Rob

Agree 100% Rob. I simply had to make a choice, I couldn't afford to collect the coins that I was now hankering after, so I had to bite the bullet and put everything up for sale as the core of a business. Unless you are willing to sell high value choice items that you would as a collector keep, you will struggle to make a living. Those are the customers which have to be concentrated on. Collectors of low grade material will automatically migrate to ebay and overpay - but they are in the right place. Collectors of high grade material need to be weaned off ebay where the risk and cost of mistakes is high, and use lists, fairs, websites and any other means which offer the opportunity to examine the piece in question before a commitment to purchase is made. They might not get the bargain they automatically expect from ebay, but using knowledge and physically handling the coins before purchase will lead to a better understanding of what's available, what it costs and a greater level of overall satisfaction. For the vendor, that means repeat business which is the key to any form of business success.

The problem with combining dealing and collecting is that you have or want the same items that your customers want. The very nice rare piece you can't bear to part with is the same desirable object in their eyes too. The easy to get pieces that you wouldn't mind parting with on the grounds that you can always replace them with another are consequently difficult to sell because as common items there is always a chance they can pick one up on ebay for 99p instead of wasting £2 by purchasing from a dealer.

George III coins dated 1802 are a bit thin on the ground in base metal, so a picture would be useful. He was also ruler of Hannover in addition to this country which is one possibility. The 1840 sixpence should have an inverted die axis. The normal, or en-medaille (as a medal) die axis was only adopted as standard from 1887 onwards.

Not had that with CGS - yet. But I've had a half a dozen PCGS & NGC slabs graded at 64 & 65 which have had edge damage exposed on removal. It p's you off a bit when you are spending hundreds of pounds a time to find this out.

Agreed:) It's just a shame that Coin Shop closed. They had quite a good selection of Decimal Coins. Also the owner wasn't adverse to opening a Royal Mint Set if there were particular coins that you needed from it. I managed to obtain a few of my BU £2 and 50p Issues that way. I don't know what else the shop sold, but decimal coins are not a very good basis for a business plan unless you can monopolise the market. The average cost of decimals is too low to make much of an income. When you are selling coins for pence or a few pounds at most, you need to sell too many for it to be cost effective. Mail order would be different, but passing trade would definitely not supply enough customers on a recurring basis.

I see the winning bidder has a feedback of 1000 so surely not a fool. Looking at the winner's recent bid history they have all been on coins, so you would assume at least a little knowledge. Having said that, most of the things were European or world coins. Why pay so much on ebay? The mint will supply them by the thousands or millions at face. Bizarre.

That isn't a bad price. Unless you get a damaged one, most are not in poor condition. A relative lack of circulation means that most examples come up around the VF mark - and are certainly commoner than in fine. So a groat or less likely a threepence starting at around the £200 level is a reasonable amount to pay.

You will pick up the early ones if you keep looking. Any examples of these that I get in bulk lots which have got more than a few bagmarks I automatically spend. I've recycled at least 20 or 30 in the past year & I can't be the only person to do so. They aren't particularly common, but unless in top grade also not worth collecting. 'Low mintage' is a relative and not absolute phrase.

The brass 3d has a thrift plant on the reverse, not a thistle. On the assumption it is a standard 3d but silver in colour, I would expect it to have been plated post issue.

No guesses, it's a penny of Queen Anne. Although commonly called Maundy money, the early small change (4d, 3d, 2d & 1d) wasn't produced every year for the Maundy ceremony but rather was struck according to demand and circulated freely. The fact that it has been pierced for suspension means that its value will be little more than melt - say a few pounds at most. Queen Anne maundy isn't rare, so any damage will be detrimental to its value and collectability.

He's certainly had one dissatisfied German buyer, who'd obviously bought a coin described as UNC but less so in hand However, he says he's UK based ~ Greater Manchester. The "Adolf" comment may or may not mean he's German, but it's certainly very unpleasant. Difficult to retaliate without ramping up the problem to the buyer's own detriment. You can't read anything into the spellings found within eBay listings. This country is plagued with semi-literates who neither care nor apparently are capable of writing English. He might be English, he might be foreign, but you could never tell from a simple spelling test. Most foreigners want to speak, read and write English correctly and so make an effort when doing so. Sadly, pride or competence in your own language is not something I could accuse many Brits of.

Maybe, but there's no reason why you can't get an apparently later date struck over an earlier one. The automatic assumption that the die has been reused from an earlier year need not necessarily apply. If the wrong punch has been used when the die was being made you can get any underlying figure, and it doesn't have to be a number either

Now it finally is, a merry Christmas to all.

Sorted in my own mind - I think. The second issue half groats have stops in the reverse legend, the 3rd issue doesn't. So it looks like a 2nd issue reverse die with the mark overcut. So with the highest point in the relief being a saltire, that is what was filled. The multiple cuts of the spur rowel off centre and to a lower depth are probably due to the die having been hardened previously.

I think this James I half groat with the spur rowel mark is over saltire on the reverse with sufficient messiness to possibly be over plain cross too. The obverse mark which is a clear spur rowel is included for comparison. Although no silver is known for saltire due to the fact that no bullion was brought into the mint in this period (according to mint records), the dies would undoubtedly have been made in preparation for the changeover from plain cross to saltire. Because there was so little bullion brought to the mint for coining in the period 1615-1620 due to the market value being above face, the dies from the previous mark were usually recut with the new mark. Small change is known with plain cross over book on lectern and spur rowel is known overmarked with 2 pellets. An educated guess would suggest that plain cross over crescent could also turn up on silver. Does anyone have any pennies or half groats for this period to compare? All opinions welcomed.

It's a funny thing - altitude. In the early 80's I went caving in the Rockies at a bit over 10,000 ft. The exertion at that level had a surprisingly large effect which you didn't notice even when walking at a hard pace above ground. I found myself knackered far earlier than I should have been, and the water was all melt which may have contributed.

Anyone can make a contribution. As there is no documentary evidence to suggest coining took place at any of Ashby, Bridgnorth or Abergavenny we are all potentially talking b******t. I'm trying to get people to expand their minds a little instead of taking everything that is written down to be gospel. Documentary evidence of the period is incredibly sparse, so if you want an even more nebulous topic, we can discuss the Worcester/Salopia and Welsh Marches mints. Bridgwater can be discounted on the grounds that it fell before Bristol and so was out of the equation by 1646. Blandford I'm not sure about, but suspect it must have been about the same time. There isn't any evidence for individual contributors of plate having their names applied. The plate was offered for use by the king and a receipt given indicating weight and value, so there would be no reason to mark coins struck in the name of the monarch additionally with the initial of the contributor. The unambiguous nature of EX, BR and OX in particular suggests that the letters indicate a location and if anyone was to be recognised for their contribution it would surely be the Oxford colleges who contributed a vast amount of plate for the cause, but there is no evidence to support any marking. A & B have also been variously attributed to Appledore, Coome Martin and Lundy or with the possibility that B stood for Bushell, but I think that argument can be discounted because although Bushell moved to Lundy following the fall of Bristol, he made no claim for setting up a mint there after the war. As he claimed for the provision of various supplies including those provided at Bristol, an element for Lundy could be reasonably expected if expenses were incurred. The argument against any mint in Devon is that the commission for Devon & Cornwall was held by Sir Richard Vyvyan at Exeter, though with the caveat that he was gaoled by the Governor of Exeter sometime later in 1645 for speaking civily about the New Model Army and remained incarcerated until Exeter fell to Parliament on 13th April 1646. Coombe Martin can be disregarded because the local silver mines were unworkable by this time. Although Bushell was on Lundy and had various arrangements to facilitate trade whilst garrisoning the island, the lack of connection between most of the A & B mint dies is completely incompatible with him striking coins in Appledore and then Lundy. This sequence of events would have resulted in a very closely linked set of dies in my opinion. B standing for Bushell is fanciful. The terms of his indenture required him to mark his dies with a plume, such as that found on his attested output from Aberystwyth, Shrewsbury and Bristol. The metrology is interesting as any silver of higher fineness than required must almost certainly have come from pieces of eight or ducatoons with fineness of around 0.940-950. This would suggest a supply from an area close to a port where international trade prevailed. Ashby is about as far from the coast as is possible in this country.

Background info The coins from Charles I's 'A' mint are currrently attributed to Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire as a result of research done by the late George Boon, based primarily on the use of a Bristol halfcrown die which was subsequently used at both 'A' & 'B' mints with the A mark overcut on the BR mongram and the use of other dies of Bristol origin. He argued that following the fall of Bristol in September 1645 to the Roundheads the garrison marched out of the city and headed for the Royalist capital of Oxford with their belongings unsearched, amongst which was this halfcrown die. According to historical records, Ashby was reinforced from Oxford on the 24th September and held out until 28th February 1645 (os). Following the fall of Ashby, the garrison then marched to Bridgnorth which fell on 26th April 1646. Boon argued that the most logical fit for A & B mints were Ashby and Bridgnorth based on the circumstantial evidence that mint workers and their dies accompanied these reinforcements and if the letters actually meant anything, then these two locations were the most plausible fit if the letters actually represented a fixed location. Discussion The important A over BR halfcrown obverse die provides the link between Bristol and 'A'. That this die was subsequently used at 'B' clearly indicates a degree of continuity between the various locations. The use of the Bristol style declaration with REL PROT / LE AN LI PA in two lines also indicates links to engravers with Bristol roots. It is reasonable to assume that A & B do in fact refer to locations beginning with these letters because of the use at other locations of letters e.g.BR Bristol, W Worcester, EX Exeter, OX Oxford and CHST at Chester etc. All 'A' halfcrowns use this die whereas the reverses for the halfcrown include dies where A is struck over BR together with one where A is not overstruck and one where there is no A. The Bristol die was further recut with a plumelet over the A below the horse at 'B' mint where additionally a die is found with plumelet not over A. Considering the documented timings for the fall of Ashby and Bridgnorth, I think there is a breakdown in the logic based on the evidence of the coins. 'B' mint has a large number of dies for what can only be a minimal length of time to produce them. 'B' employed at least 3 halfcrown obverses, 5 reverses; shillings 2 obverses & 3 reverses; sixpences 2 of each; groats 1 obverse and 2 reverses; threepences 1 of each; half groat 1 of each. This is a large number of dies for what can be no more than one month to make and produce. 'B' mint coins are relatively common, though 'A' mint coins are decidedly rare. If the garrison marched out of Ashby unchecked (as assumed by Boon for Bristol in September 1645) and went to Bridgnorth, then it would be reasonable to expect that the dies used at 'B' would include a considerable number of 'A' dies recut for use at 'B', but the only one is the halfcrown obverse. Furthermore, the style of the reverses changes at 'B' whereby the top line above the declaration is replaced by a scroll, though the Bristol style declaration is retained. I think it is inconceivable that the Bristol mint workers would change their habits and make a radically different reverse design in the month available. The scroll to me has all the hallmarks of Rawlins influence, though the retention of REL PROT/LE AN LI PA is not of his character. Therefore I would postulate that the dies were produced at Oxford in advance with a view to sending them to Bridgnorth (if it is Bridgnorth) prior to the movement of the Ashby garrison, but made by workers formerly at Bristol. This is supported by the view that Bridgnorth was expected to hold out for a considerable length of time. But, if the Bristol mint workers went from there to Oxford and to Ashby almost straight away, they couldn't be in Oxford if the B mint dies were made there. The use of the Bristol halfcrown obverse die suggests that there should be some continuity of movement, but the plethora of 'B' dies is contrary to this. 'A' mint shillings use a bust of Bristol style and the plumes above the declaration are of the crude Bristol style also. One 'B' mint shilling die was a Bristol die in earlier times. We therefore have a number of dies which are not found at A but which subsequently turn up at B. We have no dies with B over A clearly overstruck, though one halfcrown may possibly be so (the mark is right on the edge of the flan). Why? The find spots for 'A' mint coins are mostly in Wales and on the welsh border with a terminal date of 1646 or just possibly late 1645(os). This doesn't exclude Ashby, though none have been found in this area. The metrology indicates that the silver is finer than .925 and so the source could well be ducatoons which were .950 fine. In a discussion with Edward Besly from the NMW at Cardiff who used to work with George Boon I speculated that 'A' may have been an alternative location. I suggested Abergavenny as a possibility because Charles I was there and at Raglan from 3rd July-2nd August with a view to raising an army from Wales. This would require coin to pay the recruits and so I suggested that the 'A' mint could possibly have been Abergavenny which was easily reached from Bristol in a day by crossing the Severn and travelling up the river Usk, and could be supplied with dies and men from Bushell's mint at Bristol. Charles I left the area on 2nd August to head up to Chester and meet the Scottish reinforcements heading south. This date would allow the Bristol workers to return to the city and their dies to leave with them for Oxford on 11th September or soon afterwards. He pooh-poohed the idea not unreasonably on the grounds that there was no evidence to back it up, but in my mind the case for Ashby is equally suspect given the lack of overmarks where they would be expected and the design changes for B compared to A. Food for thought. All input welcome.

WOT? ROFL = Rolling on Floor Laughing Clearly indulging in one of the 100 Pennys available for fun.

WOT?

penny's for sale ...... Post cost as follows ( Please read carefully ) UK £1.50 + 50p per extra penny Europe £150.00 +£75.00 per extra penny Rest of world £600 + £300 per extra penny 100 new penny's available have fun. A few points to clarify here. Penny should have an upper case P as it's a proper noun. The cost of shipping Penny around the UK is remarkably cheap. The costs to Europe or the rest of the world is roughly the cost of one bum on one seat in a plane. Presumably Penny is a normal person, though I suspect with a 100 examples of her available it might be construed as people trafficking (or an advert for a brothel)

I simply can't see how this could be done objectively now that they are no longer circulating. What you will probably end up doing is monitoring the periodic release of hoards of so-called rare dates when the hoarder has got fed up holding on to them such as the roughly 4000 1925 halfcrowns sold at Noble earlier this year. The additional need to police ebay for recycled pieces (as this would presumably be a major source of data) would be a pretty thankless and probably impossible task given the quality of images provided. We are also talking about comparing pieces that in the main are common or less common with only a handful of real rarities found in the last 150 years. The amount of data would be mind boggling. Double counting is a big problem. A few years ago when I still listed things on ebay, I had to prove to someone that my contention of a particular Charles I shilling type being rarer than another was true. To prove to the person asking and to ensure I wasn't making a complete tit of myself, I redid the exercise. That required finding examples in general sales only, i.e. random sale data points. Named collections are out because if you use a person's collection as the basis for data, then that person is likely to have one example of each variety they can lay their hands on. Consequently you can easily end up with the erroneous conclusion that a coin which has 2 common varieties and one maybe unique error exists in the ratio of 1:1:1. Serious rarities aside, there isn't an easy way.

At the risk of stating the obvious, they are also missing most detail. Presumably there's 200 euros worth of haircut for a start. I can't get my head round this fascination (and money spent) on blocked dies and random dot flaws.

Ask Mr C very nicely (preferably with a very large amount of dosh) and you are in with an outside chance of the 1718.

Extend the collection backwards in time. There is a multitude of James I & Charles I coppers, and hammered silver will take you back another three or four hundred years.