Rob

Random dots are just that and to most collectors should be irrelevant, stop variations are significant as they are integral to the original design. If a dot in the wrong place appears because a speck of metal fell off the die, then the gradual degradation of the die gives rise to an infinite number of varieties as it gets blocked/worn/damaged. In the context of a study where you are trying to establish the number of dies and their working lives it would be an integral part, so as a specific die within a group of otherwise identical ones it is of academic interest but not worth more than a modest premium at most. That said, if someone wants to pay me a sum of money for a coin that is vastly in excess of my personal valuation then I would have absolutely no qualms about taking the money. Two happy punters are better than one. I suspect that most of the recent interest in micro varieites arises because for many people it offers an extension to the collection which is otherwise nearly complete based on the original objectives. The number of people doing serious die studies is probably limited to little more than a handful. All of which is said without the statistical evidence to back it up, but I would suggest is not wide of the mark.

If I see a coin that has a feature I wish to see represented in the collection then I will get it irrespective of whether it is ancient, modern, cheap or expensive as long as it is affordable. As a result, I have a 2008 penny representing copper plated steel sitting quite happily between a bi-metallic Moore model halfpenny and a Victorian pattern decimal 1/2d as my cupro-nickel example. In the case of the first item the value of the coin ticket is considerably in excess of the value of the coin. Nothing is too mundane to consider.

It wouldn't add to its value. Double cut lettering occurs in virtually every denomination of every reign. It was either the result of a misplaced punch when the die was originally sunk, or due to a subsequent recutting of the die to extend its life when the detail had weakened after a period of use. In my opinion it isn't really an error in the conventional sense because there is no deviation from the required legend form. If the wrong letter had been punched in and whether corrected or not then this would be an error, but the slight misalignment is just that. The smaller the die, the worse the alignment as a rule of thumb with small silver and fractional farthings accentuating the problem.

5.37g.

Here's a picture of the reverse. There is a tiny point in the centre where the copper is showing through. In the hand it doesn't look or feel right either, though it is a decent copy as the fields have some reflectivity.

Here's one with the silvering intact

Full credit to the person who was able to establish they were halfcrowns.

Hi, Is anybody out there computer literate enough to explain why messages in my inbox appear with content readable for the most part, but when I receive notifications from Spink and a couple of others there is always a blank screen with the AVG message at the bottom. The size of file doesn't appear to be the reason as a 5k or 5M file both come up yet a recent Spink notice didn't but was only 224k. Any ideas?

Weight, surface detail, multiple examples with identical marks, incorrect die axis, edge quality, counterfeit references (of which there are many but people can't be bothered to read), quality of strike, sharpness of detail. Where are they ? Chris doesn't have this book, so here is a link to my site. This is an invaluable reference which covers counterfeits from all eras. It can never hope to cover every article written, but it's a very good start.

Weight, surface detail, multiple examples with identical marks, incorrect die axis, edge quality, counterfeit references (of which there are many but people can't be bothered to read), quality of strike, sharpness of detail.

Hi. In that condition it is only worth a pound or two. The best indication of the value obtainable would be to check ebay for a similar item.

Scarce is a slight understatement as there are thought to be 2 1933 pennies available to collectors. Coins with altered dates appear on a regular basis and there are also copies available, but as the last genuine 1933 penny to change hands in 2006 cost the new owner £45K, nobody is going to be fooled by a coin on offer at £125. A well executed altered date does have some value though because by definition there can never be more than one or two people able to own the proper thing and it is the key date for any penny collection.

No thanks. It's from the same die pair as mine, so I wouldn't want two. Phosphor bronze, platinum or zinc would be interesting as would a 1914 twelve groats or a 1913 octorino and eightpence. Or better still, any of these designs in the aforementioned metals.

I bought the iron example at DNW's sale last September, lot 3572, which was a piece virtually as struck and not listed in Linecar & Stone or ESC. The hammer price was £1400 (£1652 incl prem.). The lot before was ESC 401 with a plain edge which hammered at £820 (about £960 with prem.). The grade descriptions in the catalogue were identical, but I didn't look at the silver one to check if the grade was correct or not. Nor can I tell whether yours and the DNW piece are the same coin because of the different lighting conditions.

Credit where it's due, although I think I've bought very little from Cambridge Coins, I have generally thought their grading stood up to scrutiny. Run by a guy called Dave Allen who, as far as I know, is absolutely no relation! Well you're the undoubted expert on grading, Derek. I certainly wouldn't argue with your conclusions Dave and I are almost always in agreement on a coin's grade.

Probably because there was an illusion to finer work in the sale catalogue where it was bought initially as Morrieson in his 1921-2 article in the BNJ vol. 16 describes this obverse die (1643 F) as follows. F. Mint-mark plume. Finer bust than "E" having the edges of the lace collar well marked and with alternating pearls and jewels of(sic) the crown. Legend, CAROLVS:D:G:MAG:BR:FR:ET:HI:REX. This must be an early one as the C of CAROLVS has a chip out it like ojn those of 1642 and some of the early half-crowns of 1643 (Plate VII,99). Found with reverses 3 & 8. This coin has reverse 3, but fine work it aint.

It's a decent example of the type. Good fine (UK) is about right. I'd say it is worth £50 or even a bit more, but whether a Bulgarian would want to pay that much I wouldn't like to say. Most of the available examples are dire.

I didn't add anything because I was unable to formulate a reply in terms that he would relate to. I'm not convinced it was A W because the style was too disimilar. The only thing in common with the aforesaid was a sign of mental instability, something the world is not short of.

It certainly looks quite possible that it is a '2' punched over a '9'. The problem, as ever, is in establishing it as a variety. If it is currently unknown, your best bet is in tracking down a few people who also have examples. Or sending the coin to a reputable authority, such as the compilers of The English Silver Coinage, and get an ESC number for it. Ironically, unique specimens often have a problem arousing interest, as I've found with my 1887 wreath reverse sixpence, 8 over 8. You might have a problem adding it to ESC. Alan Rayner is pushing up the daisies as he died sometime in 2007.

My gothic in GEF+ cost £575, a few years ago mind. I'm not complaining, I think it's probably beaten the stock market. Personally, I think Gothics are dear not because of the mintage, but because they are that good - nothing else comes close. If you just want an example of the design you might as well get a florin. True a mint state one will set you back well over book, but is worth it because they are much scarcer in mint state than the crown. I've only ever seen one in that condition and deeply regret not going higher.

I'm not sure why Gothic Crowns attract such high bids. 8000 were struck which when compared with wreath crowns is only surpassed by the 1927 proof and 1928 currency, yet they sell for many multiples compared to the wreaths. Sure they are attractive to look at, but not rare enough to spend as much on them as people do. Any example in virtually any grade sells for more than an UNC wreath, even EF ones sell for three or 4 times that of a wreath (1934 excepted). Only a really choice UNC 1847 is worth paying a few £Ks for IMO. Though the 1846 or 1853 are clearly worth a bit more. I think wreaths are also overpriced given the mintages.

He's been selling "uncirculated" tat for years - in fact I've never seen anything approaching unc listed by him. At least the pictures are good enough to see it isn't unc or anywhere remotely near either. Rather disturbingly his high and very high grade coins are better than his unc

For 30K it would have to be a big hammered gold piece such as a triple unite or a nice fine sovereign. It's still not enough for a Henry VII though.

Why do you think it is a fake? 3g is correct, but could be anywhere between 2.5 & 3.5g. What is the weight to 2 decimal places? If it isn't made of silver, then the ring would be a different tone to a genuine one which you obviously have as you have compared tones. Is there any difference in the detail of the two items?

2.4g is too low, but about right for a pewter with 80/20 Tin/Lead. Does it ring right? A cast will have a duller sound than a struck piece which has quite a clear resonance. Take a known 925 silver coin of about the same dimensions, place it on the end of your finger and give the edge a light tap with a pencil or similar. The ring will sound different if you have a casting in a different metal.