Rob

You can't go by Peck's rarity attributions any more than you can rely on ESC or Freeman etc. All of these references were compiled when data had to be compiled from relatively limited resources. Today, with the internet and most auctions on-line, not to mention dealers' websitesites, it is possible to reassess the rarity values even though we still don't and can't have the full picture. Tha Adams penny collection had both P1326 and P1327, the bronzed is markedly browner and the copper dark, but the picture quality is such that I wouldn't rely on it for a comparison. The images are available in the archived catalogue section.

I thought the cat laid it.

All bar the 1903 are around the EF level, but the 1903 is better. The images aren't high res enough to clearly see the wear, but the first point to go is the fingers on 20th century bronze. There is obvious wear on 4 of the 5, but not on the 1903. Prices - Colin is the best man for this as I'm not an ardent follower of farthings. Spink list Ed.VII farthings at about £12 each in EF, but that seems a bit optimistic and I certainly wouldn't entertain paying that much.

I wouldn't have done that as it is too cheap. In fact I would have increased it rather than reduce it. For anyone who needs one of these it is a bargain at that price. I'm not interested as I have a few of them.

direct flash

brighter light

This might help. 3 images in different lighting levels. I know it isn't your coin, but the period is correct and the colours are not atypical to others I have seen of these types. The copper can have a range of tones from light to virtually black. The latter usually has a degree of associated iridesence. KP31 is clearly a Late Soho product as the 1 & 0 are defective, presumably from a filled die. Attached are a pair of Late Soho halfpennies in an attempt to match the finish employed with the period, KH37 (P1365 bronzed on the left) and KH39 (P1367 copper on the right). The bronzed piece on the left is redder in colour and markedly different to the copper which has a more mottled appearance.

This is always a contentious issue. If you laid out a dozen coins (6 copper, 6 bronzed) side by side you would probably end up with 4 definite coppers, 4 definite bronzed and 4 definite maybes. The waters are further muddied by the colour depending on the period in which they were struck. Soho and Taylor produced markedly different colour bronzed flans. Soho produced different coloured bronzed flans at different times. Most of the time you can tell, but it is always better in the hand. It ticks the boxes for a P1326 or P1327, but I wouldn't like to say which from the image. The whole reason for bronzing is to provide a uniform colour across the surface. This is frequently applied to medals. Copper can tone in wildly differing shades and it is this lack of uniformity which lead to bronzing in the first place.

Her vacant gaze would indicate she's probably watching Eastenders somewhere off-coin! Good call, she's facing in the right direction. Presumably seated in Trafalgar Square with one of the lions ready to prod all those itinerant revellers skinny-dipping in the fountains.

I didn't give it a full EF because the helmet is a bit flat and the right breast seems a bit flatter than usual. A couple of spots have no bearing on the grade, but are less than desirable. I too would buy a coin like this as VF all day long. Not sure about the lustre. It has a couple of fingerprints though, so might have as they show up on lustre better than on toned copper, but best of all on a polished coin. (Which this isn't I hasten to add).

Frankly, it's a b****y good job we don't all collect the same things in the same grade. On the reasonable assumption that the acceptable coins would be those in the best condition, 99% of all coins would be melted as unfit for purpose, and every collector would be allowed one BU 1967 penny plus another coin of his/her choice and according to their wallet because that's all there would be to go around.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection. Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such. Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place. Only among those who collect them, which you must admit is only a fraction of collectors of dates and types. For example, I'm only interested in late 18th Century copper patterns, most else leaves me cold - I wouldn't cross the road for a George V double florin or early 60s cent (unless someone gave me them!) I realise that, though many serious currency collections have the odd pattern or two. A denomination collection almost certainly will, a general collection is less likely to in my opinion. For most people the lack of patterns is down to cost at the budget collector end of the spectrum and unfamiliarity amongst those willing to spend a bit more. There is no defined price guide for them unlike currency, so there is no widespread appreciation of what is out there and how much a piece will set you back. For that you have to do your homework which is important given that some only cost a few hundred pounds, yet others will set you back 5 figures. I think the fear of getting burnt puts many off, though a lot of currency pieces trade for considerably bigger numbers than proofs or patterns. The other reason is probably related to the surprisingly large number of people at fairs who ask me for coins in fine or thereabouts indicating a fairly active collector base spending nominal amounts whilst gaining as much diversity as possible. A collection of low grade currency would sit uncomfortably with a collection of FDC or thereabouts proofs and patterns which of course is the norm for the latter.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection. Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such. Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection.

That's because it is the easier, alternative and cheapest way to get the 1933. One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was not going for the Adams example in his sale. Peter Simon picked it up for £8500 hammer - only bidder . A bargain.

I think I probably would have put £35 and make an offer. £25 seems a bit cheap.

It's nearly EF, but not quite. It is also a common date, so for value it is probably £30 or 35 at the most. You might make more starting it at 99p because it isn't a bad coin and people see what they want to see. But if you tell them it isn't quite EF they will probably make a mental note to go to the VF price because everyone wants a bargain. Hard choices to be made here.

1853

Good start.

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark, but not cleanly. Both cases could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong. Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40.

Some good tips here. I struggle with images having to discard at least 60% of all the pictures I take. Problems include the examples below: 1. Getting pictures in focus, particularly on proofs because autofocus frequently doesn't. Example (best of 3 attempts). Does anyone else apart from John and myself use autofocus? In the hand, the colours of the first coin are not as strong as but similarly iridescent to this, though you would never think so. 2. The second image shows the problems with different background colouring which presumably is due to the flash not having cooled down to room temperature before the second image is taken. Taking pictures requires a balance between time and quality. I don't have 10 minutes to waste between flashes which would be required to give it time to cool, so tend to live with this one. 3. Many images look as if the coin has been harshly polished despite looking good in the hand - such as this. The coin isn't a proof and does have wear, but the impression should be clear. To overcome this I try to shield the flash using a sheet of translucent paper, but it is a bit hit and miss. Overexposed or underexposed are the usual results in a combination with problem 2. This is the worst of the 3 with problem 1 a close second. Clearly lighting is all important, but I find natural daylight too harsh. It washes out the colours to leave everything dark with a strong shadow from the window and in high contrast which is equally unattractive. Closing out the daylight and relying on the camera auto-focus leads to the problems above. Having said all that, it is still better than a scan. These are scans of the second coin for comparison.

Sod it. I've only got £600 and not the extra £4 for postage or I might have been tempted. After all, it is the rare "with date" variety.

The guy with the feedback of 160 was pushing the boat out a bit with a bid of £2.50 + postage The others were probably shills. Nobody is going to be that desperate to get a worn OH penny. He is probably also an immigrant. Read the English and the items he sells. Everything is EF. He does indeed list almost all his coins as EF. He does not write in perfect English but this does not mean he is an immigrant - I've seen people who are native to this country speak in appalling English whilst I know some German, Polish and Indian immigrants whose English is better than mine. As for his coins: Caveat emptor. His photos are quite good so it is quite easy to grade from the photo. If one decided to pick out anyone who sold an over-graded coin on eBay one would be left with as many sellers as one could count on one's fingers. I know a lot of English people can't cope with their own language. It was the use of specific words at certain places that indicates English isn't the first language (in the foreigner sense rather than simple UK primate sense) such if the item DIES in the Royal Mail, or sending things by Royal Air Mail. Little nuances that say not a native. The rest is a pretty good effort though. If it had been bad English by a native, there would have been many more mistakes and strictly no punctuation.

here is what you want. BNJ vol. 74 (2004) near the end of the BNJs