Rob

I suspect the last 1 was added as extra metal. Whether it was a piece forced into a machined hole and finished to the final shape, or less likely literally stuck on top I don't know. I'm saying this based on a 1905/4 that I have where the added 5 was the wrong shape and some of it has fallen off, so not a good job. The remains of the horizontal bar of the 4 can be seen in the loop of the 5. See below. Incidentally, they also b******d a perfectly good 1904.

I think the obverse die of mine may also be different. It's difficult to say though as the image of your better one is a bit small on my screen.

It transpires that I've got one of these too from the same reverse die, but it may be an earlier strike than yours. You can see the die is getting progressively blocked. On my coin, the legend at 9 o'clock is already blocked on the H & R, but the shield at 12 o'clock is not as blocked as yours on the lower grade piece which has only half of the line around the rampant lion remaining. The weak stop between T & E also appears to be a bit stronger. Having said that, even in the hand, my coin shows the shield up or not depending on the angle of illumination, so it is difficult to say definitively which is the earliest strike of the 3.

I'm not sure whether it is as struck or post-mint. Is the thickness correct? I don't know how they change from a round blank to a heptagonal coin. Is the shape formed by a collar or cut out from the circular blank? The thing that makes me think it might be post-mint is the TWENTY legend which appears to wrap itself over the edge. If the die makes the impression from above, you would not expect it to go around a corner. If this is an illusion and the TWENTY is cut to a consistent depth across the characters, then the blank used was likely wrong and for another type of coin.

1st bust, and looks ok to me. A bit worn and knackered, but genuine.

Very, very interesting. An absolute bargain for £85.00, I'd say. Can't see it being on sale for long. It does look like a narrow date, yes. It also looks genuine. Don't think it is an 1871, possibly an 1874 with the one repunched in the wrong position (mint worker forgot he was working on a mirror image) Now bear in mind pennies are not my thing , but it looks like an altered 4 to me, the serifs on the last one are angled which are completely different to the other 1 in the date. I can also see some difference in shade where the 4 would have been, but I don't know how this would compare to genuine date spacing for this date? Overlays anyone? I think we've established that it can't possibly be a 1871 - so please let's not talk about "probably" or "don't think". It's not! Let's start from what it might be - 1874 at the earliest - and work from there. 1874. Copy it into a program where you can alter contrast and brightness. The LHS of the 4 shows up as a line parallel to the 7 and if you look carefully just on the RHS of the 1 it looks as if there are the serifs of the 4.

When I clicked the link to the Fitzwilliam it gave a blank screen. Does it give the original source of the copies? Any info is always useful. Thinking about it, 1930 is too early for an Asmore, but there have been copies of ancient coins for centuries, so it could be anyone.

Is it an Ashmore copy? It looks too crisp for my liking. It is also almost identical to the BM's example including the offset strikes on the obverse and reverse which can be seen in North vol.1 plate 4/16. However, it is not a direct copy so not the same dies as the BM's as the letter form looks too regular and not quite right. I'm going for an Ashmore as he used the BM's pieces as a template.

I remember about 15 years ago an occasion when my friend had a documentary film all about window cleaners and window cleaning. There was a really catchy riff playing throughout which I couldn't help humming every time I saw his better half.

It's difficult to think of anything less appropriate than an advert for cleaning on a coin forum. We don't clean anything round here, do we?

It depends on the size. A halfpenny is just under 30mm diameter, the farthing is 23mm ish. Both figures are not exact because there was no collar used to restrain the coin from spreading when struck. It could be either denomination if 1737, but only a halfpenny if 1747 as no farthings were struck in 1747 or 1748. If you can't make out the date, it is unlikely to be in good condition and worth very little. If it is a contemporary counterfeit it could also be dated 1757 (or 1747 for that matter).

The bidding increments on this lot at Plymouth were a lesson for those trying to throw off the opposition. It got to £30K with the winner in £1K steps, then it went £30,500, then £31K, then £31,500, then the killer blow by the winner calling out £32,500 rather than going £32K. It may have been to ensure that the winner used up every bit of leeway he had or not, I don't know, but it gave the desired result as the underbidder passed.

Small spot just in front of the nose, thumbprint on the reverse, the green(?) crud on the shield and at the first A. The toning streaks to both sides are not what you would expect on a bronzed proof either, as normally you would be looking for a smooth, even colour. I don't know if the edge looks good so can't comment. The estimate of £400-500 was too high if these factors are taken into consideration. I sold one with similar faults just over a year ago for £325 if I remember correctly, but it didn't exactly fly off the shelf. Fair comment, although the thumbprint must have been on the scanner bed (ooops!) as it doesn't appear on the coin. This makes me realise just how much I need a camera set-up. The coin looks so much better in hand than on the scans. As a comparison, here are the seller's photos: Certainly looks better. And bronzed.

Small spot just in front of the nose, thumbprint on the reverse, the green(?) crud on the shield and at the first A. The toning streaks to both sides are not what you would expect on a bronzed proof either, as normally you would be looking for a smooth, even colour. I don't know if the edge looks good so can't comment. The estimate of £400-500 was too high if these factors are taken into consideration. I sold one with similar faults just over a year ago for £325 if I remember correctly, but it didn't exactly fly off the shelf.

I haven't checked the contents of the lots, but there is nothing to say that he hasn't augmented the selection in the ensuing couple of years.

He's sold some serious coins in the last month or so on ebay, so there are still serious collectors looking on the bay to They are likely to be the remaining unsolds from his sale. It appears that 39 out of the 676 lots were unsold, if my sums are correct.

Having done a bit of digging, this coin was listed as a P1326 in 2009 in a sale. It didn't sell though with an estimate of £400-500 which was probably as a result of the impairment.

It is probably no coincidence that it was an unsold lot with an estimate of £500-600 when his collection went through the saleroom. Bearing that in mind the price is probably right.

The price of an almost certainly unique gold coin that had been off the market for 104 years until it resurfaced in 2008 is completely unrelated to the expected price of a run-of-the-mill pattern. The actual price of the gold piece was £32500 hammer (£38226.50 with premium), plus the commission charged by the person acting for him/her in the saleroom.

It doesn't look to be in the best condition. There are a couple of rim marks, a couple of spots and a fingerprint on the reverse. The angled image also results in bright spots at the top of both sides. Given the above, I would automatically assume it was hiding something. If you had a better presentation and what I perceive was wrong, then it would be worth bidding higher, but £400 is adequate for the item as seen.

This is a 1799 halfpenny, so the ship will be different, but you can see where the stays are to be found.

Nope. He means the stays between the foremast and the pointy bit at the front.

Interesting, Rob. The finish on your left hand piece is very similar to the finish on my coin which is a red-brown and very uniform in appearance. Certainly no evidence of mottling or discolouration whatsoever, in fact it has a beautiful even colouration (although this really isn't as evident in the scans as in hand!). As Derek says, Peck has bronzed as being rarer but this may be not be true. I'm tending toward P1327 then. One final question. Does anyone have a close-up photo (and it would have to be a close-up as it's practically invisible!) of the 2 or 3 stays from foremast to bowsprit? Even colouration would lean towards bronzed which is P1326. I don't have any proof 1806 pennies, so can't help on the stay front. Get a glass on it and count them. Obviously there should be 3 if Peck is correct, but the image in the book isn't clear enough. I've attached an image of the ship on a P1326 I used to own, but again it isn't clear enough. The ship punches are specific to the type or types of proof, but the currency pieces must have had the ship engraved by hand as over 50 ship varieties are recorded.

Hi again who do i need to talk to about this book please . Me. PM sent.

I agree 100%. If I buy a coin it is on the basis of the worst side, so my grading glass is always half empty.