Rob

It was the B that made me think initially it was triply struck, but the inner circle coincides with the centre line of the B and creates an illusion. If the "middle" B was the top, traces of the serif would still be present but they're not.

It's 23.8-24.6mm diameter, 1.2-1.4 thick on the rims, 1.5mm thick in the centre, wt. 4.75g. I thought initially it was double struck, then triple struck, but then reverted to double struck. It's a bit of a mess.

It's probably easier for them to look at a coin and say that it would probably sell for xxx$s and give a grade accordingly than it is to rack their brains trying to work out what it is they're looking at.

I recall seeing this or something similar too and made a mental note to avoid it. The description and other blurb had to be written by a politician, nobody else would be capable of writing so much drivel.

Peck also mentioned that the rocks could be struck up very weakly. My TB farthing has the tips of the rocks to the left of the lighthouse as found on the BB rev. showing and it looks as if the large rock was cut over these which were weak in order to reinforce the design. There are clear remnants of the two highest rocks sticking above the large rock. Given that I have a reverse showing both features, there is nothing to say that the large rock didn't appear until the beaded border dies were safely under lock and key as we are looking at a short period of time in 1860 when the transition was made. I think it is perfectly feasible that you could find a piece that had been touched up. If I thought everything had been found that there was to find, I'd give up and do something else. Consider the BB 1860 1/2d. It took well over 100 years to realise that there are two reverses. One is short hair/wide date and the other is long hair/narrow date. In the middle of December, Chingford sent me a picture he had for appraisal comparing 2 1860 reverses. The first thing that struck me was the combination of short hair/narrow date which I hadn't seen before. There is always something new to find. Conventional wisdom and statements of fact reflect the conclusions that have been drawn in the past, not what remains to be discovered, so sometimes it is necessary to think outside the box whoever made the statement. Considering the above paragraph and having disproved Peck's statement that a ball on the trident shaft of 1806 halfpennies is an infallible way of identifying proofs, I am more than willing to accept the possibility of an unrecorded reverse design. And would I spend £400 going against conventional wisdom? Yes if I believed I were right when all things were considered.

My initial reaction was it is a beaded border irrespective of the absence of the 3 rocks, but looking again it could be a mixture of beads and teeth although the picture isn't very clear. Ideally it wouldn't be in a slab, but I can see why it must remain in one. Certainly the beads are closer to the rim than on the pieces with the 3 rocks, but some are clearly separated from the rim even given the image quality. I think the reverse was intended to be a beaded border as all the visible dots on the right side are individual circles rather than short teeth although it is unclear at the bottom and left side. How about an old die repaired. If the edge of the die was getting ragged, how about reducing the diameter? (This is what I discovered Taylor had done when making the 1807 proof halfpenny die) This would give you a thicker rim than usual and the gap between rim and beads would be reduced depending on how much it was turned down. Don't know if this is important but there are minute lumps on my TB 1860 corresponding to the position of the rock tips found on the BB How about a different variety of beaded border reverse for the farthing? After all, it took about 140 years to realise there are 2 significantly different BB halfpenny reverses.

I quite agree anyone can get things wrong, we all do it every day. The problem is the high failure rate in providing an accurate grade or attribution. Slabbing businesses are based on their people having special knowledge which no others have and thus guaranteeing a coin is uncirculated for example. An uncirculated coin can't have wear. This isn't negotiable. The end number can indicate the quality of the coin, but you can't call a coin mint state when it is worn. The number of coins given MS63 or better grades that have actual signs of wear is huge. Given the reputations of the various companies are allegedly based on accurate grading and quality control I find the whole thing extremely frustrating. If the whole market is similar to my experiences, then I would say that about a quarter of grades/attributions are wrong. How many manufacturers could get away with a 25% failure rate? Very few if the truth be known. The problem is that coins are always overgraded if incorrect, so their owners are unlikely to object to a bit of useful grade inflation when it translates into hard cash. It's an unholy alliance giving guaranteed customer satisfaction because if you think it could be given a better grade, you just keep resubmitting until the right number appears on the insert. The question of incorrect atttribution can only be down to lack of knowledge and experience regarding British coins. I don't believe they deliberately call it wrong, just that they don't take the necessary amount of time to examine and thus determine what it is they are looking at. I therefore wonder why they risk their reputation by giving grades that are frequently wide of the mark or ignoring the numerous varieties, many of which are impossible to ignore. Or is it simply a case of "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"?

That doesn't bode well for the future.

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.