Rob

As you will be aware, the penny was struck in 3oz 2dwt silver during the reign of Edward VI through to the end of Philip & Mary. Edward VI is stright forward with the London coins bearing the scallop mark and York the pierced mullet, the legends being [CIVITAS] LONDON and EBORACI respectively. The coins of P&M are slightly more complicated. Mint marks are halved rose and castle or castle for the London coins. Pennies (at 3oz fine) were also issued for use in Ireland and bear the rose mark, though were struck in York and read CIVITAS EBORACI. They were struck from called in base coinage of Henry VIII and Edward VI after being further debased. An example of the York penny struck during Ed.VI is below. The London penny of P&M with halved rose and castle looks like this

I'm not sure at all. It's definitely not hammered, probably quite a lot earlier from the look of it. I'm thinking it may be contemporary with Celtic issues, but it would need someone with much more knowledge than I to confirm that. Thank you. Pity I cant change the title to the post to draw more interest. Simon That wouldn't work. The problem is not attracting eyeballs, it's attracting someone who can read the inscription. I'd have a punt and say it's Indian or somewhere in that vicinity, but as to attribution - not a clue.

About VF as I first said. The hair detail isn't the best on many of the small silver issues which makes worn examples look worse than they usually are.

I would hazard a guess at about the VF mark - say £10-15. The pictures are too fuzzy to see the detail.

It is an 1862 threehalfpence which was first issued for colonial use in 1834 and last issued in 1862, though a proof only was made in 1870. 1862 is a better date as the common ones are 1834, 1838,1839 & 1843. The value will depend on the grade for which we would need a picture.

This is the best image I have of one.

These look good. I think Colin is right re the images in Peck and on CC's site. If you look at Cheshire collection lots 2516-8, here you can see that there is general agreement. The possible spanner in the works is the hair detail. Joey's coin looks to be the earlier strike as the 4th ridge in from the right is a continuous line, which it isn't on the 3 lots in the Goldberg sale. That's the only difference I can see. Thoughts anyone?

If it has the same profile, thickness and weight as a 20p, then it is a blank that got through. It should be flat on both sides as the relief is made by the dies. They usually sell for a few pounds at most, so there isn't a fortune to be made, but it's still a nice thing to have.

Surprised? That's why you should always buy the books and then the coins. Most people overpay for items because they haven't done their homework. An ethical seller might list an unc 1967 penny for £1. Less scrupulous people might list the same item for £10, after all, £10 isn't a huge amount of money in this day and age. With a little knowledge, the same £10 might just buy all of the Elizabeth II pennies in UNC once you realise how cheap they are. Would you prefer 8 coins (1953 & 1961-7) for the price of 1 without dropping grades, or not? Silly question probably. A really ethical seller would give BU 1967 pennies away free with other purchases. Will they ever be worth anything? Hm. Not in our lifetimes. Having said that, the earlier Liz II pennies (1961 / 62 / 63) are becoming a lot harder to get in genuine BU. The only really easy ones are 1965 / 66 / 67. I know that, but on the assumption that a business needs to sell things you have to say that everything has a price. The point I'm trying to make is that you have to get a feel for the market and not blindly accept what is presented. This can only be done by research, whether on line or printed is not important as long as it is done. Having done a spot of reading, it wouldn't come as a big surprise to find that some uncirculated coins are remarkably cheap despite being 70 or 80 years old.

Surprised? That's why you should always buy the books and then the coins. Most people overpay for items because they haven't done their homework. An ethical seller might list an unc 1967 penny for £1. Less scrupulous people might list the same item for £10, after all, £10 isn't a huge amount of money in this day and age. With a little knowledge, the same £10 might just buy all of the Elizabeth II pennies in UNC once you realise how cheap they are. Would you prefer 8 coins (1953 & 1961-7) for the price of 1 without dropping grades, or not? Silly question probably.

In this world of information overload I would doubt there being any gems in bulk lots. I have noted Surrey*coins have been selling overgraded polished / dipped coins on Ebay. Iphone underbidder investigations? This is old news. They have been doing so at least since I started using ebay in 2003 and presumably before that too.

i do not understand. Alarm bells should now start to ring. They make their money by selling you the first item and then routinely send you things on approval that they expect you to pay for but are never even close to being value for money. Unless you (or your grandfather) have signed up for a specific number of items and any distance selling cooling off period has expired, then you are under no obligation to take further items. I assume it was your Grandfather who bought the items in question and it is he who will be bombarded with items on approval sent to the contact address given. On the assumption there is no long term contract, I suggest that you write to them (preferably signed for to prove that they have received the letter) or email them asking to be taken off the mailing list, whilst pointing out that you will not be buying any more things on approval from them and that if they send them, they will not be paid for and will be treated as unsolicited goods which you are under no obligation to return. (Unless of course that is, you actually do want to receive them in the future). They rely on people's guilt in not taking up an offer that has so "generously" been made available to them and a lot of people get conned into thinking they have a bargain. This has expanded on the reason why Peter said this was your first mistake. The one thing these people crave is contact details. Randomly sending out gilt pennies to all the addresses in the telephone book would not be cost effective, but selling these items to people with a passing interest in coins is the basis for a business as the material costs are a tiny fraction of the retail price and so you only need a small percentage to take up the offer and make it worthwhile on their part. Taking up the next offer by actually paying for it means you will probably get an expanded and more expensive selection of similarly overpriced tat to choose from soon afterwards. If you really want their items I suggest you buy them in the second hand market as the price will be a fraction of the original. Sorry for the doom and gloom one day into your 15th year, but there are a lot of people on this forum who don't like to see people being ripped off whether it is coins or anything else and these items fit the bill perfectly. Others will echo what I have said and so you would be well advised to post any queries you have for specially packaged or presented items. Use dealers for purchasing single coins. Chris who runs this site is one, and there are a few other members with websites listing coins for sale such as John (argentum...), red riley, ColinG, myself, Michael Gouby (whatever his id is?) etc. not to mention the many more who list items on ebay. Any reputable coin dealer will take back a coin you are not happy with, though for obvious reasons it becomes unhelpful if rejection is the norm and in this case you should drop the dealer.

The key to the high bids is the word bulk. Single lots are easy to stick a value on, but bulk lots aren't unless you are talking bullion and melt values. The bigger the pile of low grade dross, the more likely it is that there will be someone prepared to pay OTT. Modern proof sets go for close to the price that you can sell them at. There is little margin to be made on bulk lot coins because you are caught between the downwards pressure on grade and the increased prices paid by people, many of whom put them on ebay with an inflated grade description and let them ride. In general, I think eBay sellers are the main culprits for the increase in prices realised for bulk lots.

Example please ? Too many to mention, but how about 130 florins of George V and VI (50% silver type plus cupro-nickel) in average circulated condition going at a bit under £500, which with buyers premium plus VAT is around £600. Also large numbers of bulk lots of mostly 20th Century or foreign, going for hundreds of pounds at a time. Many went to the same bidder, who I very much doubt had gone through each lot to find the gems that would turn a profit on these lots. I just found it extraordinary compared to say the prices at one of the specialist coin auctions. Most likly a dealer hoovering up bulk lots but it was difficult to see any easy profits - just a hell of a lot of hard work to turn them out to collectors, whether on eBay or at fairs. It is why I don't bother looking at the bulk items unless I don't have anything else to do. I've spend ages in the past looking at piles of average circulated odds and sods only to find someone was prepared to pay two or three times what I was at the sale. I can't see how anyone can make money on the prices paid for the 20th century bulk lots. Earlier than that there is definitely an age premium, but less than 100 years old and you have to be lucky to find anything of much value.

It was a nice one, hammered at £230 + 18% premium. In that grade the winner had to be a collector. A dealer would struggle to make much on it.

Restrikes are plain edge whereas this piece clearly has some edge graining. A clear image of the edge would establish what it is we are looking at. Taylor acquired the RENDER collar for the halfpennies, but this was worn out and so the metal was forced out between the gaps on the few restrikes struck with the collar. Other than these, all known are plain edge. Taylor had a problem with his plain edge collars, or at least with the halfpenny one, as it was prone to opening up during striking leading to double struck pieces with the detail frequently rotated by a few degrees and vertical tell-tale marks crossing the edge at the point where it opened. I can't say much about his farthings as I only have one example - a P1285.

I'm not totally convinced yet. Reasons being: 1. The G at 2 o'clock looks weak at the base. If a proof, this would suggest a later striking, but could also suggest a filled currency die. 2. The shoulder detail on Britannia shows clearly on the Peck plates for the reverses of KF14 & 15, but doesn't show on KF13. This could be bad image reproduction but needs to be borne in mind. 3. The rock detail below the shield at the right looks weak compared to the plate image of KF13, 14 & 15. If point 2 applies, then the rocks on the plate would also be expected to be a bit weak. 4. The olive branch looks weak on the leaves and the bit below the hand looks to have worn away somewhat. This could be a later striking from a polished die, though the leaves on KF14 & 15 are detached, so this rules them out. 5. The middle trident prong on the plate impinges on the angled bar of the N which it doesn't on your coin. Colin Cooke's piece matches the Peck plate despite being a grotty image. 6. The right hand prong looks considerably smaller than the KF13 image and so further away from the N. I can't make out whether the hair detail is right. Don't rule it out, but check very carefully. The edge should be diagonal cuts in the centre of the edge and not in a deep groove. That appears to be ok in the image, but should be the first check. Forget the 6/7, but if a flaw, it wasn't on any of the obverse dies recorded by Peck. The jury is out at the moment.

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.