Rob

Interesting about the size. I'd presumed it was a shilling as it's considerably bigger than any of the Elizabeth 6ds I've got, both genuine and potentially fake. But it's true that the coin I've scanned above is on a reasonably complete flan while some of the definite 6ds have bits missing round the edge. To avoid comparison with clipped coins, I've measured the diameter of the inner circle: on this coin, it's 21.5 mm, while on the supposedly fake 1593 6d it's 18 mm and on a definitely genuine 1565 6d, 17 mm. I realise these are all different issues, but would the 6d die vary so much in its design dimensions, rather than the dimensions of the flan? Weight -- unfortunately I have nothing accurate enough to weigh it. I'm far from convinced about the metal though. It's very friable and brittle (that crack across the middle could split at any time), and it's a brighter, yellower colour than the usual silver grey of 400+-year-old silver in not very good condition. It also makes a completely different noise when tapped. 21.5mm is the correct inner circle diameter for a shilling, so let's assume for the moment it is supposed to be a shilling even thought the reverse says it is a 6d. You can get an approximate idea of weight if you have a ruler handy. Balance it on a sharp edge and place your known good 6d at a finite distance from the balance point. Place this piece so that it balances again and measure the distance from the centre point. If both are the same weight they should be equidistant from the fulcrum. It is unlikely that they will be exactly the same weight, but with a shilling weighing twice that of a sixpence nominally, you should be able to see if the piece in question balances the 6d at about half the distance from the fulcrum. A foot ruler with the 6d on one end should balance a shilling at about 3" if close to full weight. Actual distances can be used to give a rough idea of the true weight. The weight of a coin determined its intrinsic value in this period and not its physical size. The crack means it would give a different ring to a coin in good metal, so this isn't helpful. A yellowish colour would suggest it is a forgery, probably made from brass, but it would not be logical to produce forgeries of a lower denomination (designated by the rose in the obverse field) on a flan for a larger denomination which in any case wasn't produced for the date in question.

The flat topped 8 is normal for this reign. The diameter is a little on the large side, but there is in any case a degree of variation in this value. The 6d in the current Spink is 25mm diameter, but I have a woolpack 6d which is 27mm+ and just about has the outer circle on the diameter. The shillings go from 30ish to 34 or 35mm diameter, but the key is the diameter assuming you can see the outer circle fully. The obverse mark has stops either side which is noted in BCW as frequent for 1578. The mark is correct for the date. James I shillings are on the whole found slightly smaller in diameter than Elizabeth's with the outer circle not present even when full weight. The silver looks grotty, so it isn't easy to check the bust and other details, but it appears to have the correct shaped cross ends and bust from what I can see. What is the weight?

Thanks Derek. Congratulations, you were the only person who was remotely interested in anything. As a result, anything that could be spent has been. Only demonetised or withdrawn decimals and RM sets remain.

Hi Everyone. I've just acquired a reasonable quantity of uncirculated decimals in varying years and denominations. It's not worth sorting through and listing due to the low values involved, but if anyone has specific items they are looking for to fill gaps then PM me and I'll see if I can help before most of them get spent.

Yes I forgot the obvious information - He wrote the Galata Guide on the Farthing Tokens of James I and Charles I Paul & Bente are away at the moment. Try Colin Cooke in the morning.

The crowns (2 varieties), halfcrown and shilling with the second bust are all unique. The shilling was the last to be located in 1949 by Seaby. It then passed to Lord Hamilton whose collection was sold at Spink in February 1979. This coin was lot 236 and sold for £13K hammer. I don't know where they are or how much the present owner paid, but you may rest assured you will need very deep pockets should you wish to acquire any of the above.

Hi Rob, Does this include any of the varieties, or is it just dates only? I haven't got a clue what varieties there might be. That's why I said if anyone was looking for specifics I might be able to help. I certainly can't generate enough enthusiasm to check each one for a minor alignment of a dot. They haven't been sorted in this way and there are multiple examples of many dates. The one thing I do know is that there is no 1983 NEW PENCE 2p.

I'm not sure why everyone gets so hyped up about phones. What's the attraction? My crappy little basic model makes calls and provides texting facilities, surely that's enough. Having said that, predictive text isn't that clever. Probably 50% of texts are questions requiring a yes or no answer. You guessed it, when I tried to reply it insisted ON was the appropriate word which suggests it was designed by someone conversant with modern illiteracy standards. I gave up and phoned - it was so much easier.

No, there are 2 reverses for the 1953 proof. The rare one is reverse B with the thick rim. I've got the Bamford coin, but am not aware of any sold that have been listed as such other than this coin for at least 6 or 7 years and probably more. Given that I have checked virtually every proof 1953 halfpenny I have encountered on ebay and in auction lots for years and not unearthed another, I think they are rarer than Freeman's R14.

I've had a few. Some that spring to mind are a better than EF 1889/8 1/2d for £3.56 + £4 P&P (ouch), my 1675/3/2 1/2d slabbed as NGC MS65 for less than £850 as a result of a series of misattributions on the slab and in the sale catalogue and what will hopefully be the best of all - only the second recorded example of a James 1st transitional bust shilling for £80, which is the approximate price for a 2nd bust shilling which it was described as. I have consigned it to the next St. James's sale as it didn't fit in with my collecting criteria. Disregard the Spink catalogue on this one as the prices given are based on a sample total of nil described and sold as such in auctions, i.e. they are fictional.

Difficult one that as the grade acts as quite a drag on the rarity premium. Presumably you are referring to lot 254 in Spink sale 172. I was offered that coin amongst other duplicates before they went into the sale. Obviously I declined, as at the time thought it wasn't worth spending £1600 when the best of the three known (but still pretty grim) was going to be auctioned later that year. I also remember your coin not selling on ebay post auction at around the £2700 mark. Given the low grade of all three known examples, the price is likely to be determined by that quoted in Spink's tome unless you can find two half crown collectors with deep pockets as has happened with the bun head pennies and play one off against the other. If someone came up with a VF or better example then the price for this would almost certainly run to 5 figures.

The mark could be ink as well. You encounter coins from time to time which have collector's marks inked onto the fields. You could check it carefully and see if it looks like ink and i so, then it will probably be water soluble and although the original solvent would have long disappeared, the remaining dyes adhering to the coin would be water soluble in time.

This time you asked which ones he bought without the inappropriate apostrophe contained in your former post. Now all we are missing is the obligatory question mark on the second post. Third time lucky? Tin hats at the ready chaps. I didn't have lunch today. I can't speak for Red's eating habits.

Which one is ......? You haven't finished the sentence.

The whole question of what constitutes a collectable or not variety is entirely down to the whims of collectors, but serious in depth study is inevitably restricted to the anoraks of whatever denomination and so by definition, a relatively restricted group. For me, the concept of varieties varies with time. On older coinage where there were no mechanical reduction methods employed to ensure reproducible designs it is quite useful to record any die variations for research purposes, but to imagine that any premium should be applied to dies which are effectively all individual designs is quite patently silly. When you get to more modern coinage from the 1800's onwards, the increased mechanisation results in a greater consistency of product and so any material changes to the design such as the use of an obviously different bust punch are of an increased significance. So, I can see the wide date/narrow date case as they are clear with only a cursory glance. More important is if a die has been deliberately modified for reuse in subsequent years by a change of date or there has been an easily identifiable correction to an error then again we have a significant variety in my view. Clearly provenance marks such plumes, roses, elephants etc are unquestionable varieties. But I find it difficult to get excited about where the legend is relative to the border teeth and similarly the fact that the last datal figure (or pair of figures) were entered manually means that spacing here is ever so slightly different on each die and again I find it hard to get excited. I also have a problem with recut but unchanged letters, random dots and blocked dies which are a result of die damage or the adhesion of crap to the die. Neither were design features and are about as important as the differences between last night's and today's evening meals. Although generally aligned with 1949, I am not in agreement with his rejection of any variety with limited numbers available as this is clouding the issue between what is not easily visible due to the size of variation and what you are unlikely to see due to the lack of numbers available. A good example was in my image gallery (now apparently defunct) which had a transposed French & Irish shields William III 1697y shilling. The error is obvious to any student of early milled coins because the shields are in the wrong order. In the hand, the error is even more apparent because the die axis is 90 degrees left with only the French shield being in the correct place if you flip the coin over. It is however only the second known example of this type which up to 2003 was represented by a unique coin previously in the Parsons and Jackson-Kent collections. So what do you do - ignore it as being too rare? It is also informative as a piece of historical information as the French arms alignment tells you that the person who put the dies in the mill aligned the top of the obverse with the French arms when setting up.

Looks good to me. There aren't a great number of forgeries of Charles I anchor shilling about and those that are will most likely be contemporary and so collectable.

I'll second that. I see the sales blurb for the London Coins lot mentions that Laurie Bamford's example raised about £3500. I also note that it fails to mention the estimate in advance of the sale which was £50-100, a much saner number. I realise there aren't too many about and can understand the rationale for a price in the hundreds, but several £k is beyond comprehension in this grade when there are an unknown number out there. It would not be unreasonable to expect a VF example or more/better to randomly turn up just as in a recent DNW sale there was a collection with two Chester Civil War shillings which increased the number known by 33%. How would that affect pricing because at this point the grade is starting to become attractive? Granted there are a lot of penny collectors about, but surely it would be better to save their money for a 1933, 1954 or toothed border 1953.

There are various sizes of punch for all characters because of the different sizes of flan for the denominations. For the design to look balanced, you need a proportionally similar ratio between flan diameter and legend height. Without having checked any dimensions because I don't have any examples myself, are the characters on the wide and narrow date varieties from the same punches or are they physically narrower? If the latter, is it possible to identify which other dies the punches were used for? I'm thinking in terms of Channel Islands, IOM, Ireland, or other empire issues. Can the individual punches used be identified from the coins available and do they match any of the punches stored in the Royal Mint? Any items stored there are likely to have some sort of indicator as to their use.

It goes under the general classificiation of Maundy money, but I'm not sure when the 1-4d ceased to be a circulating coin and only produced for the Maundy ceremony (can't find the reference at the moment). Either way, it grades somewhere between Fine and VF which have prices of £7 & £25 in the current Spink edition. They aren't rare and yours seems a reasonably attractive example for the grade. It isn't worth insuring.

If you compare the border teeth with that illustrated in Marsh, there are a couple of differences in the alignment of the colons relative to the teeth. The F and the colon after IND are the most obvious. It might be worth checking with the mint to see how many dies there are for 1937 half sovereigns. Just because the mintage is only 5001 it doesn't necessarily mean that only one die was made.

Why is 1933 a special year for rarities?

On a more practical note, if anyone is interested in hammered shillings or thinking of dabbling, then there are a few listed that are seriously difficult to get hold of. As grotty as the E5/2 looks, you will struggle to find one in any grade and it isn't expensive. I paid well in excess of book for mine a few years ago and have absolutely no regrets. Of the handful of decent examples I know of, none are in danger of being sold in a hurry. You are also unlikely to be over-run with B2/1's or D1/1's either.

Just for you I'll keep an eye on them to make sure they don't sell for a silly low price (to anyone else)

The first one looks fairly grotty where the first stop should be, but it looks like a trace of a stop after GRATIA and on the second one all three obverse stops are there albeit weak. Nothing to worry about as far as I can see. The question of stops always arouses a bit of controversy. The design obviously called for stops, but occasionally they are missed out and so to decide whether a coin genuinely exists in the no stops variety from a particular die I think it is first necessary to find one in mint state or close to so that you can eliminate wear to a stop that may have been very weak in the first place. Most of the claimed no stops coins are usually in fairly dire grade, so it is impossible to say they are genuinely no stops. This problem also exists to my mind for the dump halfpenny which has a die or two which have little more than a pimple in high grade where the mark seen could well be a stop guide, but the stop was never fully punched in. Equally, the absence of a stop could be due to die fill. In this instance, a low grade coin - say VF or below, doesn't show any feature resembling a stop. But that doesn't make it a no stops variety, just an indifferent example of a standard type with weakness.

You're probably paranoid. It's a woman assuming the name is correct. I've bought a few things off her in the past with no indication of any dodgy pieces, though many have been dipped. The one in the link doesn't appear to have been dipped though looking at the toning. And uncs aren't usually.