Rob

11463 attached. No idea what reserved means. I would assume that is something he had in mind prior to going to print. Given the lack of proof reading, or at least thorough proof reading, I would ignore it.

Sorry, can't help. It would be possible to identify them in hand if mint state because the colours would be slightly different, but only if you were thinking along those lines at the time. If not mint state, then I suspect it would be easy for them to pass unnoticed. Maybe I had better check my 47 proofs. Hope springs eternal.

Older ones are available in that condition too, you just have to be patient and keep looking, and not take the first thing that comes along. Oh,.................. as you already appear to be doing.

Go to Wildwinds. Loads of images there if you have the time.

The contents of the museum were documented in 1906 as far as the coins and tokens are concerned by Hocking (vol.1), with the dies, medals and seals list following in 1910 (vol.2). Obviously they have added to that since then, including actively pursuing some of the patterns, one of which I was underbidder to them in 2004

Constantly. Wrong images, wrong coins (in the bad way), shill bidding.......... He has a CV going back many years that any member of the underworld would be proud of.

I make them 4, 3 & 7 respectively

I would second that. If you keep a few bad purchases, then they are in your face and a constant reminder to be careful when buying. Consider it a reference collection, just as you would assemble a rogues gallery of any copies you come across.

I've been on the other side of the fence. When I started working for myself over 30 years ago, the handful of manufacturers each had their own little competitor in a former employee who had set up. If things got a bit technically complicated we would regularly suggest to our customer that such and such a person was the right tool for the job, depending on the instrument concerned. You didn't need to rule the world, just make sure the customer was happy, as it guaranteed he would return to you in the future. Slabbing however is a different matter. It is much simpler, despite the TPG claims, and any collector could assign a grade based on an accurate appraisal if they took a bit of time to get up to speed. It isn't rocket science, which is why they are never going to look a gift horse in the mouth and will always do the job. To claim slabbing something was pointless would bring into question their whole raison d'etre. Hang on a minute..................

It's quite likely the mint retained a range of letter punch styles, irrespective of what was adopted. Check out the decimal patterns of the late 1850s and you will see a range of styles. It is also apparent that at least some of the legend was cut and inserted as a block. e.g. the F710 (P2002) undated decimal pattern halfpenny and the F689 (P-) share the same HALF DECIMAL PENNY in three lines punch. The undulations and relative positions of the letters are indentical on the two reverses, but the inner circles are not the same. With such a large device, it is logical to keep a set of punches for the occasional repair.

Ok, I don't expect to get caught in the stampede given it has only had 57 views in a week and no replies. The appearance of this https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/baldwins-of-st-jamess/catalogue-id-srstja10031/lot-3b393123-8bdd-4927-9e94-a94c00d6b2d5 in tomorrow's BSJ sale prompted me to revisit the reason for the large cross to the right of the bust, which is something I have long had on the list of things to do. In his article on the coins of Williams I & II, P W P Carlyon-Britton noted the following varieties for the sword type. Var. A - a modified reverse at Ilchester; B - two pellets one side, and a large cross the other i.e. the above; C - two small crosses to the left of the King's neck - these two at Dorchester; D - annulet by face; E - cross by face - these two at Wareham; F - a variety of crown seen at London. I am sure it is no coincidence that of the above locations, Dorchester and Wareham are adjacent mints separated by only a dozen miles. The question therefore is why do coins from these two mints have the symbols by the bust when no other mints striking in type 6 have them? Despite their proximity, North only gives one moneyer common to both mints (Godwine), but Oter is unquestionably the resident engraver at Dorchester for a considerable period including this issue. This would indicate the marks are not the work of an idiosyncratic moneyer. The fact that more than one moneyer is involved says it is done for more than a whimsical reason. The next nearest mint locations striking in Sword are Chichester, Shaftesbury and Ilchester, with Ilchester the closest - again a location for a variety. What happened in that area to warrant unusual die features? There must be a link somewhere. Sword type is thought to have been struck in the period Michaelmas 1080-1083. My initial thoughts were directed towards a connection with Abbotsbury Abbey, which is reasonably close to Dorchester. The case for a connection was stengthened when I discovered that it was founded by one of Cnut's thegns, Orc, in the early years of Edward the Confessor. Orc and his wife lived at Portesham which is between Abbotsbury and Dorchester, however, it is not close to Wareham. It would be appropriate to celebrate their largesse, and with a timing that is about 30 years after the abbey was founded, could be related to the passing of a major benefactor. William was in France for much of this period and before, leaving his half-brother (Bishop of Bayeux & Earl of Kent) in charge of the kingdom. The latter outstripped his authority by hoping to succeed the Pope, which wasn't in William plan, causing him to return whereupon he intercepted him on the Isle of Wight. Again, geographically separated from the two mints. Thoughts anybody? Fortuitously, I have ticked the Dorchester box with a coin of the same type, but as you can see, mine has the much smaller crosses to the right (var.C) and is a completely different die pair. So we have different moneyers at separate, but relatively close locations adding features only seen at the two locations, with more than one die with additional features cut at both locations. Sword is the second rarest type for William I after Profile Right. The search for plausible reasons goes on.................

There is no reason to provide such a service. The TPGs say they will authenticate and grade a coin, and this is what their customers want. No business would ever direct a potential customer away from themselves on the grounds that the customer would be stupid to use them, unless there was some form of payback - which isn't obvious.

North p.168 shows you the regional variations in style, so in answer to your question, yes, there is no standard form. According to him they were made in 19 regional centres, so whether at the local mint in this case is another matter, and I don't know the answer. For further reading consult Anglo-Saxon Monetary History by Blackburn and Lyon, pp.223-72. I don't have it. The style looks ok for the area. Winchester is the closest shown - which makes sense.

The answer to your question is that they are all varieties. The moot point is where an individual draws the line in his interests. Barring unlimited time, there is a finite level to which someone can dig. Funds are not the issue as money is potentially unlimited for all practical purposes. Time is not. So you either collect as widely as possible, or you specialise to ever more concentrated areas. It's a pyramid, with the ultra-specialists sitting at the top, but mostly talking to themselves.

Most of these have been added in the new varieties section. In the case of the 1675/3/2, I was looking at the incidence of the 5/3, which appears to have been made on a number of dies. I posted a drawing elsewhere showing the various forms of 5 over 3. See attached.

The coin I posted in the copper thread is a good example of this. In hand in the slab, it was clearly a 1675/3, but I only discovered it was also over 2 when I had removed it and looked carefully in high resolution. In that instance it was only possible because the coin was high grade, as the trace of the 2 would have easily been hidden from dirt or the slightest wear. However, by comparison, a correction such as the 1738 halfpenny with V/S in GEORGIVS is clear to the naked eye in all grades, but I still don't know of more than 7 examples despite the clarity, and the A/R in CAROLVS on the 1673 I have listed on my site remains the only one I know of, again despite regularly checking for it.

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.

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.