Rob

1739/7 appears to always have the A partly covering the bust, but I don't know if it only occurs with the small garter rev on a straight 1739. The 1739/7s that I have seen have all had stops in the correct places so it may be that the absence of a stop or stops is due to a filled die. If there is even a hint of a stop then it would suggest they are the same die (and at the same time would put a chronological sequence to die use). Please post an image of the shilling if possible as it is a distinctive obverse die which should be easy to tie into known examples. Re the 1663 crown - I haven't a clue. The 1848/6 halfcrown isn't common, but I don't have a feel for absolute rarity. Not a lot have been listed in auctions, but that is not necessarily an indication of rarity if nobody is selling the coin as such and it is not picked up by the cataloguer. Most modern varieties are unlikely to be very valuable in the foreseeable future because of the potential number of pieces available. To go back to your initial enquiry, an indication of the mammoth task a complete listing of all known varieties would entail is given by the lists I have compiled. I collect shillings and halfpennies by relatively major variety (legend variations, bust variety and die combinations of these etc. but not whether there is a flaw in the field or a double cut letter for example) and have made lists of these with about 2200 halfpennies and 1500 shillings. Another list I have has about 1350 halfcrown varieties with even the double florin having about 30 including the Huth patterns etc. None of these lists will be complete as unlisted varieties are always coming to light - e.g. I have acquired two unlisted legend varieties this past month. Extend that list of denominations to include pennies (many thousands given the 1000 year striking period), farthings, groats, halfgroats, sixpences, hammered gold, milled gold, decimals etc and you can see why it hasn't been done.

I don't think there is one. Collectors who specialise in varieties tend to generate their own lists because there is no comprehensive varieties reference. At the end of the day all references are going to be incomplete due to ongoing discoveries & taken to its logical conclusion a varieties site would have to list every die combination of every coin type known because some references are sufficiently detailed. The time/cost of doing this would make it a labour of love because no one would pay for the service. Couple this with the fact that most people can only afford to collect a couple of denominations in great detail because acquisition costs are prohibitive, so most will buy books relevant to their chosen types and hence it is easy to see why it is not available.

It is unlikely to appreciate in time as it is simply a sales gimmick. The world is awash with pre-decimal pennies, any or all of which could be similarly gold plated as required based on demand. Alternatively you could get a 1967 penny costing a few pence, some gold, and coat it yourself. The knowledge acquired and the satisfaction derived by making it yourself is likely to outweigh the pleasure from purchasing what amounts to a trinket.

Thanks Bob, No it was advertised as gold by the dealer on VCoins. I emailed him to see if it was gilted, but he said it was struck in solid (22k) gold and not gilted. I'll have to weigh it when it arrives. I just liked the design and it seemed like a good price for what it is reported to be. If its gold it should obviously weigh more than the standard pieces. I'm just trying to find out more about it. I guess I should email the seller to see if he has any more background information on it. Regards, Hus Why should it be struck in 22 carat gold and not another mixture? If he knows that, it raises suspicions. If solid gold, it should be somewhere between 2.2 & 2.3 times the weight of the brass one assuming the thickness is the same.

I think the top end will remain solid because there are a lot of people about with surplus cash and if times get really bad it is much easier to sell quality closer to book. Top end buyers tend to spend cash that doesn't have another use and is not borrowed. In some respect, this bit of the market is relatively immune to the economy although there might be a bit less froth. I think that the bottom end will soften to the extent that it will align itself with ebay prices if things get difficult for any length of time. Given the tendency of most things in average condition on ebay to gravitate towards 99p I think the problem is likely to be in the expensive middle grade items which are not high enough in grade to attract top dollar, but are likely to exceed the spending capacity of those of more modest means. Prices could plummet as they did in about 1982 when prices dropped 30-40% for some items, but I think this unlikely because you are now in a world market given the net. For everyone who is struggling, there is always another doing well somewhere else in the world. It may be that a few more bargains will crop up, but I don't think a wholesale meltdown is in the offing.

His latest feedback (8th July) describes him fairly and accurately!!!!!!!!!!! Oh great they remove the "rude" feedback and then the honest feedback, but leave him on Ebay!!! Have they lost the plot? So now not only have you got to leave positive feedback, but you can't use wording to warn other sellers. Perhaps if they bothered to check the fact that he was using his "ME" page on ebay to sell items, they may look at things a bit different!! There is a simple answer - don't sell on ebay. The fact you now can't leave honest feedback coupled with the requirement to offer (and in practical terms by default receive payment via) Paypal leaves me seriously unimpressed with the product. I think they have lost the plot. They have forgotten they are essentially providing a service which people aren't obliged to use. They may have a virtual monopoly at present, but the best way to invigorate competition is to provide a crap service which which can obviously be bettered. Ebay is a well known cash cow, so the thought of filthy lucre should appeal to many would be competitors. Put simply, "you don't feed the mouth that bites you"(sic). Politicians take note too.

I must admit, when ebay announced that they would not let sellers leave negative feedback for buyers, I thought 'About time!' - I had not taken into account the existence of such ......... I have never seen such appalling feedback - a direct result of ebay's new policy. There are more crap buyers out there than you realise. I've had more than the odd one or two who have decided they don't want the item before paying for and seeing it despite having used buy it now or decided to leave negative feedback because you had the audacity to send a payment reminder three weeks after the item finished. Some simply don't communicate at all. I think it is wrong that sellers can't leave negatives. In this case I guess feedback has to be a case of abuse with a smile where genuinely deserved.

That's a difficult question because they are very popular and not particularly rare. Scarce would be a better description. Prices in Spink's tome are also 9 months out of date. I suggest you consider a minimum of EF as you may pick one up for $5000 or so and are arguably easier to find in this grade than VF. Although twice the price, the fact you want to spend a 4 figure sum in any case has already removed you from the budget collector category and the higher grade means that you also get the finer detail which is progressively lost as you reduce the grade. For an EF+/gEF example go to my gallery where I have the ex Owen Parsons (Lot 939) piece. The slight friction to a few high points of either side is clearly visible, but so is the stippled effect for which gives this design excellent eye appeal.

It is quite normal for the legend variety not to be listed in coincraft or Spink etc. There is rarely space available for the title in full, so varying degrees of abbreviation were used with the larger flans typically having fuller legends. Depending on the period in question, ET may also appear as Z or IACOBVS may be contracted to IACOB9. The contraction marks following an abbreviation may be colons, an apostrophe above a stop or a single stop. The dies were all produced individually without the benefits of modern techniques of reproduction, and so the actual abbreviation depended on the whim of the person responsible. This means that D(EI) G(RATIA) M(AGN) B(RITT) F(RANC) ET H(IBER) will appear in varying combinations with longer or shorter titles. There are also instances of the abbreviated regal name and I have an Elizabeth I shilling with the obverse legend ending in REGIN without the A. A quick look at Brooker will give an indication of the legend varieties encountered for Charles I. A similar situation exists for reverse legends and so a full listing of legend varieties together with die combinations in the general tomes would be impractical. If you want a definitive list of legend and die combinations, it is necessary to refer to relevant papers in journals etc. The modern U I think first appeared in the later issues of George II. It's use in Coincraft is slightly misleading, but previous writers had also used this (including North) and so is one of the points to remember. The martlet mark was used from Henry VII until Elizabeth I and may conceivably exist in both left and right forms. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this.

Based on the hair profile it is bust 3C (S2555)

The 1970 was a lithographic reprint of the 1964 2nd edition. However, there is also the addendum published in the 1967 BNJ just before Peck died. As we all know, Peck is also hopelessly out of date by now. There must be several hundred additons if not more to those listed by him, and that doesn't include micro varieties such as whether the letter points to a tooth or space.

Presumably the die sinker started the date too far to the right.

Here are a couple of edges. They are halfpennies, but farthings look the same. The proof is not in a groove.

Quite clear in the hand and unrecorded in any text to my knowledge. The foot is below the 5, the bottom serif of the horizontal to the right above it and the crossbar with angle inside the loop of the 5. The top bar of the 4 is also slightly deformed, but not quite in the right position for the top of the 4 unless the 4 was slightly bigger than the 5. Fresh from Brock's sale this afternoon.

FDC doesn't come with a free fingerprint. They should have been described as aFDC or practically FDC. Assuming they are proofs, rubbing with anything will make it worse because you will put hairlines on the fields from the cloth. The fats in the fingerprint will react with the silver/cupro-nickel and are there to stay unless you dip the coin in which case this will also be obvious when seen in the hand with the added potential to disfigure it..

I noticed that too when I was joining the pictures. It appears that the diameter of the thin C is marginally smaller than the that of the thick C. The thin is 28.46mm diameter whereas the rest are all 28.60-28.70. As the rims appear to be the same width, wherever the rims are added in the manufacturing process the diameter has been set slightly smaller. As I have a sample size of 1, I obviously can't extrapolate this to say this is a definitive point and common to all thin C's.

Of the 5 that I could lay my hands on immediately, 4 are thick C and one thin. That's interesting Rod, any chance an image so that I can see the difference. As I said earlier I dont know which type mine is and I'd like to have one of each. Thick left, thin right. The gap between the jaws is wider on the thin type and cruder in appearance. The H is thinner and appears in higher relief than the thick one.

Of the 5 that I could lay my hands on immediately, 4 are thick C and one thin.

About as struck? How far away is "about" allowed to be and aren't the Spink prices quoted somewhat irrelevant? Chas II Maundy Set. Spink only give prices for F,VF & EF; nothing for dug and cleaned etc.

Enjoy your viewing of a P2171 1887 gold pattern penny. While you are there you might like to ask if you can see the P2371 3d struck in nickel Joking aside, they will weigh yours when you arrive to ensure that you don't swap them over, so get this figure for comparison. Take a good glass with you to compare the dies. A large picture of yours would also be useful, and if you want, they will do a photograph of their coin too for a fee. As for what to see when you get there, you are spoilt for choice. Any examples listed by Peck in the BM will be available.

The 1770 looks more natural on the CoinsGB forum and doesn't look AT here either. The ones that don't look natural are the fractional and to a lesser extent the 1799 1/2d and 1806 1/4d. Both of which look as if the blue filter has been turned up too much. If the red around the edge of the 1/2d is original colour as it appears, then the whole coin is too blue. The 1806 penny looks good.

I go along with that because I don't like AT either. The only coins you would expect to see multicoloured hues such as those on the fractional are on proofs or prooflike coins, and then only in the field when held against the light at the right angle.

That looks close to uncirculated with a better strike on the reverse than normally seen. The first issue shillings are rarely encountered with a fully struck up lion's nose. It isn't perfect, but nearly there.

It would be interesting to know under what circumstances the Mint donated the P2371 to the BM. If it was intentionally struck, then you would expect it to be properly formed, after all the Mint had produced a series of Nickel pieces (1/-, 6d & 3d) in the 1920s which were all finely struck, so in the not very distant past they had experience of working with this metal at this thickness. My nickel 1/- is 1.90mm thick at the rim, though the small denominations will obviously be thinner and within the thickness of your piece. I don't have a book with the details of who was Master of the Mint in 1937, but Johnson arrived in 1922 and so it is quite possible that the first Nickel strikes were initiated by him. If he was still there in 1937, then were would be no excuse for getting it wrong. If it was an unintentional strike that the mint removed from the currency 3d bin during quality control and subsequently gave to the BM, then it would not necessarily be a good strike. However, if the latter applies I would not expect Peck to have included it.

Obviously you would need to compare with a known genuine piece, but I would expect the genuine article to be fully struck ie. with a full rim. Yours is missing part of the rim, so this suggests to me a strike on the wrong type of blank. It isn't struck off centre to the extent that you have a lot of coin outside the rim to compensate for the missing rim which you would expect if the thickness is correct. The deviation of weights around the mean is quite high, so the similarity in weight could be coincidental. There was a thread on here about a Cu-Ni farthing recently. At the time I weighed a couple of dozen bronze pieces and there was a distribution range of about 10% around the mean. On the plus side, very few currency pieces were struck in nickel, so it could be a P2371.