Rob

You can have anything over anything. An error is just that - something wrong. In this case I think it is a C over a C. There is nothing anomalous about a slightly different shaped letter, as this will vary from punch to punch, after all, they weren't made using a CNC machine. Yes, I do think that specific engravers made the same mistake on different occasions because humans are creatures of habit. You also have to bear in mind that when repairing dies, it will have been hardened, so the metal becomes brittle leading to the likelihood of flaws extending from the immediate area of the repair. That is what I think you have in this case. Most people will not have examples to compare unless they hoard piles of low grade material, which leads to the inevitable feeling of ploughing a lone furrow. We've all been there and are there.

Silver I presume, wt. 2.54g, the obverse appears to be a late 18th century George III bust or similar, with a trace of DEI GRA in front; the reverse with a central crown, S bottom right, legend ending in REX and possible date 40 or a symbol to the right of a final figure of date. Absolutely dire and fit for the bin, but it's bugging me. Ta.

Well done. It has to be this. My paper Krause doesn't have this listed for whatever reason.

Why would a search engine particularly like this listing, or do they keep up with the times giving bonus points for illiteracy? SEO is a complete and utter mystery to me. You put in key words, but still get demoted when searched by some completely unrelated topic. Maybe I should include some porn references and bump myself up the ratings.

Thank you. I ran out of patience ploughing through Krause. No wonder I couldn't find it - there's no picture in my edition with either obv or rev. Though it only lists the 24 skilling as having a crowned bust right with the others showing a monogram. They are 3.5x heavier than this piece, so will resume searching later in the 17th century.

As the title says. Lot 449 was an Aberystwyth 3d, the ticket for which came with the previous lot which I won. The winner of lot 449 is likely to have my tickets. PM me if this applies to anyone to arrange an exchange.

There's a story about the Hulett collection with a good reason why the tickets got mixed up in a few cases. DNW have tried to ensure that the tickets were paired with the right coin, but a few might have gone astray. 448 & 449 are two in question, as the ticket says it came from me - which is right for 449. It definitely didn't come from Lloyd Bennett in 1984, being ex CNG in 2012.

I have done. Just using this as an alternative means of reaching out before the info gets lost.

It's a hammered coin. Strong portrait/weak legends or vice versa or anything in between, anything can happen. The holy grail is of course something fully struck up, which is why you will pay over the odds for something that ticks all the boxes. A lot must depend on the die pair used, in particular the extent to which the faces are curved, given they were ground down to erase the old detail (which immediately runs the risk of making an undulating surface) before being re-engraved with the new design. Square flans are quite common in the late issues at the end of the war.

Why do you say that?

Usually when they are significantly thinner you find a weak strike with somewhat mushy detail as the presses will be set for a normal thickness flan. Two joined halves?

That's a reasonable argument. A prooflike piece would pass unnoticed by any non-numismatically minded person (and for that matter a number that are so inclined), so there would be no need to make proof dies. i.e just take a handful of early strikes and put them to one side. The RM was working flat out for much of this time producing dies for the empire, so a proof of the current issue was hardly likely to be a priority.

Yes, but charity shops are full of staff who would read the Daily Mail. You can't take pricing mismatches in isolation and then be surprised. There's always a reason. You just need to look hard enough.

Of course we like tickets, because they contain useful info. The new one is obviously Ray's, but the other is difficult to place. This coin was bought at the Lockett sale by Spink who listed it in the Circular for Dec 1955 item RCL72, VF, £5/15/-, so the 60/- price on the ticket would imply that it was close to that date if it post-dates Lockett, or alternatively it could be the price Lockett paid. I don't know when he acquired it. I initially thought that the C/67 fraction meant it was a Seaby ticket, implying it was bought at Christies in 1967. If so it would have to be one of the two sales for that year where I am missing the catalogue - 9th May and 10th Oct. Whatever, it is not a Lockett ticket. A cursory glance for items 7832 and 4570 drew a blank. Not much help really. A key to dating this will be the Brooke reference Br.13, as it constrains the period.

Add that ticket to the tickets thread - Ray Inder

The Japanese like their gold, as do a few other nations such as Switzerland, Germany, India etc. They should be treated just like any other issue - each to their own. This is presumably a manifestation of the link up between Sovereign Rarities and the Royal Mint as promoted in recent literature.

If you want them to all be different, you could do a 1753 maundy penny instead of the halfpenny, but the 1748 would have to be gold, any denomination (which I suspect you might be unwilling to fund)

I wouldn't be surprised either if there were a handful - say comparable to the numbers of the smaller denominations, but the large number so attributed leads me to play devil's advocate. Having said that, I stand by my comments about Mrs N only having a 1934. As the go to cash cow for the large London dealers over a period of 25 years, I am surprised that she only had the 1934, as you would have expected the large houses to come up with more in such a lengthy period if they existed in appreciable numbers. After all, she did manage nearly a complete set of all the smaller coins.

This is what you are looking for: https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=292646 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=269573 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=297298 . Alternatively a 1725 maundy penny is cheaper and there is one on ebay at the moment. https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=1725+penny&_sacat=0 I will buy it if you don't. 1745 can be either a LIMA silver coin - the cheapest G2 silver. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=297314 or a halfpenny https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1745+halfpenny&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqiOHgzMrdAhWoDcAKHRFnANAQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=938#imgrc=AnsudYmpE-K3RM: I have a cheap and cheerful 1745 in the trays which isn't listed on my site yet. 1748 and 1753 would be a halfpenny again - same design.

Ebay's worst offerings which is in the forum below this.

If people don't buy them they will stop making them - it's a simple question of profit. However, the public's obsession with farcebook, the Daily Mail combined with greed will ensure this one runs for a bit. Eventually though, I expect it will go the same way as stamps. Every one of us has the option to be more rational in our purchases. We just choose not to. Is it any different to those who just have to have the latest fashion item or gadget? I think not.

The Royal Mint makes its accounts up to 31st March, so it isn't 6 months yet since the last year end. However, the 2015-16 report was issued on the 27th June 2016, so the figures should have been available by this date, and by extension you would expect the end of June for later years. I presume they don't use 5th April as their year end because Companies House couldn't cope with that. What they publish is general information for which they accrue no benefit, so I guess it is as I said before; giving interested collectors a heads up on the pieces to tuck away with a potential for financial gain is never going to be a priority.

But that's not their primary concern. Businesses are somewhat more complex than an individual's financial affairs. That's why you have 9 months to file your accounts. To release the mintage figures is something they aren't likely to do until the accounts have been reconciled. If they put the figures up and change them at a later date, then people would moan about that too.

If people read their copy of Coins of England, the annual figures for all the sets are given in parentheses at the end of the entry. So the 2018 edition gives figures up to 2016, as the book came out before the close of 2017.