Rob

Yes. What about them?

I have difficulty believing double obverses or reverses were errors because you only see the odd example. On a production run you will make a good number before making the discovery that you have cocked up. They would then be left with the choice of extracting the offending pieces, or letting them pass into the system. Probably more pertinent is that the die will usually have replaced a failed/worn out die, so with the knowledge that you need to replace the obverse (or reverse), you will actively seek a similar replacement. Putting two of the same in the machine is therefore only likely to happen at the very start of a run. The best chance of having double anything is when the press is initially set up for the desired striking conditions, i.e. force applied.

Either a bad infection, or something to treat it.

Check the shareholder/director lists for the various companies and you might find out something relevant. You can go back in time too when it comes to limited company filings.

Two years ago we had a wasps' nest where the hedgehog resided. Didn't seem to worry them.

You need all references because there is always something in one that isn't in the next etc.

Hi. I have to make up a 1904 set for a customer. Looking for coins in around VF. If anyone has anything please PM me.

Elizabeth Pirie did a lot of work on these and suggested a chronology using die links, but any interpretation is open to amendment based on subsequent evidence or alternative views. I think it more a case of best fit, with the moneyers associated with the higher silver content coins coming at the beginning of the sequence and then take it from there. I know I have found a couple of pairs not listed in her book which made me question the chronological assignment, but generally speaking, most of what is written holds true. I can recommend her 1996 book published by Galata as it covers over 2000 die pairs. There is also another covering the coins in Newcastle published in 1982. The 1996 book costs £80 from Galata, so not prohibitively expensive. The inner circle is found on both early and later coins, but Wulfred as a moneyer is skewed towards the later period.

Assuming it refers to THE and not a Brian Dawson, then it should be relatively recent. Bear in mind Brian came from Bolton, so a home town interest.

Your taps must be made of pretty hard metal!

Apparently a grade of Poor-1 is sought after, as a two kills the novelty value. However, in this instance I suspect it might be body-bagged and given a details grade for graffiti - this having more relief than the remaining original detail whilst at the same time highlighting the only attractive design feature.

Get her enthused about pennies. Mine likes Saxon pennies - which is a bonus, extending to Brownie points when it is particularly aesthetically pleasing. Things of a more numismatic interest often result in a furrowed brow.

Hope springs eternal

My car radio doesn't have long wave & Medium only goes down to 530ish. Best not talk about tellies. I was going to throw ours out on the grounds that Pink Floyd's '13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from' accurately described the situation, but was overruled by the wife. Don't have Sky.

no picture

This shilling was sealed in the bottom of a Georgian drinking vessel until 10 years ago. No sign of toning here after 250+ years. The same would apply to anything sealed in anaerobic conditions such as hoard coins or any other metal detector find.

With 7 jewels on the crown, apostrophe stops and 6 harp strings, I'm going to stick my neck out and say Richmond 1g. P204 with mm double rose on the obverse only

I don't think we can say anything about W3 halfpenny dates (or legends) that could be considered abnormal given the variety of fonts and character sizes used. Look at the size of the 0 used on some 1701s, or the Roman vs Italic 1s. It isn't limited to farthing and halfpenny size characters either, because there is a 1699 (Nicholson 120) with a ludicrously large inverted V for A. If anything is abnormal, it is a coin without inconsistencies.

I think you might be right. I went for 8 based on no visible top to the 6 and its position relative to the exergue line, but having spent half an hour looking, the limited number of 1698s I can find all have a smaller top loop to the 8 than seen on the 9 and it is quite a thin line when compared to the 6/9 loop. Given the limited striking period in 1698, the low output and by extension the limited number of dies employed, it would therefore seem more likely to be 1696.

I've got 3 2019 sovereigns listed on the website if anyone is interested. Today's price for members here is £300 each. £8 P&P. Payment by bank transfer only though, as the card transaction fees would be too high for automated checkout.

The introduction of 20 over cricket has completely messed up a lot of players' ability to discipline themselves to the 5 day game. Admittedly England's first innings was crap on steroids, but when you see a seasoned professional batsman standing virtually still, yet waving his bat almost to a wide position in order to touch the ball, then you know their mind is set is 20 over cricket - i.e. get at least a single off every ball because every dot ball is a waste, we only have 20 overs per innings and a full 10 wickets to lose - should get there with a wicket or two remaining. I suspect the differences between the 5 day match versus the limited over run chase is probably affecting all batsmen because the bowlers have essentially the same task whatever the length of the game. Smith and Labuschagne aside, the Aussie batting has hardly excelled itself.

I left Wakefield just after they were 9 down and needing a miracle. Commentary was on digital Sports Extra, so didn't know what was going on whilst driving home as the car has a steam powered radio. Got back home and they needed 9 to win. Wow. I don't care what they do now as long as it involves some major surgery to the top order. Bowling isn't a problem. Batting is a disgrace if you ignore this one-off innings.

Never seen one, but the temptation for someone to make both double obverse and reverse is quite high. A practically unlimited supply of raw material at essentially zero cost to experiment with can only provide an added incentive given the prices seen for the Satin and signed versions of the normal coin.

1698

Nothing obvious.