Rob

I wondered who had the other one

It's the same obverse die but a different reverse to the other eight (?). Dave is going to be working overtime adding the new finds to his list The reverse is a different die but looks to be over portcullis as well - presumably we have a few Lion over Portcullis reverse dies. I'm not sure if Dave meant 4 reverses paired with this obverse, or 4 dies otherwise paired.

And it eventually sold in Montagu III, lot 352 (Nov 1896) for £770, where bought by Spink on commission for the BM, so in the space of 50 years they had to pay nearly 10x what they could have bought it for. A very good case for pursuing something doggedly if you really want it rather than hoping to pick it up on the cheap in the near future.

Ok, so a reattribution of all eight is required. That clears this point up. Thanks. Any thoughts on the significance on the change in punctuation? The other point nagging is the frequency with which the marks were changed. Coincident with a change of position holder, price of silver, or something else? 6 months for rose and 5 months for Lion is quite a short period. You also have the notably short period in 1613 for trefoil which is at odds with the other marks.

So this has to be Lion over Rose, but no Portcullis? The one thing that muddies the water is the fact that all eight of those Lion over Portcullis listed earlier appear to be from the same die. Are you saying that the others have a clear underlying Portcullis, even if a Rose is uncertain? I suppose it's possible that the improbable could have happened in that we have two identical dies except for the initial mark, one with Lion over Portcullis and the other Lion over Rose, though you wouldn't bet any money on that. A bit of lateral thinking here. Most changes are made for a reason, so I'm wondering if the colon after was used to identify the dies cut in the new year. Rose finished on 31st March which is only a week into the new year, but if no roses are known with colon after, then presumably all roses with the colon were cut at the very end of the mark, but not used within the period. 3 dies were used for Portcullis, leaving this one which stayed on the shelf until the end of portcullis to become a Lion over Rose. I don't have the book, so have no reference, but do all Portcullises, over Rose or not, have a colon after? If so, it could have significance in that it identifies those cut in 1566. And to take the argument further, is there a split in Lion between colon after and something else? Assuming a fixed striking rate, the ratio would be approx. 1:2 based on the number of Lion days in 1566 compared to 1567. Does that make sense?

Yes, but Dave wasn't a part of the conversation at the time. I think we can resolve it this time.

This is the Rasmussen con - I bought it from him at York a few months after the list came out. So the question is, Rose or Portcullis? I can't make a portcullis out of it, even when I've had one too many, which is why I was hoping to find a 1565 rose obverse to match. The surfaces on this coin don't help. I don't have an issue with the reverse die. I suppose the real question is - Do any of the others show a clear portcullis? And if so, is there any trace of a rose as well? i.e Lion over Portcullis over Rose. Three marks in a congested time period certainly makes that a possibility. I should have picked up on this when I read your manuscript, but it escaped me at the time.

At least today it is the only 'name' announced as the winning bid because everything else is knocked down to a paddle number. Fifty years ago the buyer's name was made public in the room when the sale was recorded, and as the attached sale results attest, the use of a generic name for book bids could lead to potential confusion. Glens used 'Graham' as the book bid winner. The attached is the first page of sale results for the collection of...............K V Graham. Good job he was the vendor.

The whole situation would considerably more palatable if political affiliation was a bar to any position of judge in the Supreme Court. It's a one way ticket to legitimising or suppressing political dirty laundry.

The only thing that's gEF about that is the verdigris, which appears to be virtually as grown

If it was in the sale it wasn't mentioned as the variety. For sixpences rose over plume/rose, the only potential lot was 634, 12 coins; mm. plume, rev plume over shield; another similar mm. rose; other mms. portcullis, rose, plume, harp. The first EF, the others fine or worse. Sold to Baldwin for 5 guineas.

Because nobody corrects grammar or spelling in school unless it is specifically part of the lesson, i.e English or some other language

At £30 BIN with best offer, it is at least reasonably priced. They may not know what it is, but appear to be realistic in their aspirations.

Glens 19th Oct 1943, lot 48. Cromwell, The Dutch Crown, 1658. A choice example of this rare coin. No prices, sorry.

Most don't like slabs

You are in control. All you have to do is pass over a note that requires change. The shopkeeper can't give you contactless change.

Not a clue. I suspect you might be met with a wall of indifference on here.

It's the path of least resistance. A bit like doing the lottery where all you need is the ability to point and hand over the money. People are given change, so may as well let the shopkeeper bring the goods to you.

Have a word with 1887 jubilee

May as well. Nothing to lose.

Yes, same principle.

What? Tobacco?

That's commendably horrible

see below

I don't know is the answer. I haven't read anything about the flan preparation used at Soho. You also get Barton's metal in the 1820s which is a sheet of gold applied to both sides of the copper plate before the blanks are cut out. In this case you have exposed copper on the edge, which is clearly not the case with the Soho blanks (or at least it would be extremely difficult to apply a lasting finish), which have good quality gilding over all surfaces.