Rob

Which translated means, 'I saw, green, I conquered' Back to school Dave... That's entirely appropriate in a numismatic context. Post the results.

I know that, but you've still got to point it out because many people don't appreciate how things are made. The wheel has to be reinvented many times over - frequently in the same section of the forum, occasionally twice on the same day!

Hi. Welcome to the forum. If you want people to look at your coins, you will have to put it in a format they can use. You shouldn't need to download anything to view it. Download = possible virus, so best ignore it and move on.

It is only a blocked die and not a mint error (where the I has not been entered) because you can see traces of the I in the inital post image. "i'll keep my eye out". Scott, keep your puns to yourself.

It's not a bad coin. a bit flat in places in the legend but overall I'd give it nVF. Like nearly all hammered it's a bit of a curate's egg. The portrait is good which is important and the small nick at 9pm and the scratch between M and O on the reverse aren't too much of a problem. London is a common mint, so there's no premium for that. It has obviously been dug up which will count against it a bit, but there's a good £140-150 worth there and possibly a bit more on the strength of the portrait. Richard I coins sell quite well.

I'd go for a class 3 based on the 7 pearls and the whiskers, so Richard I.

I think it is probably post mint damage because the adjacent R is intact and it is virtually certain that they would have used the same R punch for the two letters. To have a differently shaped R punched in would require 2 separate punches, one of which was defective, so unless you can say for certain there is no damage to the R, the former theory is more likely. From the image supplied, the tail of the R is almost touching the upright.

I frequently struggle with pictures. Autofocus sometimes doesn't no matter what I do, and a succession of images have differing brightnesses, presumably because the flash is at different initial temperatures. Sometimes I just get fed up and resort to scans, which although less than perfect are at least uniform in their exposure.

I wouldn't be surprised that you were disappointed looking at it under a glass. There is obvious wear to the folds of the veil on the forehead, flat tops to the veil level with the ear and a bit lower, a gouge below the truncation and a few marks on the rims. All this adds up to a coin that is not uncirculated and so any image blown up is likely to resemble the Somme. A small amount of magnification when you acquired it would have shown this wear clearly. A coin with no marks is a real rarity and should be cherished. Never be afraid to pay a premium of some sorts for a pre-decimal coin that is mark free under a good glass because it might be a while before you see another. Modern minting techniques have ensured that virtually all currency pieces are bagmarked.

I've got Mal's email address. The problem with a halfpenny reference is that most of the info is already in the public domain but spread around different publications. Starting with the Anglo-Saxon through to the early Plantagenets period where they are horribly rare with few exceptions, there is limited material to work with and few collectors as a result. They are the sort of thing that is nice to have an example, but being priced in the £5-10K bracket aren't exactly petty cash purchases. Paul & Bente Withers have done a good job with the hammered halfpennies from Edward I onwards, though I have been able to extend their lists a little. The early milled does have some additional varieties (Peck is all at sea on the tin edges) and there is scope for extension of the George I-III types. There are some additional pieces worthy of note in the later copper and bronze including some significant varieties, but not a huge number. Most of the reported unlisted things are double cut legend varieties which as a few of you will know don't excite me very much and as neither error nor intended design wouldn't be considered for inclusion if I were to do anything.

Dream on. If you found a mint state Richard III, you would be kept in clean underwear for years to come (assuming you sold it, that is). Richard II is much more common than Richard III, after all, he did reign for over 20 years compared to the latter's 2. Richard II halfpennies are quite common as a group, though individual die pairs are not necessarily so and some are out and out rare. I can't identify the Withers reference due to lack of detail, but even in that condition it should be worth £10-20 if you can find a buyer. The key to identification is the initial mark. Richard III never used a plain cross as a mark - his were Boar's Head and halved sun & rose.

Pages xix-xx of the preamble give a list of the locations used. 10 museums and 33 individual collections. Basically any museum that has a large coin collection and a short list of who's who in post war numismatic circles. I could, but I'm not sure the demand would justify doing a serious work on halfpennies. 1/2ds have always been the poor relation.

The title arose in part because the British Museum holds the copyright and the presence of many unique varieties acquired by the BM over the years means that any comprehensive tome will have to use their collection. In many fields their collection is the most comprehensive available for study. He didn't restrict himself to only those in the BM however as his extensive collection of Soho pieces surpassed the BM's and there are also references to examples that were unknown in museum collections. It is just that the BM had the largest overall collection together with provenance details in most instances that facilitated the writing of the book in the first place. Did it drill down into minute die variations? - no. Did it attempt to list all the known dies? - no. What it did do however was to bring together all aspects of numismatic interest by listing proofs, patterns and currency strikings which is usually lacking in most publications. His work on the Soho mint output is a masterpiece. Don't forget there was nothing published in this area prior to his study because anyone who collected base metal coins was considered an oddball prior to the last 50 years.

No in a word. The multitude of die flaws seen are due to natural wear and tear. All dies will eventually disintegrate. On the way they will produce many varied flawed coins as the damage becomes more extensive. The money is made (or should be made) on genuinely rare output where the design was only used for a very short period, or where most examples were never circulated for example such as the 1945 silver 3d.

I hadn't thought about doing Peck. The problem with Peck is the amount of material held in museums. Very often there are no examples available, but if you don't know where the coins are you are on a hiding to nothing. DaveG was able to do his in depth study of 20th century coinage bacause there is so much material around and it is cheap to acquire. Hoovering up adequate quantities of pre-decimal research material is by now financially impossible. Just acquiring the coins for my article on the Weyl patterns cost a 5 figure sum for 14 pieces. The total population is around 100 coins. To get all those not in museums would have cost about £100K at yesterday's prices, more today. It isn't going to happen. That is why I thought I'd start with Davies which has greater depth than ESC, but is modern enough to mean there is a good supply of (and interest in) available material.

Right, a partial solution to the question of updated references starts here. Yesterday I completed the acquisition of all Peter Davies' unsold stock of BSC together with his artwork and notes for varieties not covered in his first edition and I also have the rights to do a second edition. Anyone requiring copies of Davies' work, please contact me. I think that a more useful initial publication would be an addendum incorporating the recent discoveries together with as large a number of legend or date varieties as possible given the demand for such items. I would restrict it to design differences and punched errors that have been corrected rather than the multitude of varieties arising from refurbished dies (such as double or triple cut letters which I believe are the product of trying to reinforce the die in too hard a state. I would also include patterns produced outside the RM. I would also keep the format previously used as far as possible to give continuity. This would mean that the existing copies of Davies would not become irrelevant as the original book is in any case good for at least 95% of all the coin types covered in the initial publication. Given the number of legend errors that have been corrected I estimate that this would give a book of similar size to the existing volume. The question of whether it should be hard or softback is open to debate. Obviously hardback is preferable because the cover would protect the contents, but this comes at a cost. There is a much greater interest in Davies varieties as a result of auction catalogues including the references in lot descriptions and this should also increase demand for varieties. The problem with references and the level of detail is that each collector has different collecting aims. As it would be impossible to tailor a book to an individual's taste, I feel that all that can be done is to produce as much detailed information as possible, whilst leaving the individual die studies to the specialist who is interested in individual punch identification or double and triple cut letters. I would not propose to include prices other than to note what an example of a singly recorded variety made at auction as any pricing is applicable only to the date of the sale, and in any case is adequately covered by Spink, CCGB etc. The pricing could be replaced by any notes of interest. I am not going down the rarity route because I don't have access to sufficient collections to make a meaningful assessment. A similar volume covering early milled prior to the 1816 recoinage is also a possibility as this would expand immensely on the contents of ESC. Thoughts anybody?

Or a bit of chemical help along the way. Whilst no one disputes the ability of coins to acquire really attractive toning in time, the American fad for 'monster toning' seen amongst some collectors has resulted in a ready supply of chemically assisted toned products at grossly inflated prices. Caveat emptor.

Or the supply of really large accumulations required to do such a study ran out. How many people would be likely to store 10 or 20000 pennies - a dozen maybe? Once they finished there was no ready supply of fresh accumulations to process, so the studies ceased.

Could anyone who has an example please check the date for a 9 over a 7 or 8 and if possible post an image of the date. Thanks. As an afterthought, I suppose that any 1889 shilling could be over a 7 or 8, so please check any you might have.

I've had a couple dozen NGCs that were incorrectly attributed and which I cracked out. Checking the label is a really good way of getting a bargain, because they get it wrong on a regular basis - usually failing to identify a rare feature. My 1839/41 proof halfpenny in the unlisted varieties section springs to mind as an obvious failure; or Hus's 1844 1/3 farthing described as a half by PCGS despite not having the words HALF FARTHING in big friendly letters on the front (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

7, 70 or 700 point grading, beauty was, is and always will be in the eye of the beholder. If I like it I will buy it and if I don't I won't. The problem with collecting by numbers is the conumdrum posed by what to do with the VF coin that is as good as they come - but if you get it then your average score is dragged down and that's an egotistical dilemma. Going to a 700 point system would unquestionably be wholeheartedly embraced by the number collectors because it gives x9 more chances to claim the superior coin.

This is silly. It is probably cheaper to buy up all the grotty 1887 sixpences than it is to make the casts and manufacture replicas. Bizarre.

First of all a scan isn't the best, but the detail as described does show in the hand. As to how much of the old character remains after modification depends entirely on how well the old figure has been filled and the new one cut. I don't know how they filled the original hole. It may have been by pouring a miniscule amount of liquid metal into the hole or alternatively it was done by packing the character with a solid piece of metal and hammering it into the die until compacted. Thinking out loud, I would have expected them to heat the die to such a temperature as to soften the metal and fill it with liquid at this temperature - maybe hammering it home with a small flat tool, but I've no idea whether this is what was done. Alternatively they could pack it and melt the metal locally on the die if the technology existed for such fine welding. When the original character is filled, it frequently leaves a thin line or the remnants of a thin line at the junction between original and new metal. This can show up as a slight depression or a raised line or anything in between depending on the quantity of filler used. This is seen on my 1675/3/2 halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted section where the base of the filled 2 is a slightly raised line. When the new character is punched in, the depth of the hole and the quality of the fill will have a bearing. If the new character is deeper than the original, then you will obliterate any trace of the original. If the new character is shallower than the original, you can get an impression of the original superimposed on top of the new character detail. For an example look at the 1807/6 proof halfpenny thread. In that instance, the outline of the 6 is seen above the new 7 as a result of the filled die not having been smoothed out properly. The 7 is also seen with 6 detail on the top of the 7 relief (i.e. the 6 wasn't filled to sufficient depth or completion to eradicate the old character and so you see the traces of the original design as well as the new digit. It's quite obvious on many overstrikes if you take the time to look carefully and relate the position of the various marks. 1889/8 halfpennies spring to mind where there are 4 dies I think with the overstruck digit. My 1862/26 1/2d is another example. In the hand it's bl*****g obvious even if scans don't show a feature up well.

Here we go. The outside angle of the 7 is clear in the hand as are 2 blobs at the right hand side limit of the upright, a raised portion just to the right of the ball on the narrow section of the tail and a small protrusion at the left hand limit of the top bar. For those collectors of all possible die varieties, the potential cost of completion just went up a bit.

TMA