Rob

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.

As per the title. I picked up this manky looking 1566 3d with mm. Lion a few years ago. The reverse mark is over portcullis, which was the previous mark, but the obverse mark has a decidedly round underlying feature which is incompatible with anything to do with a portcullis, but would be possible for a rose. At this time, there was a frequent change of mark according to BCW, with Rose running for 6 months ending 31st March 1566, Portcullis from 1st May 1566 to 31st Jan 1566/7 (not sure where April went) and Lion from 1st Feb 1566/7 to 30th June 1567. It is not inconceivable that a rose marked obverse die survived the duration of the portcullis period and that die was then used during lion. Clearly this coin was struck in the first two months of lion before the calendar year end being less than a full year since the closing of Rose, but potentially a couple months less than this. The amount of silver struck in rose for all denominations was running at less than £6000 per month, but this increased to about £8000 per month during the next two marks. So the question is, does anybody have a 1565 or 1566 threepence with a rose initial mark to compare the dies with this one? The rose in the field behind the head is BCW type 13 as per the book, but 2 of the three die arrangements with mm. Rose used a type 9 or 12 rose behind the head, both of which are smaller than 13 and so could possibly be obliterated by the larger rose type 13. The legend reading ANG FR HI was used on the die with rose type 9 and is also noted in BCW as being rose over pheon. The same legend arrangement was also used on the die with the larger rose 10 behind the head, but this reads ANG FRA HI. Anyone help? Stuart? We've been here before, but the question hasn't been resolved.

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.