Rob

Fake. The hair below the ear and onto the shoulder and the height of the lis within the crown aren't right. Also the stop looks a bit far away from the end of the truncation. 1798 is a date noted in Spink for counterfeits.

1967 penny ex Alderley Collection

I speak as an American collector of high quality English coins, for the most part, milled silver. I have bought both slabbed and unslabbed coins, primarily through the auction venue, both in England and in America. Slabs are convenient to me from the standpoint of displaying my coins to others, especially non-collectors. I don't have to worry that someone will drop the coin out of a poly envelope or, worse yet, touch it with fingers. Air-tite holders are also good, but, at least in the states, one has to face reality that if one ever desires to sell expensive coins, in order to expose it to the maximum number of potential bidders (including "investors"), it helps to have the extra margin added by the knowledge that "professionals" agree that the coin is: 1. Genuine 2. Has original surfaces (not cleaned or artificially toned, particularly if copper or bronze) 3. Is correctly attributed with respect to variety And that the authenticity is backed by some guaranty. The two leading grading services here (in America) have had to buy back coins that have been proven fakes after slabbing, so there is some protection for the buyer of slabbed coins from NGC and PCGS. Granted that very experienced buyers and dealers probably don't need the slabbers to tell them whether a coin is worth a given amount of money, but when I purchased a coin for 16,000 GBP, I felt a bit better that it was in an NGC slab at PF66 Cameo, than if it hadn't been, as I know I can sell it more easily to another person. It's quite another thing to purchase a coin for 100 GBP. So does the "true collector" need slabs? Again, it depends. For circulated coins, probably not; for very high grade expensive coins, well not unless he/she ever desires to sell them for the most possible money. Who among us collectors does not realize that our coins are not ours forever, and that we or our heirs will sell them (and probably slab the expensive ones after we are gone)? As prices go higher, I believe that eventually all the really rare and expensive coins will be in slabs. That's just my opinion. Many of us would feel a lot happier if the reasons you give for buying a slab were true. Admittedly I have never seen a forgery slabbed but in my collection I have a significant number of pieces (~80) that were previously entombed, of which about 10% were incorrectly attributed and I couldn't agree with the grading of about 15 more which were MS63 or better and thus now had their wear "officially" ignored. A few examples as follows: 1. The 1675 over 3 over 2 1/2d in my gallery pictures and the unrecorded varieties section was slabbed NGC MS65BN thus ignoring the obvious 5 over 3 although the 2 I would excuse because it requires careful examination of the coin to see it. The BN attribution ignored the copious amounts of lustre and the 65 can not have taken into account the cabinet friction to 3 or 4 points on both sides clearly visible in the pictures. 2. The previous piece was bought to replace a 1675 over 3 which was slabbed 1673 PCGS MS64 which again ignored the wear and was no better than EF. It was discussed on another thread on this forum. 3. A 1723 1/- slabbed as ESC 1176, thus ignoring the obvious C/SS inthe third quarter. 4. The 1732/1 1/2d ex- Cheshire collection in my gallery was slabbed as a 1732 NGC MS65RB yet the 2/1 is blindingly obvious if you examine the coin. 5. A 1788 bronzed pattern halfpenny P967 slabbed PCGS PR65BN has a slightly greasy surface which I suspect means it has been "conserved". 6. A 1788 restrike 1/2d P1007 ex Selig 1351 was slabbed NGC PF65BN and has a similarly greasy surface. 7. A 1795 pattern 1/2d in my gallery was described as a P1051 NGC PF65BN in the Cheshire collection thus conveniently ignoring the unattributabe as it is an unrecorded later development of type R42 where curls have been added and then filled in. A P1051 has an extra curl under the bust which simply isn't there. 8. A P1248 1799 1/2d 5 incuse gunports in fact has 7 raised gunports ans was slabbed PCGS MS63BN. It also has a reasonable amount of wear. 9. A 1720 1/- ESC 1168 was slabbed NGC MS63. Not cleaned, my ****. Pictures attached below show the coin as it is today and as it was in Spink auction 4 lot 862. The flan error is clearly visible as are remaining marks which agree to the left of the tie ribbon by the R, above the Hanoverian shield, to the left of the Irish shield near the legend and inside and outside the garter circle. A lot of the toning is no longer there, but sufficient remains to make the connection. Spink in their sale graded it extremely fine, a grade with which I concur due to the slight wear to the high points - or in slab speak "MS". 10. Although it wasn't mine, I also saw an Elizabeth 1st £1/2 slabbed as a 6th issue but with mintmark woolpack which is 5th issue. The 50% higher price for the 6th issue was very beneficial to the seller who thus realised a premium to the 5th issue price. Although I must question the knowledge of the buyer. 11. Again not mine. The 1860 copper 1/2d ex-Norweb which was in both Goldberg and Heritage auctions recently was slabbed PF66BN. This coin has cabinet friction to the shield and a thumbprint across the bust or at least it did have when it was sold at London Coins sale in November 2004. How can this get PF66. Maybe I'm the exception, but where I find an error in attribution or of apparent doctoring of the coin in at least 10% of all I see, I think it is a significant problem. There are a lot of "bright" silver coins out there in slabs. 300 year old silver is not bright as originally struck unless it has been hermetically sealed. The vast majority of these untoned coins have been dipped. Is dipping not cleaning? How carefully is the coin examined? The number of "mint state" graded coins with wear suggests not much. Frankly, if I was going to spend £16K on a coin, I would only buy it if it wasn't slabbed so I could see what I was getting, especially the edge which is hidden from view in most slabs. Slabbing won't go away because too many people and particularly in the US take it as gospel that the coin is as described and the existing businesses have built up a very lucrative cash cow which they would be unwilling to forego. Slabbing is a triumph of marketing over knowledge. But as a person who feels confident in his ability to identify wear and other features I despair.

I broke a coin out today. MS63 not, courtesy of ANACS. Still, at least I only paid EF money for an EF+ coin albeit a fairly rare variety. I will not be resubmitting it in case it gets a downgrade.

If genuinely EF yes. Seems too cheap for the grade which sounds more like gVF and therefore about right.

If the physical statistics given are correct it could be a forgery. If you reduce the dimensions to an average diameter of say 26mm to allow for the irregular shape and given that the inner circle is about 22mm diameter, then the weight of 3.8g is about 20% less than it should be at just over 4.5g. Still not worth chasing though.

Good EF with that much lustre about £80-90

All coins from 1967 are extremely common because at decimalisation a lot of people hoarded the old denominations. To all intents and purposes they are virtually worthless and collectors if they want them can pick them up for a few pence. The clipped flan 6d however will be worth something. The price will depend on how spectacular the error is. Clipped flans are quite common, but it should still be worth £10-20 or so. If it were missing say 50% of the coin then it's value would increase because these would not get through quality control at the mint and would be removed for melting down. A small piece missing from the flan would not be detected so easily and so would escape into circulation. As with my avatar. Regarding selling them. Apart from the clipped flan piece it will be difficult. You could try ebay, but a quick check on the number of 1967 coins already listed should dissuade you. A dealer may give you a small sum for them depending on quantity but rest assured you will not get rich on the amount received.

Not sure about the argument there not being enough metal to fill the die. If it's struck without a collar and on a fly press the quality of impression will depend on the profile of the flan and die and crucially how much force is used. A perfect strike will give a thinner flan than found normally if an underweight blank is used, but the depth of strike will depend on the force applied. If the flan isn't of a consistent thickness, then you would expect an uneven strike compared to a flat blank unless sufficient force were used to overcome the variation. If a consistent force applied by the fly press was used in their manufacture, then you would expect a poor strike should be due to a poor quality blank such as being too hard, uneven or even too soft such that the metal flows too easily and spreads to a greater diameter.

On the first point about Taylor restrikes it is almost certain that visually good dies would be used or polished to remove any obvious defects and the quantities struck are minimal relative to the mass produced pieces for currency. They would also be inspected individually whereas the currency pieces would not be. Also the proofs KH42 and KH43 struck at Soho from current dies would not be struck from defective ones. I think that's probably a red herring. I believe you get a generally flat relief over a wide area as the oil/grease spreads out quickly, but doesn't compress and so protects the flan to some degree from making a sharp impression. My 1806s are all about the official weight. The 1799s are within the range quoted by Peck, but the largest defect is on the heaviest piece at about 200 grains. I would feel a bit happier with the metal flow argument if there were signs of metal flowing in the adjacent legend just as you get on pieces struck without a collar, but there are none. In fact, the surface of the large defect on the obverse above looks a bit grainy which would definitely be incompatible with metal flow, but would be appropriate for a flan flaw or something on the die.

I'm open to persuasion given the right side of the obverse matching with the reverse, although the large depression on the left obverse has no corresponding weakness on the reverse assuming the die axis is properly inverted. For what it is worth, my 8 Soho halfpennies with this feature are as follows. 3 have a depression on one side only (all reverses), 3 on both sides but not matching and 2 matching. On none of them is there any notable degradation of the edge or rim including the recessed security edge detail which I would possibly expect if it is a flow problem. All are in top grade with wear and mishandling eliminated although none of them are particularly badly affected which may be significant. Of these 8, 3 are 1799 and 5 are 1806, so I assume that the problem being known about long before the time the 1806's were struck would have resulted in better quality control of the blanks. Thinking along the lines of metal flow, how about slightly undersized flans? It's a pity these are Soho products. If they had been Royal Mint products it would have been possible to examine the dies.

No, we are talking theory for the depressions, but the weak lettering from die fill is already established as is a cud mistrike where you incorporate a small amount of metal into the flan. If you look at where these depressions occur you will find they are always associated with weak or blocked letters. Granted a depression in the flan is bound to result in a weak letter, but to create the depressed marks either the flan is defective prior to striking with incuse flaws or the die has raised lumps. As they nearly always appear to follow the curve of the legend I think they are on the die as they tend to follow a line along the radius suggesting they are formed by mechanical rotation. The only way I can envisage raised areas appearing on the die is by trapped and incorporated solid material. To be on a prepared blank in such a consistent position and to such a significant depth suggests to me this is not the likely option. In striking a coin, the effects of any rotational mechanical slack would be accentuated the greater the distance from the centre of rotation because the arc length is greater. A greater distance moved would result in more metal dust formed, so you would expect to see more evidence near the rims.

I think it might be due to a build-up of tiny metal particles produced by striking or present on the blanks due to being insufficiently cleaned. Each time a coin is struck it is virtually guaranteed that a small amount of metal dust will be produced simply from the act of rubbing two metal surfaces together. Given that there is a collar giving further confinement, unless there is an efficient jet of air to blow away the rubbish the only way to dispose of this residue would be to incorporate it into the next coin, to block the dies or bond it to the flat die surfaces. As it is usually found in conjunction with evidence of blocked dies, I suspect it is excess rubbish building up and bonding to the dies. On a microscopic level even a polished die surface is full of humps, troughs and sharp edges which would provide a foothold for foreign objects to bind. Mechanical slack in the machinery would help to distribute it. Just a theory, but it sounds logical given that these marks always seem to be associated with the outer parts of blocked legend and rarely elsewhere.

Possibly a badly gilt piece. Just like a sprayed Christmas decoration for example. A valid question would have been "a good buy at any price?" and you know what the answer would be.

Pennies. None were issued for circulation. A few special strikings were made for placing under foundation stones and for the British and Mint museums. There are a couple available to collectors.

I've got a 3G phone, thankfully not designed by W Wyon .

I don't have a proof double florin so can't say for certain, but the milling looks similar on both. Above is a scan comparing the milling on a currency and proof 1887 6d. As you can see, the milling on the proof is considerably sharper and is actually quite sharp to touch. This would lead me to say not a proof.

It does have a proof look about it, although again, you don't normally find excess metal on proof rims. It is possible however that standards were allowed to slip for the 1887 pieces as so many were produced.

Let's try this one again. Has anyone out there got a DH11 pattern halfpenny in whatever metal where they can clearly identify the features noted. Above are various parts of from left to right a P964 (silver plated), P966 (brown gilt), P967 (bronzed) and P968 (copper). All have the RENDER TO CESAR edge Peck mentions on p.251 that Bousfield believed there were early and late strikings of the DH11 pattern but didn't explain how to identify them. Peck said he couldn't find any variation in over 70 examples. My statistically insignificant sample of 4 pieces shows up a few differences and I would appreciate if anyone else could input corroborative or contradictory evidence. The most obvious differences are the N, B and 8 on the silver plated which is double but not fully recut. Similarly the quatrefoil after the date. The notch between the two loops of the B is a different shape on the first compared to the others. The rust spots on the drapery are also less obvious on this piece putting it chronologically first. The next two are clearly later as the above features are now fully cut with a pointed end to the N although there are no significant legend differences other than these. The copper is interesting because it is clearly later than any of the other three which would indicate a third strike. The drapery on Britannia's stomach is now heavily pitted suggesting further rusting and the globe has some flat areas indicative of polishing. There is a significant amount of die fill on the tip of the paddle which is not seen on the others. It also has a series of almost concentric RAISED lines running around the legend which therefore must have been on the die at the time of production. The picture is complicated a bit by the fact that some, but not all of the rev. legend only appears to be quadruply cut, yet Britannia shows no sign of this. I can't explain this. Parts of the reverse legend are consistent with multiple strikes, yet the date at the end of the legend shows no sign of this at all. It is possible the die started to break up on the surface as no Taylor restrikes in an unpolished state are known. It is also likely that the copper piece is one of the last examples produced from the die before polishing. There are no obvious differences on any of the four obverses. If anyone can help it would be appreciated. Also useful would be if anyone has an example of the Taylor restrikes R1 (P978) and R4 (983) to check and see if the raised lines as found on my copper example are seen passing over the top of the reverse letters as in the picture. The lines in the field are likely to have been completely obliterated because this reverse was heavily polished by Taylor to the extent that parts of the spear shaft and upper thigh were removed. This was probably to remove the defects described. Thank you. Picture of the copper reverse showing the position of the concentric lines which make almost complete circles.

The obverse letters at the top of the coin don't look to be of proof quality. The start of the legend at VICTORIA looks good, but it degenerates at the top. Certainly appears to be a polished die. The rims don't appear to be good enough, but you can't tell in a slab, and although almost certainly uncirculated, I'm not sure I would give it a mint state rating because there appears to be a trace of rub on a couple high spots of the veil and there are a few scuffs.

No. A corroded old head penny not halfpenny. The 1/2d is only 25mm diameter. Only two millennia out from my initial thoughts.

No. The currency 1799 1/2ds have a single raised dot on the truncation and three on the rocks to the right of the shield. Sometimes the reverse dots are virtually non-existent, even in mint state, but there is usually at least a trace of one. The dot on the truncation rarely seems to show any signs of weakness although it's size varies considerably as does its position. It is of course possible that the occasional die would not have this feature although I have never seen a coin without one. The varying position of the dot suggests to me that it may have been entered after the bust was punched in unless there were a seriously large number of bust punches. Again this is only conjecture as the output of 1799 halfpennies was significant although I don't have the figures to hand.

As far as I can make out they were akin to a signature - certainly the ones on the truncation and probably the reverse too. Droz on the early Soho pieces put a D, D F or DROZ F on the truncation or reverse and these are certainly a signature. Most of the Kuchler proofs and patterns have a K on the truncation and this obviously means Kuchler. The dot or series of dots clearly replaces the initials and I can only hazard a guess that they were put on as some means of identification, possibly to differentiate between currency and special strikings. That is only a guess and not cast in stone because the copper proof struck from currency dies (Peck 1253) has a single raised dot on the truncation as you would expect.

Picture please.

All the Soho mint output had these or similar features on their currency copper. The pieces dated 1799, had a raised dot on the truncation. The 1797 pennies and twopences had K with 3 dots in a triangle on the truncation. The 3 dots on the shield are common to all the varieties of 1799 currency halfpenny but the farthings have a single dot only. There are 3 raised dots on most currency 1797 pennies and twopences except for one penny variety which has 3 incuse dots on the rocks. For the 1806 and 1807 issues K (for Kuchler) replaced the reverse dots and is found between the bottom of the shield and the trident shaft. K with or without a dot was used on the truncation for the pennies, halfpennies and farthings but one variety of current 1806 farthing has an incuse dot only. There were a large number of proofs and patterns for all three denominations and which resemble the currency pieces dated 1797, 1799, 1806 & 1807 but which had different marks such as K in italics with or without a dot or rows of dots etc. You are unlikely to encounter these accidentally. All pieces dated other than the above are patterns.