Rob

Help. My Adblocker icon has disappeared with Firefox claiming it doesn't allow it to be used. This has unleashed a whole world of crap that I didn't know existed and now I do know, wished it didn't. Surely they realise that people visit sites for the purpose of visiting useful content and that nobody in their right mind searches for adverts? Does anyone have a safe workaround for this? Any advert free equivalent available? Ta. PS. Suggestion for Admin. Even this site suffers to the extent that Amazon have managed to put something at the bottom of this page. That ought to be stopped too.

Same address but I'm certain it's a different name. It rings no bells at all, so possibly neither name is/was correct. However, if it is a room used by hotel porters living in, then any name could appear.

Anything to do with 'to ten'?

It could be 2 different hands from the same dealership. I did consider the ticket could be say an S&B as they used tickets with a line at the top, albeit usually on yellow tickets. But their stock items were usually coded with either an E, G or M prefix.

I would go for the two tickets are from the same dealer with the letters and B numbers added as a reference. Maybe cabinet B with a position reference? The letters TTR and MN could be cost codes, because if the 300 and 95 were ticket prices, there is no guarantee that was the price paid. That might fall down given the T would therefore be a 2 if it represents the cost. 225 might be too big a discount, but R could be 5. N could then be 0 and M either 8 or 9. If it helps, I also bought a lot with RB on the reverse of the ticket and a price of £60 on the other side. That would tie in with R=5 if the price paid was 50 something. This ticket was a completely different style, so presumably from different dealer. .

What?! Elucidate please.

Depends if you left one lying around.

I do have a selection of bronze pennies in the collection, but only about a dozen. I am still looking for a couple of bronze patterns plus a KN. Most of my pennies wouldn't appeal to a majority of members here being either hammered or Maundy. Thanks Pete.

You don't understand that I don't understand. However, a picture tells more than words, so now it makes sense. I lost the will to live long before I got to page 86.

Precisely. I rest my case.

This was the Adams coin. Crappy image, but all I have. 1845 5 over 3.doc

It happens all the time. A lot of auction houses turn up the contrast on their images.

The colours in DNW pictures are always a bit washed out. The halfcrown I posted a month ago is completely different to the image on the DNW site. Compare the listing with my image which is a fairly accurate reflection of how it is in hand. i.e. The toning is much darker than their image https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=329731

Agreed

Davies says it uses the ME punch, which presumably excludes the legend or else there would be no variation in the position of letters to discriminate between dies within a type.

I'll go for 'tell me two random numbers'.

I think the dark points on the reverse could be where a thin coating has worn off. If the spots were areas where cleaning was ineffective they would be in the recesses, not the high points. The general blandness of the surfaces would support a coating too.

Could be silver plated on a genuine coin to improve an undesirable example.

It's difficult to say because the number of small bit punches used for the repair confuses the situation. I think on balance I would incline to say not an underlying 3 because the angle of the diagonal is wrong. If you look at a regular 1843 halfcrown, the angled upper section has a shallower gradient and the top bar of the 3 on the above is too short. I would speculate that I would not expect to see more than one or possibly two dies with this overdate because the 1844 dated coins are so prolific, that any reworking for reuse of existing 1843 dies is mostly likely to have happened in 1844. However, anything is possible. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=292713 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=234494

This is documented and is ESC 392 (47B) in the latest revision by Maurice Bull. I have an example in stock too. The edge was applied using the Castaing edging machine, where the blank was rolled on its edge.

One of the subjects that has occupied my mind for a few years concerns a faulty rocker press that was most evident at Chester in 1643-4, but also appears at other locations. In all cases you have a consistent size of design on one side and a varying size on the other. This was the subject of an article I wrote in the Circular for January 2014. In the case of the CHST below halfcrowns you find that the reverse inner circle remains a consistent size, whereas the height only of the obverse inner circle is constant whilst the horizontal dimension varies considerably, the circle varying from nearly round to fairly eliptical as seen in the image below of the current Spink plate coin. By measuring the height and width ratios of the inner circle dimensions on both sides and with reference to each other, it can be shown that there is no variation in the vertical height at the widest point, so the horizontal displacement variation has to be due to a slippage in the rocker press mechanism. If both sides of the coin appear to stretch in unison then it is not indicative of a faulty press as it could be down to the dies. The stretching is clearly seen in the relative shapes of the letter R on the obverse. The R of BR at 6 o'clock is normally formed, yet the two Rs in HIR (sic) and REX are slanted, but the same punches would have been used for all three characters. Other halfcrown issues to show a displacement in one side of the coin relative to the other include the Chester declaration and prostrate gerb, HC and 'Welsh Marches'. This is quite useful as it is possibly the only faulty press meaning a chronology can be established. In the case of the two other Chester issues the location is not in question, however, the location of 'HC' and 'Welsh Marches' has not been positively identified. Firstly, the myth that HC is 'Hartlebury Castle' needs to be debunked as the place was no more than a large house, unable to be fortified and the 'siege' lasted for one day only in May 1646. This is fairly incompatible with the production of a siege coinage. It is also inconvenient that dies which use punches from York would be lying around for over two years. 'HC' therefore appears to be an earlier issue, and given there are coins showing the same slippage seen on the CHST below coins, suggests a timing not far removed and a location which may or may not be close by. In the case of the Welsh Marches coins, there appears to have been an attempt to eliminate the slippage because the two dies are set in a position such as to never be seen aligned, and the amount of slippage is reduced. Discuss.

I decided it wasn't going to fly either. I was just exploring possible alternatives to the 'siege' of Hartlebury in 1646, which I can't see as an option.

According to Davies, obv.1 has a prominent eyebrow and obv.2 a shallow one. The latter is the 1926 modified effigy punch and the coin has a thick obverse rim.

Which sort of confirms the idea that there wasn't a mint at Hartlebury in 1646. When Exeter was captured in April 1646 they itemised everything (see BNJ 1992), including the various tools required to make coins from start to finish. Localised garrisons of 100-200 men do not lend sufficient credence for a mint. e.g. If 'B' is Bridgnorth, the known 30 approx. dies for all denominations would have been far too many for a garrison of 120 men. It fell on 26th April, so with all coins for the 6 known denominations dated 1646 that gave a 30 day period to make and use all 30 dies - that's one die pair per 8 men. Sorry, but that's just b******s and I don't buy it. If there was a large number of 1645 dated 'B' coins comprising the vast majority known of this mint, then it would be a credible location.