Rob

Although I believe the union of the four countries should remain, there is a degree of resentment at the way Scotland receives a disproportionately large sum of public funding through the terms of the Barnett Formula. Put the question of Scotland's place in the UK to a national vote and the SNP might be pleasantly surprised at the support they receive from the North of England. In a finite pot of spending money, anyone region with a larger handout has to be balanced by an area with lower public support - the North of England.

And every other day is Groundhog Day.

Strange that. I would have gone for DPL being Doubtful Political Leadership. Very high grade dereliction of duty, but not perfectly so.

I accept bribe is not the right word, but the simple fact remains that we have paid more in than we have got out for 45 out of 46 years. That's an awful lot of money that could have been better spent elsewhere. I think that countries joined based on an illusion that it would provide a ready market for their goods which would be easy to sell into, or in the case of the less developed countries that it would provide a free upgrade to their infrastructure. In the case of goods, yes it will up to a point, but if the product quality isn't equal to or better than the market you are selling into, you are on a hiding to nothing. Selling Germans imported goods is one of the more difficult tasks on this planet, but that is the biggest and most affluent market. Clearly convenience is the major selling point for a single market, but the moot point is whether it offsets the price paid in loss of control and an acceptance that the rules will be set by a group or body that don't have your best interests in mind. In my view, I don't think it does because what you can't control will always bite you on the a**e whether it is sooner or later. I guess it's the difference between having enough self confidence in our collective abilities, or being reliant on others to decide people's lives in a dependency culture.

She does already. We went decimal during the present reign. Including the 7 pages given to predecimal would add nothing.

Dream on. The EU is and always has been the property of the six founding members, as indeed it should be. They originally came together with a plan to have integrated economies, with each constituent country contributing something different to provide the whole. They didn't need a seventh, or eighth, or whatever country to come on board. Why was de Gaulle always opposed to our membership? Because we were more likely to side with Germany than France. France and French politicians see France's perceived political clout as probably the most important consideration. They always have done. They are currently opposed to any concessions because our leaving will improve their relative importance. The EU remains fundamentally unreformable because there is no mechanism for reversing policy. The Euro is killing the southern countries and without political union will do so ad infinitum. The quid pro quo is of course Germany's obscene balance of payments surplus courtesy of a weak Euro exchange rate relative to the strength of the economy. All those German funded (and to date also UK funded) payments to the new and under-developed countries are promptly recycled into the purchase of German industrial output. The chronic unemployment seen in the southern countries makes it manifestly clear that the system is not healthy. Germany pays, and will be paying more in the future, but is able to do so, and so the ship sails blissfully on. Every country that has joined since the 1950s has effectively been providing a semi-captive market for the goods of the 6. It's their ball, and whether you are allowed to play depends on how much you bribe them.

With a bit of luck it will soon be big enough to be issued as a stand alone volume. I also wish they would reduce the size of the predecimal section such that it fits into a <1kg package.

Strong prices at Spink tonight for the Dr Erik Miller crowns sale. The small list of 37 lots made £386,700 hammer. Pick of the bunch a 1662 rose below bust described as struck like a proof - £42000 hammer.

The desire of an individual to acquire something that resonates may be the overriding factor in pushing up prices. It doesn't matter whether you are looking at the finest known by general acceptance, the coin with the highest label number in the population, or just having two bidders that are chasing a target for whatever reason. e.g. Derby has been a popular mint for a while, with high prices being obtained on the back of a small corpus of persistent bidders. The Gothic Crown is priced way beyond what you expect for the mintage. The Una & the Lion goes for silly money. At the other end of the scale, halfpennies remain unloved despite being the hardest of the three base denominations to acquire in the highest grades. It is the human desire for fashionable items in the broadest sense; but for those who are indifferent to fashion, well, another day is a different opportunity. I wanted that A groat for a good few years too. Why? Because after Brady it was the only one available to pursue.

Moving on to today's session - it really demonstrates the value of buying quality and holding. Nothing better for the market than a load of quality coins that have been off market for a couple generations.

You were right the first time. Trying to rescue a 1908 penny in that condition shows real dedication. If you have to carry out major repairs, then the default option is a trip to the scrapper.

Just move on. The chances of finding a rare one are remote whether you can see the date or not. The inability to look at the occasional coin is not a question of life or death, so live with it. There is no chance of eBay doing anything unless it hurts them in the pocket, so the occasional useless listing won't change anything.

A bit of a bloodbath at times in the Brian Dawson halfcrown sale with the three nice Shrewsburys all making 16K hammer. With the cheapest hammering at 5K and the other two 6K, they weren't exactly a bargain. The ex Bridgewater House galloping horse Exeter hammered at £40K, but the currency 1645 galloping horse only made 24K hammer, despite being unique. Lot 52 was a surprise at 4600 hammer against an estimate of 1000-1200 and lot 60, a 1645 Oxford with reversed 4 in the date an even bigger surprise at 4800 hammer against an estimate of 500-700. The nice Worcester C13 hammered at 17K and the 'Cannonball' made 13K. Somebody lost the plot on the CHST below at 8500 and the beautiful pattern on the cover, lot 119, hammered at 34K. The ever so nice Chas.II second coinage lot 125 made 30K hammer and in the milled section the 1726 made 9500. On the plus side, I did get the one I wanted and could afford - the W/SA Boar's Head reverse I-40, ex Walters (1932) 529, Lockett 4226 & Asherson 114. Despite some obverse graffiti and a few scratches, it is still the higher grade of the two known, the other being Morrieson 564 and Ryan 1316.

I think so little research had been done at that time, that a decently rendered copy would pass without a second glance. It isn't until someone does the research that these things come to light. There is probably also a certain reluctance to accuse someone in the flesh of copying things, even if they are known to be bad. e.g. Everyone knew Taylor was producing his coins from Soho dies, and the numismatic aristocracy looked down on them, but unless someone is acting illegally there is nothing to be done - so people generally keep quiet. I'm not exactly overrun with late 18th century catalogues, but the Tyssen sale in 1802 had nothing resembling the description. There was one lot describing the coin as being in imitation of a York half crown with the lion grasping the shield (lot 2073) which sold for a guinea. It was probably either a later Chester, or a corresponding W/SA piece. I wouldn't be surprised if they were made at around the same time as the 'Colchester' pieces. You have to bear in mind that some of these issues were extremely rare 200 years ago. e.g. the Pocklington Hoard was the original source for the vast majority of York Besly type 3 halfcrowns now extant.

The earliest I have in the database is Lockett 2365, which has a provenance of Murdoch, Webb, Neck and Murchison. That takes it back to the 1860s, but the Hunterian example will take it back further to the end of the 18th century. Snelling doesn't mention anything about debased issues, but the provincial coins are still a bit of a mystery at this time, with some W/SA coins attributed to York on stylistic grounds alongside the unambiguous EBOR signed pieces.

Their uncertain status is readily accepted, so the market is essentially no different to say the electrotypes of the trophy pieces. i.e a few hundred quid for an antique copy/imitation.

No idea. I have about a dozen on my list, but don't specifically record them as a must do thing.

As Besly says, probably 'aged' at the time they were made. Here is John Hulett's coin. Same scratched surfaces but in a different place. Maybe they struck a couple, did some 'polishing' with a rough file, struck a few more etc. There is an awful lot of reasons to reject these as genuine. Can't add a pic. Sod it.

I saved that one too, but the file size is a problematic 3.83Mb............... Only 10x too big

This is one that Lloyd had on his site.

The jury is out on those as you know and I haven't formulated a concrete position so far, though I'm leaning towards a later production. What don't I like? All the Rs in the legend have a spur on the tail, this not seen on any genuine York piece. If done at about the same time, you would expect to see this punch elsewhere, and it would have to be earlier than the other pieces.The shape of other letters is also different to the three known types. The style of the reins is different to any of the others. The pieces are only ever known on coins with rough surfaces, which would not be expected from freshly prepared dies. The style of the horseman is much cruder than that seen on types 1A to 1F, which are the only pieces it can derive from. Besly types 2 & 3 are so clearly in Briot/Rawlins style that they have no bearing on the issue. There are three distinct types of rein style on Group 1 coins, paired 1A & 1C, 1B & 1E and 1D & 1F, which might imply the work of three separate engravers, humans being creatures of habit. It matches none of these. The terminal 4 pellets on the reverse is I believe an engraver's mark and suggests you would expect the die to be made from similar punches to say the halfcrown 1A or shilling 1E reverses, but they aren't. There is no corroborative evidence to match them to anything. All this doesn't eliminate them as contemporary, but it gives no support either. The closest detail that might match is the sword hilt as seen on type 1F which is thicker at one end compared to the other, but you wouldn't rest your case on that one thing.

The last one is easiest to deal with. In the case of Shrewsbury and Oxford, the crowns, pounds, halves and triple unites had the mark of value on the reverse, so that would have been a non-starter for use with a half crown. Exeter appears to have had a selection of dies available based on the inventory captured in 1646. Mules with a shilling would have been the most likely candidate, but shilling production was relatively limited. There are however shilling/halfcrown mules at Shrewsbury (in its W/SA guise) because halfcrown reverses 21 and 23 are both paired with the anomalous right facing bust shilling die (both unique). The D-23 pair is only known from one example, and the D-21 from three coins. The D-22 is the commonest of the three Briot horse die pairs, but the reverse die moved to Worcester. So, I'm fairly confident that the first two reverses listed together with the W/SA Briot horse halfcrown obverse die and the right facing bust shilling were the four and only dies in use at Shrewsbury immediately prior to its fall on 21-22nd Feb 1644/5. After these extremely rare die pairs, the punches used are not seen again, nor are the dies, suggesting they were captured and lost to the Royalist cause. Halfcrown I-35 reverse die is also known paired with the shilling obverse C as reverse 9, which again is a later striking and supportive of the arrival of Maurice (at Worcester), and its removal may be the reason the halfcrown reverses were paired with the shilling obverse. The halfcrown reverse 22 die is also used at Worcester as Allen rev. 16, paired with Allen obverse C, and there also exists C-25, C-18 (also paired with obv B as B-10) and C-19 coins which point to a wholesale transfer of dies from Shrewsbury to Worcester at the point when Maurice set up his HQ at the latter in Dec. 1644. Reverses 25, 19 (as Allen 27) and 18 (as Allen 26) were also paired with the leopard head (Shrewsbury or Salopia, but likely the former) obverse E. A developing flaw on 19/27 tells us that the order in which they were struck was 27 and then 19. This agrees with military activity which was centred on Cheshire, Shropshire and Montgomeryshire during the summer of 1644 when there was relatively large scale minting. The dies were then moved during the winter recess when Maurice appeared at Worcester, and also tells us the obverses B & C were current at Worcester in late autumn/early winter 1644. As these coins are money of necessity, I still think that standards were subservient to demand. The only consistent thing is that the silver standard of Royalist issues was maintained throughout the war (except the Garter issue), but that is the practical reality of the raw material mostly being touched plate, so no refining required. Some refining was done, but only if the quality of silver taken in couldn't be guaranteed.

We do know that the castles were used to hold any stocks of unprocessed plate, and so it would be normal to locate the mint at the same place when dealing with a garrisoned location. The Shrewsbury and Worcester mints were certainly at the castle, as was Aberystwyth in the early years, but later Aberystwyth coins were struck at the mills at Talybont, as recorded by Boon in his book. These are the 'A' coins IMO and not Ashby as suggested by Boon. Levies were made on the citizens to pay for the defence of the city, but were not necessarily collected, particularly towards the end of the war. I do think that most coin was produced at the acknowledged mints of the various towns, with captured plate brought back in prior to processing. i.e I don't think coins were just made in a field somewhere near Bognor Regis. The logistics were thought through, but coining was only transient and subject to need and dependant on silver supplies. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence from the movement of punches and marks to say that the engravers moved around the country, and it is logical to associate this with recorded military activity. e.g. the tower mark on the early W/SA halfcrown obverse B together with the tower marked 6d and the possibly tower marked A1 shilling are the only occasions this mark was used in the W/SA group. In the summer of 1644, Charles left Oxford and went to Droitwich for a week of so before heading down to the south-west where his troops comprehensively routed Essex's Parliamentarians at Lostwithiel towards the end of August. Following Lostwithiel, the only activity in the south west was the siege of Plymouth, requiring only a much smaller containing force, which is why Maurice returned with the King to Oxford in the autumn of 1644. Exeter had a resident engraver who would have been part of Prince Maurice's force, he being the commander of Charles' armies in the west of England. Following Lostwithiel, Maurice left the south west and you then see only Tower/Ex marks until the return of major military activity in the west from the summer of 1645 onwards, at which point the Rose mark returns, which also explains the apparently anachronistic 1645 Tower/Rose crown D18. Prior to 1645, the tower mark wasn't seen at Exeter, but I think this is down to the surprised quick end to the campaign, where the dies in use were sufficient to cover demand. I think 'Tower' was the same engraver who travelled west in July/August 1644, but was left at Exeter at which point the resident engraver was relieved and followed Maurice. From Oxford, Maurice then went to Worcester as commander of troops in the Welsh Marches, taking up his position on 1st December following Rupert's move to Bristol, he no longer being President of Wales from that date. You then see the appearance of Rosettes/Roses on the W/SA coins, which would again tie in. All very convenient and speculative due to the absence of documentary evidence, but it does fit nicely. Chester also sees a rose marked halfcrown, coinciding with Rupert being in charge of the relief of Chester in 1644/5. Again, very convenient. I'm not aware of any engravers being killed, but given I am struggling to name them, it is likely to be an uphill battle finding evidence. The only names we have are Thomas Rawlins, to whom it is possible to attribute a number of dies from their punches. David Ramage was on Briot's payroll and also a likely engraver. The reference to 'Rude the Coyner' at Hereford in October 1644 ties in with Gerard's return from SW Wales in the autumn of 1644. His troops over-wintered at Hereford, Monmouth and the surrounding area, and are probably the reason for the Welsh Marches halfcrowns. The early SA coins have a legend layout typical of European coinage, with the titles split into two letter groups separated by annulets. As has been commented in the past, these imply someone not familiar with British legends, and I would speculatively suggest the person responsible was foreign, brought over from the continent with either Rupert or Maurice, but probably the former. There is an outside possibility of confirming this by punch links with continental coins from where they lived pre-war.

In theory the task of knocking them out could easily be done by most people, even a complete novice, so logically it would once again be a case of the right tool for the job, i.e. the engraver does the dies and the other jobs determined by ability, with the flexibility to work lower down the chain. As to what actually happened will require documentary evidence, but it would be reasonable to assume that they made the best of a bad job in the circumstances just as anybody else would. Manpower per se was not an issue, and you can't hold up military activity or the war in general while the job centre sends a suitable candidate for interview. Coin production needs a team whatever to perform the various tasks involved in flan preparation, so it is obvious you can't just have just one person doing the job.

Hello stranger. It's been a while since you were last here.