Rob

The correct alignment of the letters would have taken precedence over the desire to hide any crossbar.

They list Roman 1's, letters over different letters etc if there is space and if a coin has passed through a sale with sufficient interest shown to justify inclusion. There are too many minor variations to include all which is why they scaled back the Charles I provincial coins and included more penny varieties. Those listed will reflect collector demand, so really it is a case of Spink following the crowd with what they collect with the greatest enthusiasm. Varieties are also included by individuals suggesting their inclusion. For example, a clear A instead of a V would be reasonable because it is a genuine error. I don't hate minor variants but I do think they are overhyped. If you listed V over V, what would happen when you get the same variety but in a slightly different position? Do you list them all as V over V with all bar the first described as being in a slightly different position? How do you differentiate without expanding the book exponentially to allow for the necessary illustrations? To me, it is just a normal variation found in die cutting because nobody is perfect and sometimes the multiple punches(which is required in most instances to produce a character of sufficient depth) aren't perfectly aligned. But, if the market wants to pay a premium for a minor double punch variety then I would happily increase my price to satisfy demand - that's business. I don't think it's an A because there is no sign of the cross bar.

Quoted in Marsh Rob or not, 1851 There was no reason for Marsh to quote a double cut letter because he was listing years, mintages and other such information. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of coins in the various denominations with recut letters and so would really only be of interest to the die study specialist. I'm sure some of these dies are very rare, but would only add value if there were a reasonable number of collectors specialising to such a degree. Half sovereigns are not a widely collected denomination, so I can't see there being any premium. Overcut dates where the die has been reused in subsequent years will always have a following because date runs are more popular; legend errors too to a slightly lesser extent, but double cut characters aren't errors as such and so not of special interest to all bar a handful of people.

The picture says it all. No added value for just a double punched letter.

Only up to a point. It might try to explain the Sheldon system in terms of US coins, but if you click on the link to the equivalent grades in other countries it gives AU50 as extremely fine or unc whilst EF40 is extremely fine. This is ebay grading standards. You might find someone on ebay willing to accept the comparison, but anyone with any grading ability who has held an EF40 in the hand wouldn't agree. You have usually got to go to a 64 minimum to get an UNC and even then it isn't guaranteed. I thought it would be useful for the occasional slabbed coin from the US, with an MS grading on it. At any rate I wasn't familiar with the different MS definitions. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at to be honest EF40 by UK standards doesn't come close to EF. Most people would give your typical EF40 a decent VF and not extremely fine, subject to the usual caveat that the numbers on the slab are not always consistent with what you see in the hand. AU50 is typically gVF or maybe a weak EF(UK) - no way will it be close to an UNC. It's the concordance that is the problem.

I've got plenty of years available on my website

Only up to a point. It might try to explain the Sheldon system in terms of US coins, but if you click on the link to the equivalent grades in other countries it gives AU50 as extremely fine or unc whilst EF40 is extremely fine. This is ebay grading standards. You might find someone on ebay willing to accept the comparison, but anyone with any grading ability who has held an EF40 in the hand wouldn't agree. You have usually got to go to a 64 minimum to get an UNC and even then it isn't guaranteed.

This is a bit off topic and has been discussed elsewhere before, but the TPGs have a set of standards to which they work and these are based on the grading standards and assessments of the people who set up their various systems. The US companies grade on their interpretation of the Sheldon grading system. All will have differences relative to each other which is why every purchase should be based on your own assessment of grade and condition and you should not slavishly follow someone else's interpretation. Add in the fact that nobody is infallible, so attribution, grade and other factors immediately become questionable and consequently there is no excuse for buying blindly and then complaining. The same applies to buying raw coins. As there is never going to be a consistent system applicable to all, the most important thing is consistency within the TPG. If all one person's EFs are another mans UNCs, then you know what you will get. If the opposite applies you are on equally safe ground.

High grade gold is a nightmare. The number of uncs advertised with surfaces resembling the Somme in July 1916 is appalling. For my money, UNC only starts at a couple of tiny marks.

Talking in general terms, there's another side to the coin (sorry...). Grading and description are very much in the eyes of the beholder as we are mostly agreed, but human psychology and greed come into play. Advertising gVF or whatever coins simply won't attract the same number of eyeballs as an UNC which invariably means no sale. Everyone wants an uncirculated coin at a VF or even EF price but you are most unlikely to get it. Genuine UNCs are actually very, very difficult to find in most instances. The first filter in choosing which coin to buy is a visual one where you scan the list and in most instances look for the highest grade/most attractive description item. As the resulting shortlist will in most instances only contain UNCs with maybe a few EFs, the incentive on the part of the seller to nudge up the grade and/or glowingly expand the description's appeal is overwhelming. Whether this has been done in this sale's case I can't comment as I have only looked at the picture of the one coin I was interested in. In this instance it looked to be as graded and the description was accurate for the grade. It just didn't look very attractive. There is no substitute for your own opinion, which if built on solid foundations and you are honest with yourself is the only one to go with. Ask yourself how you would describe that coin as a buyer, but also how you would describe it as a seller. If you feel the coin is not as described, be prepared to walk away. If the price is too much, walk away. Nobody is forced to buy a coin.

I couldn't agree more.

Party pooper time. I'm glad I'm a contrarian and don't have any serious interest in bronze pennies. As I'm only looking for 3 specific pennies in the period covered by the collection and with only one of these in part 1 which isn't in the right condition, I will divert funds elsewhere. God knows how much material there is to feast on this month with at least a dozen sales excluding this one. Having said that, I do wish the auction houses would spread the material out over the year rather than cramming it all into one month.

If there is a hint of green to the tone, then they are probably 0.500

It's my website - RP Coins

That feature won't make any difference to the price as there are more examples with missing serifs in this issue than perfect specimens. 1822 is a common date and the coin is fine at best, so the value will be no more than a couple pounds. Here is an example from my website with the same faulty I as your coin in EF grade on the reverse, (the obverse is better than EF). There is minimal friction to the peak of the helmet, Britannia's breast and the drapery. As you will see, your coin has considerably more wear. Sorry to disappoint.

Correct. Far better to ensure that at least one of you gets the coin as you can always apologise after the sale. Both losing out causes a lot more grief, particularly if one of the interested parties bids on something else in the interim and is consequently spent up unbeknown to the other person.

This just confirms my belief that the question of small spurious dots is overhyped. A dot between two letters is clearly not part of the intended design and must be due to a random unintentional modification of the die for whatever reason. Noting and collecting dots as part of a die study is a different matter, but your average collector couldn't give a **** about that. Different punches can clearly give design variation as with the various obverse and reverse dies, but die degradation is surely just and only that. Roll on the price ramping of coins with varying states of a die crack or for the person who wants everything, a 1967 penny in Fair - much, much rarer than the common BU's seen. (Sorry, slightly off topic)

Silver threepences on a chain will be worth bullion value only. The coins are all 0.925 silver but the necklace or earrings may not be and so the actual value will depend on the weight of silver in total. They aren't rare and so won't be collectable as coins though obviously some people will always like them from a decorative perspective. In the case of the latter it may be worth a little more to the right buyer.

It appears to be an Ethelred long cross penny with the reverse legend BYRHTPOLD MO PILT indicating the moneyer was Byrhtwold and the mint Wilton. However, no moneyer of this name is listed for any mint in North which although not definitive, is a very good guide and googling Aethelred long cross penny and BYRHTWOLD gives various links to a character of that name in Ethelred's forces. An alternative would be a Scandinavian imitation of the issue which were plentiful, but I don't have any info on these. The peck marks are as one would expect on a coin from this era, but I'm not sure what it is yet. The hair is shorter than that usually seen, but there are regional variations in style. Perhaps Clive can add something useful to this.

There aren't many in the British issues, the majority being the 1804 5/- Dollars by the Bank of England overstruck on Spanish 8 reales. There is also a handful of trial strikes in the reigns of William and Mary and during his sole reign at the time of the recoinage for example. Below is the trial striking of 2 1689 farthings (P.564) on a Charles II halfpenny as mentioned in the footnote on P.155 in Peck.

This guy consistently comes up with both descriptive and physical garbage. link . It is rather disconcerting that you can get 99.7% on a feedback of over 13000 when so much mis-information is bandied about. How on earth did he establish that the mint moved from the Tower to Hereford in 1644 and then produced 3a2 halfcrowns there? The coin illustrated is badly clipped, but is clearly a 3a2 with the cloak flying from the shoulder and has i.m. triangle although you can't tell whether it has ground below the horse or not. The "Hereford" 2/6d has the garter reverse which his coin clearly doesn't. for the record, no Civil War coin has yet been positively attributed to Hereford although records suggest there should be some. This listing is complete bullshit.

The obverse isn't fine let alone VF. The reverse is marginally better than the obverse but with marks near the shield. Value - someone on ebay will probably pay £10-15 because the inverted 1 double florins punch above their weight as an error (which it isn't being a flawed I).

There is more material available than serious collectors of the series, though somebody with a fairly comprehensive British collection will probably get a few examples from Scotland, Ireland, and the islands to add a little diversity. They are scarce in top grades but not rarish unless you are talking mint state. I've got no idea of the quantities of proofs extant. The 1860s book at £2000 & £3500 compared to £350 for the 1839 in 2003. The BNJ index reveals no articles on Manx coinage up to 1999 which probably speaks volumes about the level of interest. The only reference to quantities in the 2003 book is to the 1733 copper issue which states that £300 in pence and £200 in halfpennies were struck. The bibliographical references for Manx coinage are P Nelson, 'Coinage of the Isle of Man' - Numismatic Chronicle 1899, and contemporary forgeries of the 1733 coinage in SNC 1901. Maud Lister's 'Manx Money' (1947); F Pridmore's 'Coins of the British Commonwealth of Nations part 1 (1960) and C Clay's 'On the Brass, Copper and other Currency of the Isle of Man' in the Proc. Manchester Num. Soc Parts I-V (1864-7) are the only other refs. Nelson and Pridmores areticle are likely to be the easiest to acquire, though there is a chance that the Lancs and Cheshire Society or Manchester Museum still have the last article. Keith Sugden at the museum or Bob Lyall who is into colonials might know. It won't be easy finding the articles, let alone accurate mintage figures.

It's a difficult one because the collector base is small. Seems like a strongish price to me, but if genuinely FDC is probably not too far over the top. In Spink's 2003 Coins of Scotland etc the FDC price is given as £350. 7 years on a near doubling is probably reasonable. It gives me an incentive to sell my 1786 halfpenny too. Anybody interested

This is true. The whole collection is a single item in many instances. The important thing is to keep receipts as this is the only evidence you will have that you paid good money to acquire something. It is also worth checking whether the collection is insured on a cost basis or current valuation. If the latter, you will need to have a regular reappraisal of value by a third party in writing.