Rob

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.

It's not a farthing. The size of about 29mm would be correct for a copper halfpenny, but it looks as if there could be traces of legend in places which are not consistent with a 1/2d. The lettering(?) looks very small. Possibly an ancient Roman?

I'd say yours is a bit wider. It could possibly be due to the loop. As you say, a better example would answer the question.

How comparable is the size of the underlying character compared to the 6/9? It is difficult to tell from the image as the coin isn't face on. Logically you would expect it to be a 6/9 as there are 2 used on the coin. Therefore you would expect the error to be punched at the same time as the rest of the numerals and so the size should match these two characters. A 0 is more problematic because there aren't any on the coin and a 0 on W&M shillings only exists as 1693/0.

In half an hour's looking I found 4 varieties of Lion of Nassau. Three with differently positioned blocks and one without any at all. The two commonest were yours and mine in roughly equal measure. I suggest there could quite possibly be more than these 4. Re the overdate, I would be a lot happier if there was a trace of it on the other side as well. The left side looks to be very prominent indeed which makes me think you ought to see at least a trace on the other side. It's the absence of this feature that leads me to doubt whether it is a 6 or 0. I think the basic style of both 3s is similar if you consider it as two separate cuts. My bottom loop is rotated slightly anticlockwise compared to yours and so has a shoulder where the top half joins. Yours doesn't have this discontinuity and so would be punched in slightly clockwise meaning your tail is further left. Both 3s have a small blob on the end of the tail which would tend to imply that this is the end, and is not a case of my 3 being shortened from die fill IMHO.

I would say it's not over 6 or 0. The 6s are almost the same size as a 0 with a tail attached. If you compare with my 1693 which is better but not brilliant, you can see the 3 is essentially the same shape. It appears on my piece that both the 6 and the 3 have been made up from more than one cut. The 6 has the loop closed with a thinner section and the top half of the 3 is in higher relief than the loop of the 3 although this is not obvious from the scan. However, you have inadvertently highlighted a variety I wasn't aware of. The square blocks surrounding the Lion of Nassau are positioned differently on the two pieces. Yours has an extra block bottom left, and mine has an extra block just right of 12 o'clock. I don't know which is more common so will have to check.

If the tie ribbons and William's throat are OK under the encrustation I would say it is probably genuine because the rest matches all my 1st issue 1/2d detail with the exception of what appears to be a bit of a double chin. This is only slight and may be due to wear. About 3 years ago on ebay there was a 1701 BRITANNAI halfpenny in better grade than this piece. That also looked genuine.

This person has been discussed before. If you follow the UK grading link in his listing, you will see that grading changes at 1797 and what was fine becomes very fine for prior dates. It's a pity the 1 of the date isn't missing, otherwise it could be unc being from 674AD. Sorry, forgot to grade it. Good or a bit better with the added note that it has the texture of a mouldy Ginger Nut. So if it doesn't sell, he could always eat it.

Hi Paul. Thanks for the guidance. First impressions don't fill me with optimism. A search for post medieval coins gave a total of only 227 results with images. A couple of random items gave an Elizabeth 1st shilling (correct) and a James VI or Charles I Scottish shilling. This piece was 13mm diameter and 0.37g in weight and better known as a James I third issue penny S2672. Does anyone vet the entries? If you don't have to report single coins, does this mean that the Coenwulf find a couple of years ago need not have been reported? This piece to me is not prehistoric and as a single item could not be classified as part of a hoard, yet the BM went out of its way to raise funds and stop it going to the US. It all seems a bit confusing.

There are clearly two sides to the discussion. I don't use a metal detector, but I can sympathise to some extent with those who do not report finds. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that if for example I found a William 3rd 1st bust shilling, under the rules of treasure trove (over 300 years old and made of silver or gold) I should report it notwithstanding the fact that they are as common as muck in dire grade and common even in high grade. It would be unlikely to be claimed by a museum and presumably handed back to me. If it was a rare variety there is a possibility it would be retained however remote this may be. I therefore would not be able to incorporate it into my collection. I collect coins because I have a great deal of interest in them from both a numismatic research point of view to that of a simple collector who likes to have an example of as many types as possible. This desire to form and expand a collection is quite strong for many people. If not, they may as well buy a copy of Spink and tick them off as they see an example. Call it trainspotting with a difference. It's the ability to hold history in your hands that frequently drives a collection. If a find is reported and acquired by a museum, serious high value rarities such as the Coenwulf mancus apart, most of these disappear from the public view indefinitely and nobody sees them because nobody knows they are there. An example. Peck listed the provenances of all the entries in his book and so we know which pieces are in the BM and could therefore see them if we want to. But how many people know what other items are held in the BM? There is no list available to outsiders of their inventory or that of any other museum. These items are to all intents and purposes "lost". I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of recording all finds, but this information needs to be notifiable and available on a database accessible to all and preferably with images. The potential scale of such a project will ensure it never happens. The need to follow a reporting procedure about which I know little and about which I'm certain many people are similarly in the dark should also ensure that most finds remain unreported. Deciphering the BM website, it seems you should report any find to the local coroner who will then adjudicate. If I find a coin in Bridlington on a Saturday, I am certain the local coroner's office will not be open (or may not even be in Bridlington?). Do I therefore have to make another 200 mile round trip to notify him during midweek at my expense? This is never going to happen for single small items. Better that it be notified by letter or other communication such as email with attached image. The item could then be added to the database and should any museum show interest or take it, the final destination could be similarly recorded. If the mechanism of recording finds was simplified I believe the quantity recorded would increase. It would also leave open the possibility for a means of communicating which items would not be claimed as treasure even if reported due to the number already held in institutions. Ultimately, people are basically lazy and take the path of least resistance suggesting that most finds will remain unreported.

It's KM137.1 if you have Krause & Mishler. The A below L'AN 5 is for the Paris mint.

Methinks the camera is not a problem. A different coin might be in order.

It's in the Royal Mint archived collection of old dies and punches. I'm just trying to find out where it was used. I don't have any medal reference books, so was hoping someone could help.

Can anyone tie this bust to a known piece? Presumably a medal. A similar style of bust with differences to the drapery was used on a medal of Charles II and Catherine ref. M.I.540/192 of which an example was sold in the Archbishop Sharp sale (Glens 5/10/1977 lot 305) where it was attributed to Philip Roettier ca.1667. Thanks.

Shurely shome mishtake. It should be in Hungarian.

£300pm is more than enough to get the small denominations, though if you want the larger pieces it will cost more. It all depends on what grade is acceptable to you. Small hammered pieces are notoriously difficult to pick up in high grade (for this and other periods) because they were used for everyday transactions, whereas the larger pieces did not circulate so freely and so are easier to find in higher grades, but with a price tag to match because of the demand from collectors. As a rule, the larger pieces have a greater number of people collecting. Shillings, half crowns and crowns are all quite popular and gold is always in demand. Shillings and half crowns to a lesser degree would be well within the budget, but you would be unlikely to get a good crown for £300. On denominations of 6d and below it will be easy to acquire examples up to good fine. Very fine or better and you will have to look a bit harder and pay a bit more. If you are new to collecting I would avoid ebay except for small value items. Instead I would seek out dealers who offer a good selection of hammered coins in your chosen area and have a chat with them. As you are interested in Stuart coinage, a good book to acquire would be the Brooker sylloge which can be picked up for £25 or less. He had the best collection ever of Charles I and it covered all denominations, so you would be able to see what looks attractive to you. There is no real comparable collection of James I and hammered coinage production ceased in 1662 after the first three issues of Charles II coins. Also get a copy of the annual Spink tome - Coins of England and the United Kingsom. 42nd edition, the current one, costs £25. This would give an indication of prices, but bear in mind that these are fairly volatile depending on the piece offered. I don't know how active the Nottingham area numismatic society is, but details on the BANS website are given as follows. Nottingham Society. As you are going to collect hammered and if you become a serious collector, then a wooden cabinet would eventually appeal. Otherwise you may wish to consider stackable trays, available in various sizes. Albums, coin envelopes or plastic holders are also possibilities. The beauty of hammered is that you can handle them and so storage is not such a serious issue as with proofs or copper.

I suppose his apparently excessive spending in the Slaney sale can be seen as not so excessive with hindsight. He's been the bane of my life on ebay too on more than the odd occasion.

David Mason used to operate as World Coins from 35 Broad St, Canterbury and also lists on Online Coins site as MEGANH, but looking at this site it appears he has moved to Spain as this appears in brackets after his name. That's the only one I am aware of, so probably there aren't any.

It's getting depressingly worse. Having returned after a week away over Christmas, 46 of the 121 emails in my inbox were for Viagra and that is the number that got past the spam filter.

When I spoke to Alex Anderson (who is behind this) about it at the London Coins sale, he said they were getting a couple of people in Utah(?) to do the grading. The question I have is why they need to ask Americans to grade English coins. Personally I would have thought it better that if you are intent on setting up a slabbing business you would use people who are familiar with our coins rather than US ones. The question of costs also arises. How much time can be spent assessing a coin if you are charging less than £10 which has to cover the cost of the slab, shipping x2 and other overheads? Although this is the lowest charge band it still seems cheap for a business service. I haven't tried laying out a business plan for this, but I think there is going to be a problem making a living for the owner of the business.