Rob

I think the left's reaction to the Thatcher years was a whinge in the realisation that the cozy life in the union-run country of the 1970s was disappearing in a puff of smoke. People complain about Thatcher in the 80s, but what about the 70s where a walkout was determined by a show of hands. The example where Derek Robinson shut Longbridge with a clearly small minority favouring a strike - yet the vote was deemed to be passed, that and similar actions set the seeds of Thatcherism because it was clear the country was in danger of being run by the unions. From my own experience, I was given a warning for working too hard when at the post office after graduation. I was told in no uncertain terms that it took 10 minutes to load this van, 20 for that, 45 for another. And the funereal pace of the mail bag folding area would have embarrassed even the most lethargic, with a rate of 2 per minute, the bags neatly folded with such perfection that it would have put many a laundry to shame. They could have relieved the boredom by doing a bag every 15 seconds, but that was the agreed rate. Only available to permanent staff, the list of people putting their name down for this jolly was lengthy. That was my life in the 70s, and I didn't like it either. It is the difference in view of work ethics that explains this country's lack of productivity when compared with other developed nations. Ultimately, nothing happens in isolation.

Crown cushion ends vary a little. The harp strings are different and partly filled on the bottom coin, the date is differently aligned, the stops by date are a different size. You could check to see if the Garter Star rays are from the same punch. If the central garter is not part of the same punch as the rays, it could be rotated on any die by a quarter turn or multiples thereof.

Simple. Serving a market using a combination of greed, gullibility and ignorance. The Daily Mail and other rags have been telling the public for years that the coins in their pocket are all worth many multiples of face value. This despite the banks continuing to issue them at face value - and they are hardly slow to make a quick buck. Consequently, many people are now convinced that they should be wealthy beyond imagination. Many buyers want to buy into the dream. Gullible, because many have bought into this dream, and believe any coin to be worth a lot of money without doing any research. After all, with electronic banking, coins are clearly anachronistic, so must have increased in value. Ignorant because mob rule rules. You don't need to do homework because we are all on the same bandwagon - allegedly.

Will somebody tell him it's a copy (and not silver) please. I did and he said he would look into it, but hasn't looked very hard so far. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/unresearched-medieval-hammered-silver-coin/223185588269?hash=item33f6e5d02d:g:kdgAAOSwfr1bv5KI

Is that not due to the shallow impression of the underlying letter? With only the top of the punch relief entered, you would only see a bit of the punch, but presumably end up with the sides showing as two parallel lines once fully entered. It's the sort of detail that you could only check for by looking at V(ICT..) on an uncirculated example.

Maximum picture size is 500kB. But if you try to upload an image larger than that and then try a smaller file, the program remembers the earlier attempt and adds it to the total uploaded. Don't ask why. If you leave the thread and come back into it again, it seems to clear the memory and you then have 500kB at your disposal again.

Keep the size under 500kB and it should be ok, but best leave the thread and re-enter.

Good.

Without knowing you future intentions, there's no right or wrong answer. If you have bought it for the grade number with a view to selling it in the future as you think prices are going to increase, then it is clearly an investment decision and taking it out of the slab shouldn't come into it. If you are collecting as opposed to investing, then it is entirely up to you. I have removed many 65 & 66 graded coins from the slab to put the coins in my cabinet, some the 'finest known'. i.e The biggest number on the slab to date from that TPG. As this number doesn't translate across TPGs and in any case is not necessarily reproducible even if the same coin is submitted twice to the same TPG, I don't get too tied up agonising about removing them from the plastic. For me the question is whether the coin is an integral part of the collection, and if so, it has to fit in the tray - something slabs manifestly don't. It's horses for courses as we have discussed many times.

How much did they charge for it? Just wondering, because when I wrote my article on the Weyl patterns, they wanted £60 a side for the seven coins in their collection. £420 for images to include in a BNJ article I was doing for free with no chance of financial gain. Didn't take them up on the offer. The pictures of the other 85 coins I was able to locate cost me nothing.

1855

There aren't

I wondered who had the other one

It's the same obverse die but a different reverse to the other eight (?). Dave is going to be working overtime adding the new finds to his list The reverse is a different die but looks to be over portcullis as well - presumably we have a few Lion over Portcullis reverse dies. I'm not sure if Dave meant 4 reverses paired with this obverse, or 4 dies otherwise paired.

And it eventually sold in Montagu III, lot 352 (Nov 1896) for £770, where bought by Spink on commission for the BM, so in the space of 50 years they had to pay nearly 10x what they could have bought it for. A very good case for pursuing something doggedly if you really want it rather than hoping to pick it up on the cheap in the near future.

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