Rob

The coins looks to be dated 1885. is this the same coin ???? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...52BSI%26otn%3D4 No, this looks to be dated 1880. And the first one is dated 1885. One is Melbourne, the other Sydney. The letters below the bust are clear. Both obverses are similarly not very good though, so I had to do a double take on them to be sure.

Up for sale once again (or still) -- at a new lower price... a second chance He must have some real gems. It is only 1mm thick instead of the normal 2mm. Perhaps someone should email him and point out that even his 2mm coin(s) are rare - so get it/them listed NOW!. Sadly, all my 3d's are 2.75mm thick.

Snap

An article in the 2001 BNJ entitled "Coin-Weights made by the Founders" by Norman Biggs refers to the exact description of your piece. The article identifies it as a shilling coin weight (for assessing if the mass of silver is the same as found in a full shilling) but merely notes that some of the bullion weights have additional countermarks that raise interesting questions. It mentions a rampant lion, possibly to make it acceptable for use in Scotland. Other marks noted are a fleur de lys and a cinquefoil. If a rampant lion was for Scotland, then the logical extension of this is a French lys and an English rose. French silver at this time was to a standard of 0.917 as opposed to the English 0.925. I don't know if this has any relevance though.

Have a word with Paul Withers at Galata who is one of the best experts in this field. He collects coin weights, writes about them and may have one of these too. In any case he would be able to point you in the right direction. I see the mark is a cinquefoil, rose or pansy. This was also used as a mark in Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I so there are numerous possibilities as to its origin. The alternative would be the use of the mark which is specific to a place. Besides the tower mint, York and Canterbury also used these marks at various times. The inscribed letter D could refer to the person in charge of the mint as opposed to the location. A precedent for this is a series of weights with a TR monogram which can reasonably be attributed to Oxford as Thomas Rawlins signed some medals with the same.

If it sells he can spend some of the cash generated on literacy classes. Why are so many people in this country incapable of spelling words, or communicating in general in their own language?

Certainly a halfpenny was one of them last time round and your description fits what I saw. This is probably the same as last time as there is no way anyone with even the most basic knowledge would accept it as a genuine gilt proof, so is probably the same item rejected and included a second time round. I think most auctioneers put rejects in their following sale - but fail to mention the reason it was returned the first time. Certainly I have always checked for my returned items in the following sale and been able to identify them despite the description rarely mentioning the reason for return as a revision of the original, whoever's sale it is. The coin/antiques shop is Peter Viola's. His prices are fair from what I have seen.

I would never, ever bid blind at their sales. I put my foot in it the first time I went there when a Victorian sixpence listed as UNC fell out of the envelope and I immediately called their guy back on the grounds that I wouldn't have asked for a VF 6d, so it must therefore have been the wrong lot. That was before I fully understood their grading.

I take a similar view to Mat. Most of what I have seen in the past on offer at W & W is overgraded and generally a waste of time. I drove down to their last sale in February as there were 2 pattern halfpennies I was interested in. When I looked at them, both were only currency pieces with no features even vaguely resembling the defining points of the patterns. I asked if there was a list of notices and was told no. I pointed out the mistakes and asked if anyone was going to generate a notice. I was told no. When another lot which was listed as gilt was clearly a currency piece with the quality of gilding akin to a painted Christmas decoration I gave up, stopped looking and left to have a more productive day. When asked if I was going to the sale, I pointed out the futility of doing so. Maybe that is why I didn't get a complimentary catalogue this time round. That could just be a plus, folks.

What did it realize in the Norweb Sale? Lot 731 made £4000 hammer.

I only have 1997 Krause, but there isn't anything illustrated that matches the design. The monogram dividing the date looks ok for KM12 & KM12b which is a 1/48th taler except I can't see a letter (A or F) under the monogram and the latest they go to is 1770. These are struck in .250 silver, so with such a high copper content could possibly look like the picture if badly corroded. However, there is no match for the reverse design indicated for any denomination. Copy or medallet?

If it is 1783 it won't be Republique Francaise because France was still a monarchy then, so any coins would have the king and his titles on the obverse. I couldn't find anything in Krause under France that fits the description. Try and post a picture.

It may or may not work because the 150Kb attachment limit could prevent really good detail being shown.

You're lucky, mine pays 0.1%.

You could be right, but there is so much recutting of letters on these dies (particularly at the end of the series which 1820 is) that it is difficult to be conclusive. The N is about 15% narrower than the M on three examples I have just examined and so the right leg of N would be at the edge of the left side of the M's right vertical. More interesting is that one of my three appears to have a composite M with the left leg showing as a discrete thin I. One of the coins also has a badly double cut N in the garter legend which is extremely variable in the thickness of the angled bar and resembles the underlying N in question, though is clearly not from the same punch as the letter is smaller on the reverse. It could therefore be an underlying N but one which is defective, hence the shape. The images of the M and N in the legend of three coins shows quite a bit of variation in the shape. Of the above 3 points only the first one is specific to an N, but if the letter is composite as on the bottom M in the attached then the verticals would be made with I's which should have 4 serifs. Basically we need a glass on it.

Is it not just a flaw? There is no sign of the left leg of an N which ought to be there because the N is considerably narrower than the M.

A logo is irrelevant. The name Pobjoy doesn't lend itself to allegorical illustration and so the name is all that is required as it tells me who the manufacturer is. In this case a logo complicates matters as it might induce me to look at the product not knowing the company behind it. Those who wish to persue the company's products will do so whether or not there is a logo. Conversely, others will avoid the name and after exposure to the logo ignore that too. I think it is an un-necessary complication. In line with other comments, I have a chess set together with a spare should the first one self-destruct and so don't need another.

Nice idea Peter, but if you use the eBay route you have to remember that only crap sells for way over it's reasonable value. On the whole, if you put something decent on then buyers assume there is a catch and so bid low. It's psychology - everyone wants a bargain either by bidding low on the good stuff, or hoping that the washer portrayed in the listing will turn out better in the flesh and so justify the OTT price paid.

Nice lustre on the index finger though shame about the carbon spot, or is it a mole? On a more serious note, I'm amazed the vendor was able to establish the monarch let alone the overstrike on the date!

Which should be good news for collectors of higher grade or rare pieces with a decent provenance traceable from illustrated sales catalogues over the past 100 years or so.

It could be your lucky day. Give me your email addres & I can send clear pictures of 1845/3, 1846 with 8/6, 1848/6, 1848/7, 1849/7, 1849 SD & 1849 LD. Unfortunately they add up to about 3.5Mb with none being smaller than 300K, so fall foul of the 150K limit.

Based on the info given by Peck, the metal used initially for George VI bronze coinage was an alloy containing 95.5% copper, 3% tin and 1.5%zinc. On 14/4/1942 the tin content was reduced to 0.5% as a result of wartime shortages and the resulting alloy had 97% copper and 2.5% zinc. On 15/11/1945 the original composition was restored, so to find out your coin's composition it would be necessary to analyse the metal as either composition could apply.

It's quite normal and a frequently asked question. For the period up to 1887 it was the rule that coins had an inverted die axis although there were a few issues starting from 1787 that were not. Since the Jubilee Head issues of 1887, I think I am right in saying there have been no intentionally issued coins with this die axis in this country, nor any patterns.

It's not only the mismatch between title and picture. The title is a coin, the picture is of a Levi's label but the description is for a pair of Nike tracksuit bottoms.

Only a couple thousand dollars over the top, therefore quite reasonable by ebay standards. 1806 penny