Rob

It's genuine enough. It's a rotated and double struck example, hence the two heads and 4 tie ribbons. I've got a DIL 1698 with 2 heads, 4 ties and the obverse reading GVLIELMELM ERTIVTIVS with the reverse . BRBRITANIA•16981698 I've also got a 1697 with 2 heads and 4 ties reading GVLIELIELM TERTIVSVS and the reverse BRITAITANNNIA• I think they look quite cool.

It depends entirely on what you want. There is no such thing as a compulsory list of "must haves".

ESC R3 which essentially means extremely rare, but more than 20 known (because R4 is 11-20 known). I don't think it is extremely rare, but is still worth a premium. As for 400BUX, what BUX are we talking about? If US$, then that is a bit cheap. The reverse looks better than the obverse. I would put it at about £300-£350 given the reverse marks and the obvious wear to the obverse, but the price is getting into that problem area where you are spending a reasonable amount of money for a less than pristine coin that is not impossible to obtain in better condition for a bit more money. If you could get a goodEF or mint state example for say £750-1500, then you wouldn't want to spend £300-400 on an obviously sub-standard piece. Just my opinion.

I suspect that the answer to this puzzle may be something running in parallel to what is known for the 1848 half crown. The article in the 1958 BNJ (p.191-193) using information supplied by Stride refers but the gist is as follows. At the time it was thought that all 1848 2/6ds were 1848/6, but in 1957 two 1848's appeared which were unambiguously not over anything. (The 1848/7 was unknown at this time.) It was known that there were 4 obverse matrices from 1845-1853 and the number of punches was increased from 6-7 in July 1846.Based on the numbers of known dies that were in stock according to the mint records, it was possible to assign the numbers of variously dated dies at the year ends. Year end 1846 there were 35 obv. dies, all of which would have been dated 1846, 28 were sunk between July and December. Jan & Feb 1847 16 obverse dies were sunk but it is not known if they were dated or not (thought unlikely at the time of the article). During the year, 22 of the 35 1846 dated obverses were destroyed. It is thought the remaining 13 were used to strike 1847 coins but without the date altered. 347,488 2/6ds were struck in 1847, though none dated 1847 are known. Only 91,872 were struck in 1848 with the bulk being supplied by recut 1846 dies. At this point in time there was a sharp fall in demand for 2/6ds, so the 13 remaining 1846 dies would have been sufficient to strike the small issue at just over 33000 per die if all were used. All of the 1848 dies examined appeared to have a misplaced E in DEI, but the plain date 1848 is from a die without the misplaced E which ought therefore be one of the 16 dies sunk in 1847 from the new punch, but completed in 1848. The matter is then complicated somewhat by the 1848/7 die which also has a misplaced E in DEI, as do some but not all 1849 and 1850 dies, so the conclusions of the above article need to be revised. For about 5 years from 1847-1851 there was a considerable reduction in mint output with halfcrowns, shillings, sixpences and even small silver having gaps in the dates or very low mintages - probably related to the proposed decimalisation given the large output of Godless florins. Unfortunately, Hocking is not clear on this point as the only things listed are : two halfcrown punches dated 18-- (item nos. 1263 & 1264), plain fillets, one with w.w. on the truncation and also a matrix (item 1250) as for the 1839 proof but with 18--. It is therefore unclear where Stride got his information from. However, the existence of an 1847 sixpence is quite feasible based on the inferences that could be drawn from the half crowns. All that would be needed would be an undated die or one dated 18--. This would be in keeping with a misaligned date and from known pennies etc and retained mint material we know that dies were kept with either none or a partial date.

The picture isn't clear enough to say, but if it's a penny then 58 is the only option as there were no 38 pennies, only halfpennies and farthings. The last two are about 28 and 21mm dia respectively. Pennies are 33mm.

Yes, no and about Fine in that order. They are very common in low grade. Boulton struck at least 1000 tons of copper into cartwheel pennies and twopences, of which only about 4% was twopences.

It's an Edward I hammered penny minted in Bristol. The reverse reading in full would be VILLA BRISTOLLIE which tells you where it was struck. It looks like a type 3 which would have been struck in 1280-1 - perhaps someone else would like to give an opinion on the sub-type. It looks as if it may have been slightly clipped, but nearly all hammered coins are irregular to a greater or lesser degree due to the method of manufacture i.e. a piece of silver was put between the two dies and then hit with a hammer - not a very consistent means of quality control. The important thing at this time was the weight because a penny contained a penny's worth of silver. In fact all coins prior to the introduction of token coinage had a value equal to that of the metal used. In the case of a penny at the time of Edward I, their weight as proscribed by the relevant law was 22.2 grains (1.4386 grams). However, this is an average figure and so coins could be above or below this weight. The heavier ones were usually either set aside or clipped due to their higher intrinsic value, whilst the lower weight pieces were spent.

Without the coin in hand, it isn't really possible to give an objective opinion on the relief of the date. If the coin is slightly dished, then the wear could be uneven. Dates are also punched in unevenly. The two types of 1860 1/2d BB reverses are a good example of this with a choice of wider spaced 60 or a narrower one with a lower 0.

Or simply just a case of correcting an error in the punch used.

From the image it looks as if there is a trace of the colon after BRITANNIAR as this is set a bit low with the top stop about half way up the R and the bottom stop below the base level. It looks alright, but for completion's sake - what is the die axis?

If there was some way of ensuring all the copies went into a replica folder, that would reduce the number by at least 10% overall and more for the older categories such as hammered and early milled. Like Peckris, I simply can't find the enthusiasm to trawl through the pages of crap. It is possible to use mental filters as well because although many listings are textbook examples of illiteracy, the ability to copy and paste means you can frequently identify a known purveyor of crap by the spelling mistakes in the title and say the background colour characteristics of the thumbnail. Others may simply list all coins in the hammered section or wherever. There are plenty of ways to identify certain sellers without viewing the listing, but whether this compensates for the vast numbers you can't readily identify is a moot point. There are additional pointers that can be used to identify rubbish such as the regular use of inappropriate words.

I have one or two Adolph Weyl patterns and several Lauer play coins all 1887. Weyl is not so hard to get a brief history for try http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c14.html and if you can talk with Rob Pearce, I hope you are not the same Rob, he is also working on an article concerning the provenances of all Weyl coin patterns. What Weyl patterns do you have please? Anything of 1887 would be of particular interest. Andrew Sadly, I fear I am the same Rob that met the same Andrew earlier this year.

I am trying to compile an article on the Weyl patterns and I am looking for references to any literature outlining the history, trading dates, products and any other info regarding Lauer, the manufacturer of various toy coins etc based in Nurnberg. It can be written in English or German. Chris? Thanks.

I was going to make a collection of a coin by each attributed designer. Prior to 1970 (about 450 years) there were about 75. Since 1970 (the ensuing 40 years) there have been about 40 up to the end of Spink's 2009. I'm not going to bother post-1970 because by the time the Olympics are over the number will probably exceed the 75 mentioned above - and I suspect none of them will be collectable because the mint output is verging on a serious medical condition that needs urgent treatment.

Presumably Guy Newson bought it at the M&E sale. He's been spending a lot of money in the London sales of late. Much if not all of what he buys resurfaces on ebay.

Text for the M&E catalogue was copied verbatim in the previous post. I don't have a copy of the Christies Rome sale.

It's the one from the last Morton & Eden sale (lot 263) where it was catalogued as a proof. Didn't see it though so wouldn't like to say. The provenance suggests it could possibly be a proof because if the future King doesn't get one, then who would, even if it doesn't have the raised edge? But given it was polished we will probably never know. The lot description says "The edge lettering on this piece is finer & less deeply impressed than that found on circulating coins and it could be argued that the coin is therefore, strictly speaking, a pattern. Provenance: Christies Rome 17th June 2004, lot 605 and formerly the property of Edward, Duke of Windsor. It is likely that the Duke, as Prince of Wales, would have received such as coin and the cleaning which it has undergone is typical of many of the pieces in his collection.

He offered me a trio of decimal patterns, one of which was identifiable as being from his collection. I think there were probably more though. As MJF usually prices them high to start with and I already had one of the varieties on offer I didn't bother chasing it up. I think it is possible that he still has coins from the collection. You could always ask the question.

The picture of the last page where there are Weyl patterns makes interesting reading. There are names assigned to the winning bidders which are found nowhere else and are not familiar to anyone who attended sales on a routine basis. I think they are fictional on the grounds that you would get blocks of 3 or 4 lots assigned to the same (unheard of) name followed by another block of 3 or 4 lots to a different unrecognised name. This happened on more than one occasion in this and other sales around this time. The implication is that these were unsold lots being bought in. It makes interesting reading when you analyse some of the sale results at this time as it suggests that sales were not so strong as might be assumed. Certainly the market was quite weak in the first half of the 80's having fallen by 30-40% in about '82-3. I suspect these were actually unsold lots - eg. the aluminium 1887 1/2d was acquired later by Joanna Tansley (sold at DNW 28/9/05 lot 382) and was bought from Patrick Deane (a dealer) shortly after the sale which lends credence to this idea.

That's silly. You can pick one up for £10-15. Unless it has been annotated with a full list of where the coins were purchased to record or enhance the provenances I can think of no reason why anyone would buy it. Even then, the added value would only be a factor of 2 or 3. The provenances of the 4 coins I have that are clearly identifiable from his collection were freely communicated to me when I asked, so I can't think what else there is to offer.

As a significant participant who helped kick off the current steep upward trend at the Slaney sale in 2003 with his purchase of the Petition Crown, I hope he is not forecasting the future based on insider knowledge of his forthcoming purchases. I was hoping that my nemesis on more than one occasion was taking a really long and well earned break. Twenty years should suffice.

Assuming it is a guinea (diameter about 23mm), in that condition plus the fact that it has been holed it would be worth bullion value. The reverse looks a bit better, but it has clearly been polished a lot with the lack of obverse detail. However, if it is a half guinea (diameter about 20mm), it may be worth a bit more as 1792 is a very rare year. Spink 2009 gives prices of £500 in fine and £1550 in VF with no higher price quoted. This is x4 the price quoted for all the other years of this issue. Notwithstanding the fact it has been holed and the obverse of your coin is nowhere near fine, if it is in fact a 1/2 guinea you might expect a slight premium to bullion due to its rarity. The image shows a gap between the first G and the hair which suggests it is a half, but the unambiguous test will be the diameter.

I've got a 1905 with the 1st & 4th R's with a tail and the 2nd & 3rd short. Don't know if that is already covered though. The D's are as for obv.2 and the E's have a shorter top bar.

For all of you desperate to acquire the key date 1925 half crown, you could do worse than bid in the next Noble auction. Lots 1902-1919 contain a cumulative total in excess of 4000 of them. Rare - I think not . Ebay is likely to be full of them at some point unless they hopefully get melted down because most are not really collectable. link

I have just used the silver content vs the current spot price. I don't think you could actually realise £2 because there are margins, commissions and wear to consider should it be sold, but it gives a ballpark figure.