Rob

I assume because that section was called 'Milled Coins of Elizabeth I from the Collection formed by Walter Wilkinson'. i.e. all were milled, so use of the word was superfluous. In other sections they were referred to as milled coinage to differentiate from the hammered issues.

The thing that makes me suspicious about the proof crowns is that Norweb only had one year (1934) where the crown was described as a proof. A couple more years had a proof-like description, but were not categorised as a proof. I find it difficult to believe that she wasn't able to find any proof crowns for the other years given the collection had virtually all the proofs for G5 halfcrowns and below. More so as she was a hoover, and usually given first choice by the London dealers. The question therefore still remains in my mind as to how many, if any, were made apart from 1927.

No I don't, but could ask as it's one of our club members.

Excluding the first year sets, proofs in the early years of the 20th century were extremely rare and could probably be counted on one hand. The 1927 proof sets were clearly minted for the general public, but for any other years the jury is out unless the mint can shed light on how many, or even if any, were struck. Having said that, the existence of proofs in smaller denominations would suggest that proof crowns also exist. At that point it comes down to numbers. Do we have any numbers for claimed proofs for any particular year? It is well known that some proofs are commoner by date than others.

He has bought maybe close to 50% of all DNW lots over the past 25 years. Some collection, but still lacking in the top pieces as these nearly always go to people in the room or phone bidders.

Glens used to be Graham, Spink was Goddard and Sotheby used a range of names where there was no bidder - cf the Freeman sale.

I know where the original Ed.1 class 9 1d is too. The guy bought it in 2004-5, so all these copies were probably made in the period 200-2004 as none appeared prior to 2004.

This bloke is a pain in the a**e. Not the only dodgy thing he has listed, but with a vested interest in this item, can someone get this thing taken down? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/King-Charles-1st-Silver-Hammered-Shilling-Coin-c-1625-49-AD/263938819682?hash=item3d73fac662:g:Tz8AAOSwhbJbKNls Known to be plenty of copies circulating and I have the original. For those who aren't familiar with this one, I wrote an article in the May 2011 issue of the Circular. Genuine and copy pictured below. The distinctively double struck features make this readily identifiable. The copies are obviously cast with pitting and have a defining nick on the edge by the A of MAG where the two sides making the complete coin have been joined. The flan on the real thing is wavy at this point, so the options available were to make it thicker and fully join the two sides, or make it normal thickness with the flan laminating at the joint where the metal is too thin or missing. Flans profiles have been modified on occasion in an attempt to hide the evidence. Other irregularities also occur. The copies don't ring correctly. Weights for the copies were in the range 4.30 - 5.37g. My coin was purchased in November 2004, so the copies predate this. An easy one to keep an eye open for.

Book bidder. Mr Wood would have to have very deep pockets to have won the number of lots knocked down to him over the years.

Wood is a book bidder.

This is a moot point and I'm not convinced. It is also part of a much broader question. Rawlins was in Bristol making tokens in 1652 whereas Ramage was employed at the mint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rawlins Note the lozenge stops so characteristic of Rawlins' work. However, both Rawlins and Ramage studied under Briot, so the pair will undoubtedly have learned and practised similar skills and methods. Ramage also used lozenges, but I can't make a case for Rawlins ever using mullets. It is somewhat unhelpful that Ramage and Rawlins share the same initial for their surname. With Rawkins in France from 1648 to 1652 following the Civil War, there is no debate about the engraver of the 1651 patterns, nor the significance of the mullets. As the resident engraver at the mint for the duration of the Commonwealth, the R is unambiguous in the case of the early three pillars dies and those of the Cromwell farthings for the simple reason that Rawlins was known to be elsewhere, but from the restoration in 1660 things become a little muddy. The reinstallation of Thomas Rawlins as chief engraver would lead one to think that the R referred to him in every instance post-1660, but with David Ramage also employed as engraver at the mint and having similarly signed the dies with an R, the jury is out. The three pillars was a symbol of the Commonwealth and as such, unlikely to find favour in the court of Charles II. It is very tempting to say that anything with 5 pointed mullets was done by Ramage, but all the pattern farthings and the 1651 pattern halfcrown use both a mullet and a lozenge in the legends. This is not unexpected as a former pupil of Broit's. The early 3 pillars dies had an R below the central pillar. This P473 (which has both mullets and a lozenge on the obverse, as do the other 3 pillars dies) has a disturbed area in the field below the central pillar when angled best towards the light and this is commensurate with a filled die. Further clues may lie in the pattern farthings P474, 483 & 484. The first has a large bust with both mullets and a lozenge in the legend; the second has a smaller bust, signed R below, and only lozenges in the legend; the third uses the same smaller bust punch, but isn't signed and is a different die with the bust entered lower on the die and uses both a lozenge and mullets in the legend. If anything is to be interpreted from this, it is that Rawlins consistently used lozenges but not mullets. I also think it is reasonable to say that those with mullets were done by Ramage. If everybody gets their copy of Peck out , they can contribute an opinion. Discuss.

You might be able to order a copy from your local library if they operate in the same manner as over here. You would be looking at maybe £100 or so to buy - it has 28 articles.

email sent

Which mint is the class 15?

Grandmother was clearly a realistic, grounded person. Recognising that they were worth peanuts and that nobody in their right mind would buy them, I consider her very astute in giving advice that they should effectively be sold only when all other fund-raising options had failed. Last throw of the dice, so to speak.

Don't have any reference books for them.

The shield rim is what drew my attention, along with the very thick groundline, the numerals, portrait size.........

That's a wrongun.

No, just a Cromwell shilling. The sale was mostly tokens.

Looks like a flaw to me. The last 7 could be over a 6 though

Agree with all of those. Good examples are no.2 the undated 20p mule and no.5 the H & KN pennies, which these days are probably as common as the 'common' types in low grade - everybody kept them..

Precisely. That's why they say hello, my name's David, or whatever. If they all used wrryyxxxdaa$$$!!!&***%%, I suspect it would default to what (Watt)? With apologies to BF.

Oops. Didn't even think to check the denomination. I was concentrating too much on the question re annulet and leaf issues. Must learn to multi-task

It isn't bronze that has been dipped in coca-cola or something similar? That gives a brassy look.

Has anybody got a reference for the medal in this listing? Thanks. I'm assuming the price for an EF example will be a few pounds rather than the optimistic 200+ all in from the States? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Antique-1911-Coronation-King-George-V-Queen-Mary-Souvenir-Medallion-Fob-Medal/142353333775?hash=item2124eb7e0f:g:018AAOSwnDxUdf5w Should add that it is struck in tin