Rob

I think it is now generally accepted they are genuine, but the location of the mint is the one uncertainty. The combination of a large plume mintmark would be in keeping with the Chester declaration reverse and the Chester unite, which would have been struck around the time of or shortly after the closure of the Oxford parliament in April 1644. The President of Wales had a large plume as his emblem. We know that Rupert left Chester on 20th August 1644 and arrived at Bristol on the 26th, so if the coins were ordered to be struck by Rupert in his capacity as President of Wales, any Bristol related detail such as the declaration should post-date the 26th Aug with a terminal date of 30th November. This is why the documented coining at Hereford in Oct 1644, the arrival of Gerard at Hereford in the same month and the over-wintering of his troops in the Hereford and Monmouth areas is so compelling an explanation. However, it doesn't exclude the possibility that the coins were struck at a few locations over the surrounding area given they were dispersed for the winter months. Yours was found at Goodrich(?), where the castle would be a logical billeting point.

They were considered forgeries until Besly decided they were a genuine issue and published as such in his 1990 book. I can't find any articles that refer to them. Without any proof either way, they were never going to be high on the list of research topics. The design appeared to be too crude to be genuine to early researchers and so languished alongside the reversed Cs mintmark halfcrown, or other contemporary copies, of which there were many for the 2/6 and 1/- denominations. Even now it is only conjecture supported by circumstantial evidence only that they are legitimate. The quality of the engraving is poor, particularly the legend, but then some of the W/SA coins leave a bit to be desired. I think this is a function of making composite letters from a variety of smaller punches. The fact they are struck in silver of the correct fineness is a plus. In my view the arrival at Hereford of Gerard and 3000 men from south west Wales in early October 1644 ties in well with Besly's reference to a Rude the Coyner striking halfcrowns at Hereford on 17th of that month. The Bristol declaration is not an issue because on this date, Rupert was commanding the Royalist forces at Bristol, but was still President of Wales (until 30th Nov) and so in overall charge of the Marches and Wales. The use of a Bristol moneyer would therefore be not unsurprising in my view. It does seem reasonable to concur with Besly on this matter, but as for an article, this paragraph would need to be bulked out a lot to compose even one page.

Maybe it is out of a BU set, or even an early circulation strike. I don't see anything suggesting a proof in those fields, even if the portraits are frosted.

In the late 13th century, most of northern Europe was copying the English long cross penny because it was the de facto standard design, so everyone who could, used a nominally identical design, legends excepted to ensure their currency was accepted. The fineness was frequently not adhered to.

I'm sure that if someone buys or sells multiple items to the same person, then it only counts as one feedback score, so 4000 feedbacks with 3964 from the same person counts as 1, doesn't it? A bit tedious, but within the capabilities of a dedicated shill bidder, or someone anxious to build up their reputation. e.g. You sell 4000 identical items to the same person (yourself) and leave 4000 feedbacks. Sorry I'm a cynic.

Patience. You need to find something matching the ticket info and the Bulletin listing. There is always a chance that the coin in question never made the Bulletin, especially if it was a good example with a ready buyer. The ticket in question has 45/- on it, but that would mean looking for other examples in the market between 1949 and 1959.

I had a shilling with 6/9, but it didn't make a convincing 8. There's nothing to stop the underlying character being an 8, because a mistake by definition can be random.

Could also be 6 over inverted 6 (9).

The stamped numbers were Seaby stock numbers - so in csae of finding one of these you need to start looking in the Bulletin from 1959 onwards.

On 6/27/2018 at 6:24 PM, Rob said: That isn't a Parsons ticket, rather the end buyer of lot 879 (don't have the buyer's name). 1528 will be a stock number looking at the colour of the ink and that on the other side of the ticket. Sorry, thought it was due to the HAP initials. Thought it looked a bit different but these tickets are a bit of a mystery to me. Sorry, just realised I hadn't finished replying to this - only 9 months too late! The ticket above looks like a Seaby ticket as the HAP /54 refers to the Parsons sale in 1954 from which the coin will have come and the style is correct. It was part of a lot of 13, see below where it is the coin at the end of the second row. Unfortunately my Parsons catalogue doesn't have buyers listed, so would have to ask someone, assuming I remember. I couldn't find a 1528 stock number to match the description in the Bulletin from June-Dec 1954, nor in the Circular for 1960.

Said it was somewhere safe - hidden along with Ricardo Paolucci, Italo Vecchio and Sworders. Lot 2266 sold for 660 hammer (10% prem), but I don't have the buyer's name. It was graded EF in the catalogue. The coin is probably the one listed in the December 1958 Circular as 8572, FDC £10/10/- if 210/- refers to the price which would be 10 guineas. TCX price code? T=7, C is 100, X=4? The all in price at Neales was £735.90, plus postage if not collected.

It's all good fun. People take things too personally. I've had several heated discussions with my eldest who is diametrically opposed to me both politically and on Brexit. But at the end of the day, he's my son, I'm his father and we still get on ok in just about every other aspect of life. You have to be given a voice if you disagree, irrespective of where you are coming from. Echo chambers are a bit like a chocolate teapot.

You might have to go easy on the thanks - I haven't found it yet. It's the only Neales catalogue I have, so tends to get moved around a bit rather than being organised in a pile from a certain saleroom. It will be somewhere safe.

Maybe only one or two have been slabbed? Say the other is a VF30 that someone slabbed to satisfy themselves it was genuine, then top pop is a given. I can see someone slabbing it and getting a lesser sum of say AUD50-60 (which is still way OTT), but 300!!?

It's always possible, but the bars frequently fill on the die, so it may not be what it seems.

That's completely wrong. You don't lose over 2g looking like that, and the legend is all over the place.

Assume nothing. The 1817 shilling is known for an I/S in HONI error. The same is known for 1820, but from a different die. And while we are on halfpennies, here is a GV/B 1694 W & M, followed by 3 1701s with the same error. If you can make a mistake once, you can do it again. I've finished too many emails off with amny thnaks to suggest otherwise.

Tanenbaum was a good sale with a lot of quality material and one of those provincial auctions that tend to slip under the radar. The auction was held in Nottingham. I can't lay my hands on the catalogue at the moment, but will look later on tonight.

The small one is from when the collection was catalogued and of no consequence.

Hm. You wouldn't want to stake your life on a decision one way or the other. I'm staying on the fence.

People are unquestionably allowed to change their opinions, but the problem with having one referendum after another which could quite conceivably go either way on any occasion is that you can never expect any stability. We have already seen the uncertainty associated with a change of direction, and could expect no difference second time around. People understandably only want a referendum when their preferred option is not the likely outcome. C'est la vie. I'm not opposed to reviewing the status quo for suitability and indeed think it should have been incumbent on whatever government was in power to have a mandatory review after a certain period of time, but would hesitate to have these more than once every decade or two. FWIW, in my view this discussion and referendum should have taken place in 1992 before signing the Maastrict Treaty, or alternatively prior to Lisbon when the EU made the largest moves to date towards a federal Europe. In 2016, with the probable exception of the Lib Dems or possibly the SNP (who have a different agenda), people voted the way they did not because of political ideology, but because they felt the system was or wasn't working for them. People had various reasons for arriving at the choice they made, but those reasons varied from one region to another and it cuts across all parties. The odd person has changed their mind, but that also includes remainers who believe the result should be upheld. I don't hear a sea change in opinion from the majority of people I talk to. There seems to be an automatic assumption that many people who voted leave will have changed their mind and 'come to their senses' because someone has belatedly pointed out a few stumbling blocks. The arrogance hasn't gone away and nor have the reasons people voted to leave. The majority of people I know who voted leave were prepared to accept a bumpy ride

Correct.

Is there any way to see it without clicking on links to access imgur, i.e can you not just post a picture in the normal way?

Delivered in a pick-up truck?

All the major houses will act in a similar way where the provenance is legally questionable. A good example was the recent DNW sale where a large number of nice pieces were withdrawn prior to the sale. Another example is the Lockdales sale a year or two ago where a William I 2 stars of Launceston with the SAGSTI STEFANI mint reading was on offer. As it was the same coin that had been stolen from Seaby in 1961, I questioned whether the purchaser would have legal title to it. The coin was withdrawn, and only after its legal status had been clarified was it re-offered. It's the way it should be as virtually all those involved in the coin trade are upstanding folk of good character.