Rob

Clearly aiming at the uninformed market. Hats off to anyone who can sell 1965, 1977 and 1980 crowns at £3 each. Describing s**t as nice condition also helps selling to the same group.

At first glance that is exactly what I thought, double date, but if you look at the 1 and the last 8, the underlying numerals are definitely larger, in height. If you look at the height of the 1, the difference in height between the two 1s is only about 3%. The picture below has both large and small date and here the difference in size is close to 10%. Also the last 8 on your coin looks as if it could be triple as opposed to double cut. The bottom digit is lower which could explain the apparently larger size, but the top left of the bottom loop looks to me to have two separate cuts, the upper being displaced slightly to the right unless this is an optical illusion. If you measure the height of the characters, they are all the same nominally.

Bad news for eBay. Where will they get their business from?

Usually, all you can see is the top right corner at the angle of the 7

There are some with a straight 8 but they are significantly scarcer. To be absolutely certain it is not over 7 you need a mint state one to eliminate wear.

Does know better. It's called a dodgy dealer or to be more accurate a liar. Grading is not that subjective.

FDC? this - not unless he really means fingerprints, digs and cleaned. He knows better. He wouldn't price it at less than £1500 if genuinely FDC.

A coin with a good provenance should hold its value better than one without. Historically, the famous collections were so because they frequently held the best or nearly so known examples of both commoner pieces and also the rarities. Being the best pieces available to collectors, a sort of guarantee of a certain standard together with a "certificate of authenticity" is obtained. There can only be one best example at any time and the current best may have come to light after the famous collection has been sold, so in time it is not unreasonable to expect a slip down the quality pecking order, but generally if a coin was pictured in an old major sale catalogue it was guaranteed to be up there in terms of quality. Montagu, Murdoch, Lockett, Lingford etc tended to only buy the best available. Due to inflated prices, the extensive quality collections of old are unlikely ever to be repeated. It is very unlikely anybody will care anything about my collection or anyone else's on this forum in the future because of the minimal number of top grade rarities within, but a check through any named sale catalogue in the first 50 or 60 years of the last century will confirm that this was not always so. Collections with literally page after page of coins that fetch thousands of pounds each today, fills you with awe. A few illustrated pages of mint state hammered Edward VI gold and base silver for example is a sobering thought, particularly the latter. There is also the question of the interesting history. Anecdotally, just over a year ago I acquired a bound copy of the first three sales of Montagu. The various notes against some of the pieces such as “better than mineâ€, “same as mineâ€, “Good, my coinâ€, “can’t see any difference†etc not only proved the provenance of the catalogue’s original owner (Murdoch), but also gave a contemporary insight into the true quality of the coin because these two were continually trying to outdo each other in terms of quality. A useful thing given the pictures in the early catalogues were taken from casts and are less reliable than photos. Chasing provenances is a fun thing to do and it gives you a good feeling of satisfaction when you trace the sales that your coins have passed through. Bragging rights don't apply in most cases as the provenance is usually only made public at the point of sale and many named sales are deceased collectors. If in doubt or the grades are not too dissimilar, go for the good provenance every time.

Sorry, that should be the next but one volume, but everything has to be there by the end of this year.

No definite Soho proof 1807 halfpennies are known, all being attributed to the work of Taylor who had to make an 1807 obverse die rather than modify an existing one as was usually the case due to their absence. To my knowledge, to date, no proposal as to how this was done with proof has come to light. The following therefore is a new variety. Peck on p.383 states that it was uncertain how Taylor concocted the 1807 obverse for the restrike proof halfpennies. The answer is Nicholson 306. Despite having had this coin for the past two years, I only noticed yesterday that the 7 of the date has the features of a 6 on and around it. The actual die used for this pupose is clearly one with the broken jewel bust used on KH35, 36 and 37, but at present it is not possible to positively identify which die provides the definitive link due to polishing and partial recutting. The half way stage between an 1806 proof halfpenny and a die with fully recut characters is therefore an unrecorded new variety. The method used to create the new die was to fill in the 6 (along with other features of the die) and then punch in the 7 etc. This coin provides the link because it shows the 6 detail on the 7 as a result of the initial 7 being punch to less depth than the original 6. This is not seen on restrike 1807 halfpennies as all of the date and legend are fully recut to a greater depth with thicker angular letters and no trace of an underlying 6 is visible, an observation also made by Peck who clearly cannot have seen this piece. The 7 shown below has the underlying 6 positioned slightly higher so that the top of the six is above the 7 and the loop of the 6 is mostly in the angle. This project is currently ongoing.

I now know the 1807 die was produced from the KH37 obverse die. As a result of purchasing the 1807 proof halfpenny at this week's auction at Baldwins which is another later intermediate piece, I now need any images of 1807 proof halfpennies from anyone who has one or knows someone who has one. There is a reasonable degree of urgency as I have written an article which will be in the next volume (77) of the BNJ but which now needs to be updated in light of the above. Help please.

With the exception of the 1806 they are all poor to fair condition and not worth much. The 1806 is considerably better and if it has some original colour remaining as it appears to in the scan is probably worth £5-10 and I would grade it as VF with the reverse a bit better and approaching good VF. If the copper colour is as a result of it being cleaned then it is not going to be worth much as these are common, even in high grade. There are two varieties of 1806 halfpennies, one without berries on the olive branch as this one and one with. The with berries version is scarcer. The berries if present can be found as follows. 2 on the left hand side of the branch, one opposite the hand and the second below the top two leaves. The other is on the right side half way up the olive branch.

Nor any VIP proofs I should add.

Can't be. There aren't any 1860 copper 1/4ds for a start and I can't believe he didn't have a proof 1953 of either variety. Where are they?

I can see that, but where there should be a vertical line to the end of the bottom of a C approximately in line with the end of the top serif there isn't and this bit looks more like a rotated G because it has a horizontal top. If it were a reworked die (which given the die flaw, missing or weak serifs to a few letters and less than perfect border teeth in a couple places suggests an old die), there is no reason to assume that the letter punch must have the same precise shape which it would be if done as part of the same punching . It is well documented that you have different shaped Ds on the widow head halfcrowns for example.

I'm struggling reconciling the shape with that of a C if it's the same C punch used in VICTORIA. It looks more like a slightly clockwise rotated G to me or am I missing something?

Post a picture. The 1787 shilling and sixpence both have a stop above the head in most instances, although neither is rare, a no obverse stops shilling excepted and which from your description clearly doesn't apply.

With the sale now online, if you had your choice of one and only one farthing from this collection, which would it be? If you tell people that, they would likely bid it higher. Certainly would if you gave your reasoning.

If they are all in the condition of the coin shown, then all of them are likely to be of no value as a collector's piece. Any bronze produced in the last 100 years or so has to be mint state or virtually so to be of any value and even then the valuable pieces are restricted to a few rarer varieties.

Any communications in the past have always come from "Caroline Brown". I've always had a problem with the grading and description, but never with delivery of goods. I have only ever bought a high grade/ rare /expensive coin that I specifically knew but had been beaten to at auction thus bypassing the description problem.The plethora of Spink envelopes should warn people off. If it is a front, she does exist as I had discussed her with Colin Cooke in the past. His reply to my comment about the above was that she had the grading done by someone else but had always paid so he had no problem. Clearly therefore not someone with a very full grasp on the subject - in common with most eBay "dealers". I note that Wybrit aside, there are only one or two names that I recognise in the list accessible via the "about me" page.

He's got two of them for sale! He sure is going to be a rich man! It's always reassuring to know that anyone can become an instant million/billionaire. I'm in the money too.... I've got one

And another idiot 1958 half crown. Surprisingly it appears to be in a "metallike material"

The potentially valuable 1946 bird could refer to a VIP proof farthing. The chances of one turning up in your average collection accumulated from circulation - virtually zilch or even less. Very few 1946 proofs of any denomination appear at auction and as they were issued in sets to a few important people, all types are equally rare. It is one of the rarer years even by VIP proof standards.

Thanks Geordie.

I'm confused. Obverse legend EDWARDVS REX says Ed.III florin coinage, S1557, N1131. But this has i.m Cross pattee instead of cross 3 with a much larger gap between the cross arms and notably thin arms at the cossing point. There appears to be a pellet to the right of the hair, the obverse E's appear to be one closed and one broken and the first R doesn't look right either. These features don't seem to correlate with what is written in North. The reverse legend has LORDON. Help please.