Rob

It's Edward III, but the detail (or lack of due to brightness) on the obverse makes it difficult to pin down any further. There are quite a lot of Treaty groat varieties including many mules between types.

Looks good to me.

If the coin is an attractive EF, £45 doesn't sound out of the way.

Certainly worth a premium because they are quite scarce not over 7, but what would really determine the price is the coin in hand. All EFs are not the same. The 1887 issue was so large that presumably there were many serviceable dies come the end of the year and a decision was made to use these first. As a ballpark figure, I'd hazard a guess that maybe 5% or so are straight 8s, but haven't tested that number. I've noted probably a dozen on ebay in the past 5 years, but that is without looking or even checking the Victorian section regularly. They are scarce and easily missed, but that may be due to a lack of knowledge.

I can tell you what you've got if the images are clear enough. The precise identification depends on the finer design details such as the shape of the lettering etc. hence the request for large clear images. There is a 150K size limit on individual pictures, but you can post one side first and then the other in a subsequent reply. Alternatively you can upload the images to a photo hosting site such as photobucket and provide the links. If you take bigger images at higher resolution and trim the waste to leave as much of the frame filled with coin, it would go a long way to sorting the problem.

If you can find one with the W replaced by a C, P or S, then your answer lies near your feet.

Funny how everyone has the rare types. I'd like to see one of those common, normal varieties, but they just don't seem to exist. Unless of course that is, the seller identified the coin as fair and that was the only type listed in that grade.

The pictures are too small to say which variety it is other than it is Edward the something, so post a larger image or alternatively upload the images to photobucket or similar and provide a link. Edward V would be nice, but is wishful thinking. The problem with Edward V is that it has not proved possible to say for certain which groats were struck at the end of Edward IV or during the short tenure of Edward V due to extensive muling of the different obverse and reverse dies. The gold has been sorted but not the silver, and there is no solution in sight. Another request for id which automatically homes in on the rarest possible type in the catalogue!!!

The mint records for 1949 p.3 state that 1949 saw the production of threepences, but some were from dies of other years, so 1950 seems a good cut-off date. cf.Peck p.517

There is no immediate reason to think they might be fakes. They were listed as Staffordshire no.123 in W J Davis' 19th century Token Coinage, first published in 1904 and illustrated on plate D no.9.

I'm looking for a single example of a token in mint state with the denomination noted and payable at a specific location. i.e. one that was actually issued for use by a business rather than the endless mules issued for collectors. This issue would fit the bill perfectly. If you have a mint state one and want to sell, that would only leave 206 to go.

I collect both hammered and milled and appreciate what you are saying and understand the price will be determined in all instances by supply and demand. The problem is the over-generous use of rarity. 1934 crowns are probably the classic example. Always described as rare, 934 struck, most still in existence and peddled through sales on a regular basis. In terms of absolute rarity, they aren't rare at all as many larger sales have one, so even if you don't get one today you should be able to get one in a couple of months at most if you are willing to pay the price which is determined solely by the larger number of collectors compared to pieces available. 1936's appear less often despite numbering nearly 3 times that for 1934. You pay less because there were more struck, but disproportionately less when compared in absolute numbers. We also have to get away from the assumption that rare equals not available within a 5 minute search on the net. If everything was available in an instant, all collections could be formed immediately.

There will be some pieces stashed away that only resurface every 50-100 years, but most collectable pieces are in a situation whereby they tend to be recycled on a more regular basis as collectors die. Most coins with previous references tend to be identifiable within the next 20-30 years at most, so it is possible to get a feel for absolute rarity. It is easier for hammered simply due to the irregularity of flans which aids identification. The point I'm making is that rarity attributions are usually off the cuff statements without reference to any evidence. A quick perusal of the first 10 pages currently going off on ebay gave 24 lots with an indication of rarity - 2 were very scarce (4 x brass 3d scarce dates & a 2008 £2 Olympics); 3 were very rare (1934 & 1936 farthings plus a lot of 15 x £2 coins) and the other 19 were rare, comprising 4 lots of 2011 50ps, 2 small lots of Elizabeth II 1/-s, 1884 farthing, 1806 1/2d, 1934 2/6d, 9x 1988 £1, 1988 £1, 1854 1d, Darwin £2, 1985 50p, 10 x 50p, 2010 50p, 1929 farthing, 1938S 1/- and an 1853/2 1/2d. The latter was based on the fact that there were no dots on the shield and so was rev. A which is noted for 1852 and not 1853, though the image begged to differ. Even though the seller is wrong, this was the only example that showed any attempt at rationalising the claim. None of these could be described as rare, with the least common probably being the 1934 2/6d. Most claims of rarity are spurious and without foundation. You have to do your homework, whether buyer or seller. Rare, particularly in the case of ebay usually means rare for one hour only as another similar rarity will be along in a short while. Genuine rarity or scarcity can only be ascertained after a period of monitoring or research and in most instances will only ever give relative rarity.

At this point it is probably worth putting some flesh on the bones of a real example. Recently I compiled a list of illustrated Exeter & Truro crowns in order to identify which dies were common or not and which examples were worth acquiring. There is a large variation in the numbers of particular die combinations. The Besly numbers are used for each die combination. There are 4 obverse dies and 31 reverses. Quick pointers are that A1 is the Truro, B2 is the 12 scroll reverse Exeter, C3-7 the undated Exeters, C8 the 1644 date divided by mark, C9-15 the 1644 left of mark, C16&17 Rose/Ex, D16&17 Tower/Ex, D18 Tower/Rose 1645, D19-31 1645 Tower mark. The numbers are for identifiably different examples. Not included are those in museums or specific references which identify the variety but without illustration or corroborative provenance. In the case of readily identifiable varieties the numbers below have considerable but unquantifiable scope for upwards revision. A1 102 B2 10 C3-21, C4-11, C5-7, C6-14, C7-8, C7a-4 (not recorded by Besly). Total 65 C8-12 C9-15, C10-2, C11-16, C12-5, C13-11, C14-18, C15-7. Total 76 C16-12, C17-4. Total 16 D16-8, D17-14. Total 22 D18-7. D19-7, D20-18, D21-16, D22-16, D23-7, D24-8, D25-5, D26-7, D27-7, D28 doesn't exist, D29-10, D30-9, D31-6. Total 116. As you can see, some die combinations are out and out rare, whilst some are in reality very common. It goes without saying that all would be described on ebay as rare, but with over 100 Truros and 1645 tower mark Exeters available to collectors this is clearly not the case. At the individual die combination level and at the other end of the scale is the C10. Cooper had a fairly dire example and was the only one recorded by Besly. The other is virtually as struck and was in the Rowley Butters collection sold at St. James's a couple of years ago - that's rare. The problem is that rare, scarce, common or whatever are used indiscriminately by buyers and sellers as a negotiating feature rather than being based on evidence. I would be interested to know who would have considered which types to be rare and which ones common based simply on the readily available info in references and from personal obvservation. What guesses would have been hazarded based on intuition? As most rarity attributions seem to be based on perception - honest answers only please.

If you are numerate it doesn't matter what base you count in.

Looks like 10+J to me. Te only differences I can see are a slight variation in the size and extent of the gap between shield & drapery and possibly on the drapery detail above the 74. The berries aren't the clearest on the top image, but appear to agree. Different thickness numerals isn't important. Presumably the Heaton dies were made at the Tower mint, in which case this would be either one they forgot to add the H or maybe they had made sufficient dies to serve Heaton and this stayed at the Tower for future deployment. Maybe it's the only no H reverse die, but can't answer that.

I agree entirely. The question in the original post asks for reasons why it should not be post mint work, which is a much more difficult theory to support.

That's a hard one. The weight is too much for a normal penny blank. The only thing that might suggest it is genuine would be an exact fit for the alloy composition when compared to a known mint product. 1879 isn't the same as 1965 when various mules, off metal strikes and mistrikes were produced, so there should probably be a good correlation with known alloys. I don't know how much non-British output for the empire or coins for foreign governments was done by the RM in 1879, but I would expect at least some empire coinage to be struck there. Therefore, does the weight match any known empire piece for the date?

The only issue I have with it is why there isn't a '0' on the end of the sentences. And if we did it every time, we might clear these kinds of people away permanently, leaving the country a whole lot nicer place to live. The physical (extended) article arrived through the letter box today. Now I'm in receipt of a few more facts (assuming the reporting is true) I'm inclined to agree with you. The person assualted has brain damage and can't write or perform tasks safely with his hands such as making a cup of tea. The two offenders had 14 and 3 convictions respectively since 2002. 2 years is ridiculous, and why you can't take previous behaviour into consideration beggars belief. If I pick up a speeding ticket or tickets, they take those previous convictions into consideration and if enough points have accumulated I get banned. I'm clearly more dangerous to society than someone who is liable to assault you without warning or due reason.

You missed the word 'under' out.

I'm glad to say that my computer doesn't know how to find or use facebook. Thankfully there is minimal photographic evidence available of me doing things that I would later regret.

If you are coming to the UK in July there is also the York fair at the Racecourse on the 3rd Friday & Saturday of the month.

Yes - so we can count in twelves. The thumbs aren't irrelevant.

There are some where I have paid well over. Picking one up at York this Friday.

Hammered 1819 over 8 halfcrowns? Make an offer for the coin in the opening post on this thread - fits the criteria at 7 & 12 o'clock. ... Or should this be in a different thread?