its prior recording in ESC. ESC lists die 62 as the highest die number for no WW, but has a stop after date. This is not on your list above, but surely this list must have been compiled post Rayner's book if it was listed in the 1970 standard catalogue and the B4 number was taken from the ESC classification? Spink simply list the date and not whether there is a stop after or not, so we can be reasonably certain that it refers to the ESC entry. A die 62 obverse picture would be very helpful here.

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question. Lol, Rob you're talking to the wrong man about Hocking and emails to RM, i don't even know what/who Hocking is, i'm assuming someone like Davies and Rayner etc. Hocking listed the contents of the RM museum in two volumes. vol.1 in 1906 listed the coins in the collection, vol.2 in 1910 listed the dies, medals and seals. This was an update to Webster's 1874 compiliation. It might be a good time to email the mint because Graham Dyer who was the curator but is now retired has been working there part time in the past few months, or at least he was there 6 weeks ago. He was researching Hocking recently as he contacted me about some correspondence between Hocking, Lawrence and Lincoln relevant to my Weyl patterns (he was one of the referees). He is also a very learned person about all things milled from the RM and best of all very helpful because it is right up his street. Send an email to the mint asking the question. Don't put Kevin Clancy's (the current curator) nose out of joint by addressing it directly to GD, so suggest you send in an email by the regular channels. If there is any useful material, he would send you pictures foc as he has always been good like that. He likes people that do research.

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question.

Thinking out loud, I think there is a good chance the bust too low type of die is what is most likely to be a no WW. If you think of the number of obverse dies that were produced, clearly the number of matrices would be a lot less. As the WW is optional decoration, its presence is not important, but the die number was important as a control, otherwise there would be no point in engraving it. So as in the case of die 39 where the die number crosses the truncation, it is obvious that the die number was punched in manually. Unfortunately, the only obverse matrix listed by Hocking in the RM museum (vol.2 no.1274) is listed as reading MDCCC, but this is the one reading BRIT and so we can't assume that the one reading BRITT was identical, but it is reasaonable to assume that WW should have been common to all. If the bust was punched in too low on one, then there is an argument for the WW to be missing in that instance. Whilst it is always easy to blame a filled or worn die for weak or missing characters simply because you see so many examples, there is also a case to be made for it not having been there in the first place. On the assumption that the BRITT matrix only had MDCCC too, any images of a die 39 in whatever condition and whatever year might help. Or indeed, any obverse with a similarly low bust what ever the die number.

ESC 1154, not 1152. It hasn't necessarily been tooled, though the hair detail does look sharper than normal.

Agreed. So it's another type B5. It seems strange that a major London auction house would make such a mistake. ESC is pretty clear that type B4 has 48 arcs. Not at all. Numismatics is littered with mistaken attributions, incorrect listings and the like. Look at the number of incorrect slabs out there. e.g. Hus got his 1844 third farthing from me. It was slabbed as a half. I will happily buy 1844 thirds slabbed as halves for the price of the latter all day long. Freeman acquired his unique F689A from Spink because they had it down in the Circular as a P2002. It's a totally different design, and when graded by NGC they attributed it as a P1983 which is still wrong, because the leaves on the reverse go in the opposite direction. I acquired my 1675/3/2 1/2d for a bargain price because it was listed in a London Coins sale catalogue as MS64 despite the label reading MS65. As it happens, it was the highest graded 1673 halfpenny at NGC, but it still didn't mean they got the date right which was obviously 5/3 without even resorting to a magnifying device. The reality is that virtually every sale catalogue has a list of notices correcting mistakes. Some sales are worse than others.

Rayner had a very close relationship with Harry Manville, and I have heard several opinions from different sources that he had a significant say in the variety and rarity attributions. The problem as ever is one of sufficient research material because you can't acquire statistically significant numbers of every silver coin from 1649 to the present day for both financial and practical reasons. Herein lies a sensible reason for a degree of trepidation when trying to compile an accurate reference volume.

I would say it has been listed as such since 1949 when Rayner first compiled ESC. The B1,2 etc goes up to B9. B4 must have been there from the beginning as you wouldn't leave a gap in anticipation of a bust waiting to be dicovered the date was already covered elsewhere. It has been listed as extremely rare since at least 1987. The only copy I have prior to that is 1970 which gives prices of Fine £10, VF £30 and EF £75.

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5. Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies. I have found a reference to what may be a type B4 florin. DNW auction 8 Oct 1999, lot 1072 "Florin, 1877, stop after date, no WW, die 6 (ESC 847-R3; S 3893). Almost as struck, very rare". However, it doesn't mention the number of trefoils, so it may not be 48. Unfortunately, there is only a small picture of the reverse on their website and I don't have any DNW auction catalogues that early. 9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5. Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies.

I haven't found a good image, but did find this one ESC 847 Well straight away its wrong, ESC 847 is dot after date and they're quoting S3894........So unfortunately..............Also S3894 is UNLISTED in ESC No, that's one of the things we are looking for. The description is ESC 847var, S3894. The var makes the statement that it best fits ESC 847 but isn't quite the same. 847 has stop after date, that one doesn't, so is what we are looking for if it is genuinely no WW as opposed to a filled die, but the image isn't good enough. It still doesn't overcome the problem of a high grade version of Azda's die though. S3894 is type B4, so it is listed in ESC but only with stop after date.

Yes, that's another of the differences. Also there are a few minor differences in the ribbon immediately above the date (no fold on the left, thicker strand on the right). I'm impressed by your knowledge of Hocking! I can see myself getting around to asking them in around two years time LOL. I didn't know the references off the top of my head, just that Hocking contains the list of items in the RM museum as of 100 years ago. The big leap forward was learning to read about 50 years ago.

Another alternative approach might be to ask the RM museum for images of Hocking ref. 1394, 1395 & 1396 which are matrix, punch & die for the issue. Chances are it won't be the same, but there is an outside chance. I was going to say is it 7 over 6, but unless the crown has been filled and recut, this would have to be rejected. Looking at the image which seems a bit Heath Robinson ish, it could be a die produced at the beginning of the issue as a trial which was good enough to use as a production tool because there must have been a lot of pressure on the mint to get the revised reverse 6ds into circulation. A day saved in making a die is a lot of extra coins made. One more thought, the border teeth look a bit thinner than the usual ones. Any mileage in checking these on other coins. They look suspiciously like the teeth on the withdrawn type which would add credence to a trial piece.

That's my whole point Rob. It's NOT a "minute difference". It's a bloody huge glaring "twice as big as normal" spacing. And I'm not one of your perpetual hopefuls ("Oh I'll post it at predecimal and show everyone that yet again I've got a massive rarity and soon I'll be famous"). I've STUDIED as many of those wreath reverse 1887 JH heads as I can lay my hands on, or through enlargements on eBay, and I can assure you, the spacing of that issue is pretty standard. Except for this one. I do not buy the "there are variations all over Victoria's reign" - not after the early 80s when the methods of production changed and as we all know from the bun penny (and all other) output from then on, there is a remarkable consistency compared to what went before. Anyway, that wasn't my main point. My main point was and is - all other varieties here cause an outburst of interest, enthusiasm and back-slapping congratulations. I don't see why my poor sixpence can't elicit a fraction of that instead of the wet blanket treatment. I've been suffering that with halfpennies for years. I think the prior sentence is the preserve of the penny enthusiasts. Sad, but true.

The problem with all these production variations as opposed to actual design variations is that they are an open ended can of worms. Minute differences in the spacing of the last digit or two have a definite place in the list of varieties for the specialist who drills down to the level of identifying individual die characteristics, but for your average punter it doesn't matter a jot as they will be for the most part satisfied with a relatively obvious difference in the overall design. Wide date, narrow date, or for the flat disc collectors out there, any visible date or no date. Young portrait/older features or whatever, it all depends on how clear it is at a glance. Double cut letters as a result of reinforcing a worn die or making an old blocked one serviceable will result in yet another variety, but as has been said before, to create the interest you need to publish something because that work will act as the reference to define the variety. 1887's interest in the date is a rare example of the detailed study that needs to be done if all of these microvarieties are to have any relevance. I wish him well in his endeavours, as the mint's voluminous output for this year would test the patience of the most ardent researcher. But if he doesn't complete it and nothing gets published, then ..... back to square one. I've got a coin with a double cut 8 and a 7 that's ......... To get back to the original point of this thread, what is needed is a clear image of a high grade die 39 coin with WW clearly visible or not so that we can say for certain if the die is the same one and the WW is hidden or not. At the moment we collectively appear to be p*****g in the wind as nobody is able to come up with conclusive proof one way or the other. Does anybody have a good image of an attested B4 florin? Both these are required if we are to settle this attribution.

In other words, only "one between two" for every inhabitant of Britain. Oh dear, a lot of people are going to go without. I won't deny you Peck.You can have my half I won't hear of such unselfishness Peter - I insist that you have it None of you will have it. I got it in my change this morning. Must put it on ebay asap. Very rare, could be unique, never seen one before. £1000 BIN or best offer. Where's the prat emoticon when you need one?