Rob

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.

I think they are both ok, but the ebay one is a bit worn, scratched and has seen better days. Ingram's pictures are crap to look at - a tiny full image and a small window when blown up isn't the best. They both show a slight greening on the outside of the obverse legend which I assume is metal flow leading to thinning of the gold layer, thus exposing the underlying copper.

The flans were gilt before striking. Post-mint gilding never has the same surfaces as a proof, and the gilding tends to come off.

All metals are common only in that they are metals. Apart from that they have different melting points which means that a particular element may or may not be molten in what appears to be all liquid. Of Copper, Gold and Silver, the latter has the lowest melting point of the three at 960C, with the other two over a hundred degrees higher. Bronze melts around the same temperature as silver or a bit lower, depending on the ratio of the constituent metals. Tin by contrast melts at only 231 degrees. They don't just dissolve, as they are not the same as organic compounds, the metal being a crystal lattice and hence much more tightly bound to adjacent atom. Think covalent and ionic bonding.

Does anyone have any theories concerning the occasional appearance of pellets, annulets, crosses and other marks in the fields on pennies of this era? Whilst examples of individual dies are usually quite rare, the incidence of an extra mark(s) is not so. I'm intrigued but don't have an answer. Robin Eaglen & Robert Grayburn wrote an article on the gouged dies of Cnut's Quatrefoil coinage in the 2000 BNJ, but that aside, there has only been speculation over the past centuries from the likes of Parsons and Andrew. Thoughts anyone?

My coin was illustrated by P W P Carlyon-Britton in the BNJ vol.2 where he noted it was in the collection of Mary Willett, but the coin wasn't in her sale in 1920. It was also noted with Spink in 1952. It has obviously been around for a while, but without more info it would be impossible to say where it was found originally.

No, it's a mule of a Henry VII type III halfpenny obverse (single arched crown) with a type II penny reverse. I conveyed the information last night.