Rob

Nothing to worry about. The weights do vary, so if the metal looks good and not cast, then it should be ok.

First year was 2003 - Fine 350, VF 750. Description as follows: 45 var., small bust with double arched crown, like the small 3a portrait, no inner circle, mm. sun over eye. Maybe the key to differentiating the two lies in one being described as type 3a bust, which would be completely different to a type 4 bust

Nothing there, nor the preceding or following months.

Munich is still a long way to go for one beer. Having said that, I did also meet up with GC in Switzerland for lunch and a beer on the same trip, so at least halved the expense per member met.

That didn't take long. Just met my first EU citizen following our exit. She said goodnight.

I tend to use it when a slight pause in the continuity would sound better if spoken.

I remember that very well. We had gone to Grandma's for Christmas. It snowed on Boxing Day and you were faced with a wall of snow when you opened the back door. But it was the continual cold that even a 4 year old could remember, trying to sleep in an unheated room or moving in with Mum and Dad. Come New Year, my parents went back home as father had to work and I was left there for a month or two.

Nope. They are far less popular than sovereigns, and the rise in gold price has effectively killed off all gold denominations as an area to specialise in. People mostly buy gold as a play on the spot price. As for the original question, it is possible that a no BP coin could be due to die fill, if there is no official evidence to the contrary.

Bogbrush hair and shortened cross ends - Henry VIII second coinage. Diameter says halfpenny. No marks by bust means not a provincial episcopal issue, so London. Statistically, Arrow is the most likely mark, but unless the image is improved on, then this is conjecture.

In the absence of a sensible answer - Henry VIII second coinage halfpenny, London. Can't make out the mint mark.

Ditto. One must assume that it is done manually at some time close to the start of the auction? But that seems a bit of a strange thing when you have previously been accepted. It would be hugely beneficial to automatically accept previous bidders, so they can be confident of being able to participate without having to waste (and I mean waste) time trying to create a working page with a bidding facility. Having been unable in the past to bid on the first hundred odd lots due to 'Registration pending', I find my inherent lack of confidence in the system a real negative. I am eternally grateful that the early lots tend to be ancients which I am not interested in, but pity those collectors who presumably are also unable to bid when wishing to do so. It isn't rocket science to a computer programmer to create an auto-accept feature, nor to have a button that changes from pending to ready without having to refresh/logout/login/close window/reopen the program (whatever it is that I still don't know has to be done?).

You do have to register for each sale, but that is ok if it works smoothly. The difficulty with their platform is how to migrate from pending to registered in a smooth confident manner. In an attempt to make progress, you refresh, logout, login again, refresh etc ad infinitum, but at no point can you say with any confidence that your actions will enable bidding.

Are BSJ monitoring this forum? Neil? Just started working, with no obvious reason. I just wish they would communicate a step by step guide on how to move on from the pending message. If it only works when I get frustrated and start smashing the keyboard, it doesn't really allow the development of a workable protocol.

Another sale - same old problems. Anyone tried to register for this and more importantly got past 'registration pending'? Tried to be clever and register a few hours early given the anticipated difficulties, but it's in a permanent state of limbo. What's the work around to get into the auction? Thanks.

Offer a penny - that's fair to both sides.

Not to mention the redundancy of the High St bank

It just lists the years associated with each denomination together with an illustration of some types. So wreath crowns get Crown 1928-1936 (Pl. LV, 10) with a note that 1935 is the St. George type (also illustrated)

Yes it is.

The most significant crown collection to come to market after the wreaths were issued was Lingford in 1950. He had 3 years listed as proofs - 1932 (601) said to be one of four struck for special purposes, ex- G C Brooke collection; 1934 (603) listed as only six struck; 1936 (611) proof from polished dies, only two known. That suggests they are available, but not in large numbers. The Brooke coin note is probably significant as his collection was sold in 1935, and Brooke worked in the BM's C&M department where he had access to the relevant information being in receipt of new strikings from the mint. His collection of English crowns ran to 614 lots, with issues collected by die variety. It's likely in my view that they were rare enough for the missing years not to have resurfaced, or if the odd example had done so, he or Baldwin's (his usual supplier of material) had not seen them, given he was probably their biggest customer at the time. Brooke's English Coins reference volume first published in 1932 was also dedicated to L A Lawrence - 'My friend and helper', which again would lead one to assume that there was frequent communication between the two. Lawrence's sale 11/7/1951 had full year sets for 1930-1936, all described as brilliant and very rare (the very rare implying proofs or specimens given it would not be difficult to assemble a complete contemporary collection of top notch current coins, but not noted as such). He also had one lot (879) which was '1929 Crown to Sixpence. Special strikings, like proofs, rare'. So, as Vicky says, maybe Lawrence was unconvinced (or at least the Glendining cataloguer was) as to whether they were proofs or not. I think on balance it is likely they did produce a few proofs of each year given the accepted existence of proof halfcrowns through to farthings, which would make the lack of similar crowns unlikely), but I am also of the opinion that the number of crowns slabbed as proofs seems to be a little generous. This is not without precedence, as I have Freeman's F329A halfpenny, which has been mentioned before on here as being another contentious proof/specimen coin. It was categorised as such by Freeman and slabbed as a proof in the Terner sale, but a number of equally respected views consider it not to be up to proof standard.

It's probably also worth mentioning that if polished, then proprietary cleaner is likely to be used, which will in turn tarnish more readily than leaving it to tone naturally judging by the need to clean the competition cups in our club on an annual basis - which will enhance wear.........

Looks better in the picture than in hand IMO. The close-up is a better approximation to reality.

If it is within reach, there is a coin fair at the Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham tomorrow morning starting at 9:30 and running until 2 o'clock or so depending on how busy it is. Forty-odd dealers with a wide range of material from ancient to modern. I always have foreign on the table, most of which are on the budget end of the price spectrum, so come along if you can and have a browse. We don't bite. It's much better to see things in hand and going to a fair will give you a better appreciation of what is available together with prices. Ebay can be unhelpful when it comes to gaining knowledge about grades and prices, as not all coins for a quid are a bargain and a coin that is highly priced relative to book is not necessarily a rip-off. No two coins are equal.

F321. It's reverse J and the rose isn't sharp as on obv. 13. At £50 hammer, clearly nobody was convinced.

Reinforced at a later date given the different profiles of the top of the 6, or maybe just cut with the 6 rotated at the outset?

Any April 1957 in there?