Rob

The fields have clearly been polished but the rims are not to proof standard which is usually wider, flat and has a sharp right angle with the edge. The legend doesn't look crisp enough either. The lettering on proofs is quite angular with flat surfaces and straight edges are sharp where the relief changes height, whereas on currency pieces these sharp angles soon get rounded and you tend to get surface imperfections. Both are features you should look for. The Ls in the picture below demonstates this. Still a nice coin though.

I think you could be right Chris. I personally don't like to draw or make notes in any of my books. I can see the point if it is a new collector wishing to collect a certain type or a date run, but still I'm sure they could just as easily jot their info down on a note book or something. Signed copies are a good Idea I know I'd buy one. How much for a signed copy of Collectors' Coins Great Britain 2007 edition as I haven’t got it yet? I find it imperative to make notes in a reference book because there are so many varieties for the same date that you need to know which ones you have. Having said that, it can get a bit confusing when the book is second hand and there are two collections listed. But at least that saves defacing two books.

A few images of coins with arrows showing where the high points are and consequently the first points to show wear would help a lot of people. e.g. 2/6ds from 1902-27 always lose the I & P of the garter legend first along with hair detail or the best indicator of wear to George III shillings from 1816 is the harp breast. It should be conical to a point if mint state and always wears flat, so the wear is proportional to the size of flat surface. Much better than the lions which can suffer from die blockage or wear due to their irregular surface shape and fine detail.

I often wondered whether some sort of interactive grading website would be good... maybe like a game or quiz. It could show you a coin, you select what grade you think it is, it tells you how you fit in with opinion so far (or expert opinion, or whatever). There could be a link to somewhere to write comments where people could discuss the grading. In fact, what I have described could probably be done with the voting mechanism on the forum, although it would get a bit cumbersome with a thread for each type of coin in each grade. Still, it could provide a useful resource for us all (especially for less common types) and it would be interesting to see the things that different people look for when grading. I like this idea and think there could be some mileage in it. Have a feeling though all graders should be anonymous, as there could be a tendency to undergrade out of sheer machismo! I don't think undergrading is likely to be a problem. All people have to do is be honest with themselves, look at the coin objectively and properly scrutinise it for wear, then take an ego-free path and give an accurate assessment. It will of course help them if they have seen both high and low grade examples previously.

Good to see your spelling is as correct as the grades offered by the slabbing companies. Very well put.

Looking at your image of the date, it looks as if there could possibly be a trace of the outside edge of a flat topped 4 above and slightly left of the top left corner of the 5. This would tie in to the vertical of the 4 which would agree with the slightly left inclined blockage in the top gap of the 5 and the vertical displacement would be about right too. My perception of the underlying bit is that the 4 if it is that, is slightly rotated acw.

I'm not aware of any references to this as an overstrike, that's why I asked if anyone had a mint state example on an earlier thread. Preferably an early strike too so that there is less chance of die wear.

Is the 1835 a 5/4? I don't know Rob here's a pic. What do you think? I know what is realy obvious is that it has a large die crack running from the last l to the s in gulielmus. Totally inconclusive. I think they are both struck from the same obv. die as my piece has a thin flaw from the top right serif of the U to the border bead only following the same path as yours as well as the very faint flaw joining the base of the M & U that is slightly arched. So mine is just an earlier strike. Also, your 3 is slightly defective on the right hand side of the lower loop to a greater extent than on mine. The features of what appears to be an underlying 4 on mine is best seen with the light coming from 12 o'clock, which highlights what would be the angled bar just outside the 5 vertical but doesn't follow the 5 shape where it changes direction and enters the tail of the 5 in the middle of the end. Also, the cross bar rises slightly from left to right. The little spur which joins the tail of the 5 to the angle perfectly bisects the angle of the possible 4. There are traces of what would be the serifs on the foot of the 4 in the loop and as a very small protrusion on the outside of the loop. Picture added to show what I mean, the right hand of the foot is not as prominent as the drawing suggests.

Is the 1835 a 5/4?

I wish I had even the slightest artistic ability. Strangely, all four children have much better than average artistic talent, so either Mr Milkman has been very busy or else I must live closer to Sellafield than I thought! This is all very worrying.

Perhaps he is trying to make a point. The proof it is a penny is in the picture.

The above seems to fall down when applied to the previous reign where for example you get fine work shillings with mm. Tun which is neither at the beginning nor the end of a design type. I don't know if this is significant to the postulated reasoning for their production.

As the above complaint is obviously aimed at me - I apologise, no offence intended

It's not that rare.

Some things never change. A good example of one of our regular ebay shill bidders. 1694 halfpenny

It's a very poor example of a 1797 penny. The first N is there, but corroded away. It's value is negligible.

Me too. The neck is more curved and the nostril longer plus the H is further from the lighthouse top.

Hmm. The frequency with which these are appearing suggests not as rare as might initially be thought. Surprising that nobody has noted it before.

I'll scan in the page and email it to you shortly. Thanks Rob. Much appreciated. Done

I'll scan in the page and email it to you shortly.

The reply has arrived. The Montagu/Morrieson/Lockett and later Sharp piece was thought to be unique at the time of the Lockett sale. MS wrote on his ticket in 1975 2nd known specimen, other ex Burstal because he didn't know of the Brooker coin. The Burstal piece thought to have gone to the BM turned up in Shuttlewood in 2001 so perhaps the BM has another. Another specimen was in the Middleham Hoard, not catalogued but in with 3a tuns and current whereabouts unknown. A specimen was offered in the S+B Bulletin in 2001. My Tun/Crown on the obverse is not unique as another example struck from different dies was bought from a dealer in 1992. The list of recorded i.m.Tun E2/3s including overstrikes has therefore expanded to 6 or 7 with the likelihood of a couple of unknown examples residing in collections. The apostrophe contraction marks were a new one for my correspondent.

If anyone has Seabys Coin & Medal Bulletin for 1959, either complete or a part could they please PM me. Thanks.

Keep an eye out on amazon. I just looked and there was currently no 1959 but all around that year. If you just want to look or copy something both Baldwin's and Spink have very extensive libraries. I've got a ticket which I think is Seaby's and which has April 1959, 4658, something obliterated and RR on it. The coin in question is a James 1st 3rd coinage shilling i.m.lis, plumes over shield, in VF with minimal clipping and weighs 5.83g. R C Carlyon-Britton sold his extensive hammered collection through SCMB in 1959, so this would be an appropriate fit. I suspect that 4658 is the SCMB number. The only alternative would be the Numismatic Circular and I don't have either of these for 1959. My SCMBs start at 1960. I want to make the link for the provenance.

I don't know for sure because I don't have one, but I assume that the WRL is the same WRL that puts lots of copies of coins on ebay. They all have WRL in their listing. This would be an example.

I wonder what the others are like. 1919KN penny