Rob

A worn die number penny would find a person with a cheque book to fit the value so that I could fill a hole in the tray with something aesthetically pleasing. Notwithstanding that, I can see that if it is the only example available then needs must if you are trying to complete a series. It would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise as I possess a few unique fuglies.

This thread contains the literary preferences of most of the regular poster on the forum. Without knowing what you collect it is impossible to suggest the right mix of books, but you should be able to get some idea from the comments. This is a commonly asked question.

Double post.

Just a bit confused here.... can you tell me what edition the 1980 figures come from? I have 1972 being edition 12 and I have 1989 being edition 24. It appears there weren't publications every year. Cheers The 1970 volume is given as the 9th edition, but the copyright date is 1969, so there could be a slight mismatch here as to whether we are talking cover date or copyright date, otherwise if 1970 was the 9th, then it would be difficult to reconcile 1972 with being the 12th.

Yes, because the plastic gets stretched a little every time you put your fingers in it. Depending on the type of plastic used in the album, there may also be a long term problem with plasticiser contamination. You might like to consider storing them in a cabinet, lighthouse trays (or similar) or 2x2 flips with mylar windows (these are inert and would fit in an album with large enough compartments).

In that case it is a sixpence. Worn with some missing legend, it would usually not be worth over its bullion value. The nominal weight is 2.8g, so a few $s at best unless it was a rare variety such as I over S in HONI, an inverted 1 in the date or no colons in the obverse legend when some tens of $s would apply. It is unlikely to be a rare variety for the obvious reason that most people wouldn't have the rare ones by definition.

Welcome to the forum. If you have a shilling it should look like this 1820 is a common date and certainly won't be unique. The value is likely to be melt or a little over if as you say the coin is worn, though a picture would be helpful to confirmm this. The diameter should be about 23mm if a shilling, but the sixpence which shares the design is only 19mm approx.

Maundy money was only really issued as sets following the recoinage of 1816. Prior to that it was customary to use normal currency, but you will notice that not all denominations are found for all the years where small change was struck and so this presumably means that minting was as required to satisfy demand. However, the entire series of small change from Charles II onwards uses the term Maundy money despite appearing to be used as regular currency. There are no appreciably proof-like issues prior to 1816 compared to the later Victorian issues where you get both proof-like and dull field examples which in theory should distinguish between Maundy and currency. Treat pre 1816 as one type of issue.

I wouldn't get too carried away on value. I was given my 1970 edition by a bookseller when I mentioned I could do with an old SCBC for cross referencing Seaby and Spink numbers. 1970 VF 85, EF 120 1987 VF 450, EF 700, Proof FDC 1650 1995 VF 400, EF 700, Proof FDC 2000

I prefer to buy things for dealing that would sit happily in the collection if unsold. That way there is always a satisfied customer. For something like this open 3 penny, it would have to be the only available piece for me to take it into my possession. Like a few others, I don't think I could face having it in the trays unless that is, someone is prepared to pay me lots of money for it.

I think you've probably got half an error there. If as you say it is very thin, you are missing the reverse. The flan will originally have had a lamination fault which was sufficient for it to completely separate. My example of this error is below. There is no impression of a brockage on my coin as the brass 3d is on a considerably thicker flan (though there might be a hint of the back of the head and the crown), but the combination of thin flan and void of indeterminate size would make a brockage-like feature more likely.

Not that I'm aware of.

As I told my wife when we first met "sometimes you just have to take what you can get pet" Can we assume that statement refers to the stunted growth 6?

I'd say no. The small spur linking the upright of the R to the tail is not the same shape as the previous B and should be thicker at the join in my opinion. ESC p.157 footnote 1 says "The first B was struck from a broken punch and when an attempt was made to strengthen it a new B was mistakenly struck over the second letter, giving the appearance of BBITANIAR, although the original R shows through (below on the die, above on the coin)." Although the "B and R" arangement would fit the description above, you would expect the two Bs to be the same profile given the same punch would be used - which they aren't. There are quite a few examples of this profile R thoughout the years, so if one is R/B they would all have to be. The worst period for serifs joined is William III, though Geo. III has a fair sprinkling. It is the opposite effect to all those inverted Vs for As which are only filled dies. In this instance it appears to be a small flaw making the link.

Pun intended or not. Either way, that deserves an apology. You've lost me there Rob, did I offend you? Of course not. Without grading, it's pointless whether you are using the Sheldon scale or CGS' 0-100. Geddit...........Don't worry, I'll stop now.

Pun intended or not. Either way, that deserves an apology.

To get an example of a coin struck in Barton's metal of course, like this half crown.

...... or slab any 1910 1d that was identifiable as ok without needing an alternative opinion. Going off on a slight tangent, in the States I have noticed that big names or seriously large bulk submissions (such as whole collections for auction) appear to have more favourable treatment when the grading is done. Given that every business on the planet treats it biggest customers more favourably than a casual user of the service, I would be gobsmacked if this didn't also apply to CGS.

It has probably just been encapsulated without grading, which I know is a service they offer. It has to be better to get some DIY slabs if the reason is to protect the coin.

Given the technique requires that you have to scrape the surface to get down to bare metal for the circuit to function, I hope you include a warning not use this on decent coins. Whilst it will obviously work on any piece of metal once you have connected the lead to the original fabric of the object, the fact that it works by removing a layer of metal means that this method ought to be used with extreme caution. If you have an area of thick encrustaion whereas another part of the item has none, you will be removing the surface preferentially at the already clean metal as this will readily go into solution whilst the encrustation will protect the surface at the point where you need the action most of all. As I see it, this would be ok for low grade or fairly undesirable items, but you would need to seriously think whether to treat a quality piece in this manner.

£60 for a 2p. Trading Standards might have to get involved here as the picture is wrong - you have posted a 1797 coin. I will pay 2p.

10. The tie points down, whereas on the 11 it points horizontally outwards. You remember that big blue book that smells nice, that you don't use very often...........?

It looked cleaned on one of the original sellers pics, the rest appeared to have a coating of genuine 140 year old dust. The lightened pictures in the second sale just served to enhance the cleaned effect.

Am I the only one who thinks it looks cleaned and retoned in the ebay listing? This begs the question why anyone would want to pay Spink book prices on an impaired item. It might be reasonably difficult to get hold of in top grade, but you see quite a lot of low to mid grade pieces.