Rob

It wouldn't be worth any more in cash terms as a variety for the same basic reasons as your half sovereign which is that there are insufficient collectors of the series with deep pockets. But a 6/5 would have a numismatic value as our knowledge base would be extended, i.e. the 1765 die was made but never used.

Apologies due, cocked up here. I've just noticed there wasn't a 1765 penny with only the 2d, 3d & 4d struck. The original request was because my 1766 looks as if it is over a 5. So the question arises, was the die produced but never used. In that case any images of 1766 Maundy pennies would be appreciated to compare dies. Thanks.

Farthing

That's what the members can deliberate over Scott. There are a few theories re this date and others between the years 1850 and 1874. Rayner thought it was a forger operating in the 1890's. Others think it was possibly mint employees tinkering with old dies after the 1887 issues. Some think they are genuine mint productions. A very nice find among a £300 lot though! Genuine Mint product or not, its still a pretty good price. Rendel Ingram seems to have cornered the market for these mystery 1860s halfcrown coins with a number of them at between £400 and £900, so not a bad deal. This is quite interesting. I picked up one of these about 4 years ago. Believe it or not I was approached by a guy in the local who said he had a few old coins from his mum after she died. The usual crap such as an Ed. VII florin in fine and a couple of later Victorian sixpences etc and then an 1861 2/6d. Not what I was expecting. Mr Ingram bought it after I listed it on the website and as you note, doubled the price or more. Pic below for comparison. The interesting thing is that they always appear in this condition with most detail missing but the date clear. I would suggest that they are effectively practically as made. The weight of my piece was 12.87g.

If CGS or anyone else slabs that as V over inverted A when there isn't any sign of the crossbar even at x200 magnification then they are risking their credibility. Granted that would increase the value slightly, but I think you would struggle even more to convince a purchaser that it has an underlying A where you can't make it out in the hand without the plastic to distort it. If you are going to say it could be an A but it's hidden, I suggest it you submit it as a blundered Q

I think both are out of alignment.

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.