Rob

It's the bronzed 1849 piece noted in footnote 2 on p.408 of Peck, where mention is also made of an 1850 changed from 1859. The original date of this one is unclear, though must be 1851-57 as it has dots on the shield.

What do you think?

The forum has been like the Marie Celeste of late - where is everybody? A Victoria copper halfpenny for consideration.

A gimmick.

Go along with the dodgy status. Aside from the fact that it has been scrubbed a bit, the giveaways are the straight lines defining the hair on the forehead and more obviously Hibernia's belly detail. Compare with a few to go through auction recently.

The edge on the 6/- token should be plain. When you say the 5/- token is milled, is it possible to post a picture? These are supposed to be either plain, or retain traces of the 8 reales edge which is a square/rectangular pattern. It shouldn't be a conventional milled edge, which ought to ring alarm bells. Taylor restrikes are plain edged.

Not going to open an unknown file, but surely the colour should be a giveaway. Upload the picture as a jpg and keep the file size to under 500kb, then we can have a look.

Do what? I see the original listing at £5K has been relisted at a far more reasonable £500. My original opinion remains unchanged.

If they got them from LMO or Westminster etc, they might have paid, and by extension think that they are worth £4K.

Maybe they were struggling to reconcile a good strike with a 1920 halfcrown. My hypothesis is that they looked at it, trying to find a fault such as a copy which would lead to rejection, but found none. As this clearly didn't match up to the splendid indifference of strike usually seen (and these accorded high grades), they gave it a low grade to cover their a**e. Fish out of water springs to mind.

The reverse looks all wrong - it seems far too crude. The assayer's initials are wrong. There is no F P at Mexico. The latest my edition of Krause gives a P is 1665. In 1817 the assayers were Jose and Joaquin, so a J seems to be imperative. Unfortunately I don't have an example of a modern copy and only have a genuine 1794 Lima mint to compare, but the pillars in particular on your coin seem to be lacking in quality. I suppose it is possible it is a contemporary copy made during the Civil War around 1821, but it certainly isn't an official product. That is why I suggested asking across the pond.

over 500kB. If not, leave the thread and come back into it, then the 500kb limit per post will reset.

Not a clue about these, but given the abdication date it doesn't sound right. What mint is it? Weight? Edge? The portrait doesn't seem to match the 1808 coins exactly, but I haven't checked all the different mints. The eyelid is too long for a start and the front cuirasse strap could be a bit too long. Usually the other 3 are slightly longer. It's almost certain the Chinese will be making these, so anybody know if this is one? You might be better off posting on a US forum as there are a lot of collectors of 8 Reales over there due to the Hispanic connection with the US. If it is a copy, it won't be the only one.

The big problem with the first few years of the 500 coinage was the indifferent strike frequently seen with practically as struck VF detail not unknown. It isn't until 1923 that you get a consistent strike.

If it is any help. Jackson Kent did a 10 year study of the early milled coinage in the 1950s & 60s in an effort to establish whether the number of harp strings had any relevance - his conclusion was nothing to learn from them. i.e. they were random in number with no patterns apparent, from which you can reasonably expect a deviation around the most commonly occurring number. That isn't to say there is no relevance, just that none has been established to date.

The number of strings varies as they were entered separately. This is one of the pitfalls of references when they go into detail because the assumption of many is that it provides a true and full picture - something they manifestly do not. I don't know whether this is a common variant or not, so can only suggest locating as many images of the coin you can and work out the answer yourself. The old ESC was full of holes, and the new one has expanded on this considerably, but the number of holes has also increased to take account of this extra information. At the end of the day, you have to take what is written on board, but always keep an open mind so that when you spot an inconsistency you investigate and customise your reference to reflect the updated information.

1963 decimal patterns

Normal for Bury

It's a pity ebay don't offer a drop down menu that includes copies as a reason to report an item. I can't see a way to inform ebay that describes the problem, but I guess that is just the way they like it - no hassle and fees received.

I don't know what the regular mail insurance limit is in the US, but suspect it will be aligned with this country where the maximum insured value is £250. Over that and you are using a courier (including Parcelforce) which is considerably higher, or if you have separate insurance, you can send it regular mail. Prices can escalate. If I want to send a higher value thing to the US with a courier, the price is in the £30 area, but can be more depending on value. For imports from the US to me, $30 is a minimum charge whichever auction house it comes from. They won't send it on a wing and a prayer as they are responsible for it getting to you, so arses will be covered.

No.

Brilliant.

It's always worth delaying publication until you are satisfied the article is complete as you inevitably find something that casts doubt on your findings to date. As for publishing images, the catalogues are already deemed to be in the public domain, so you are unlikely to run into copyright issues by illustrating these. If the source is given, then the auction house is being given free publicity. Images taken from articles on a website would be different. All studies use the author's images where possible.

It affects both sides, but tends to be more obvious on the obverse because there is a greater expanse of flat areas and less clutter in the design. Here's one with it on both sides.

Haymarking. Probably flecks of oxidised copper from insufficiently mixed metal. Copper is the metal usually added to get the correct silver fineness. Copper (II) oxide is black.