Rob

Thanks. There is a spot or two of tin pest and the weight is about right at 16.45g including ring and ribbon, with dia. 38mm and thickness of 2.5mm at the rim, less so in the fields.

This is a standard reference for the series and recommended. Although it is softback, they will do it in hardback if you ask, but will obviously cost more. This has the advantage of being more durable, decent quality and wasn't that expensive when I got mine a few years ago at something over twice the cost of the softback.

What sort of info are you looking for? Historical, die details, legend varieties, populations...........?

Or that it should be cut off at the neck.

Presumably keep the latin form given they are unlikely to drop the D G etc bit.

During this period, over 90% of the silver output came from Calais, which thus accounts for the vast majority of known dies. Whitton believed that annulet ceased in 1427, but Peter Woodhead was inclined to believe it ceased closer to 1430, which would give less time for the early dies to be left lying around. Whatever, it was in decline from 1432 which gives a relatively narrow window in which to use up the old dies. The existence of annulet/rosette and annulet/trefoil mules both ways together with this mule suggests that there was no clear cut changeover date for the various coinages, which muddies the water somewhat. To give an indication of the vast output, payments were made to the engraver Gilbert Brandeburgh for making 2713 dies for Calais during the period 1425-7 (gold & silver), 1405 dies for 1428-30 and 2187 dies for 1430-1, the last two only for silver. Hidden within these figures must surely be a clue. With Rosette-Mascle coinage more plentiful than Pinecone-Mascle, it would imply a good number of R-M coins were covered by the second figure, though obviously both figures could possibly either the preceding or following issues. It is reasonable to assume the annulet-trefoil dies were in the first period, but would also include some annulet dies if Woodhead is correct. The use of old dies may have something to do with the retirement of Brandeburgh in 1431 and the subsequent appointment of John Orewell as engraver. With £100K of silver struck at Calais between 1432 & 1436, but weighted towards the early years, this would satisfy much of the P-M output, with a few dies possibly included in the 1430-1 accounts. Production of silver at Calais from 1428 to 1433 was running at an average of roughly £3K per month, up from just over £2K per month on average in the previous four years

Buck 173 was one of these with Whitton dies 28/12a. This is from different dies. They are scarce rather than rare.

The problem is, during that period they did use cast blanks alongside properly rolled sheet metal, so not necessarily wrong. Finding a second example with identical features would be useful.

You have called a Pinecone-Mascle die a Leaf. It's a mule of S1875/1836.

In the case of earlier coins, I think an overlay programme is easier because you have no 'standard' grid to work with in the first place. All you have to do is reference it to your chosen standard die (the best struck high grade example you can find) and then look for variations to build the database. If you have an overlaid triangle, you still need to rotate this to the correct position, so you may as well rotate the superimposed coin. That program can be bought off the shelf. For many hammered coins, a simple line from two opposing points in the legend which passes through an identifiable feature on the bust or other central design feature is often adequate due to the wide variations from die to die. In the case of later milled coinage, the pointings to teeth are easier to work with once established, as they do not have the same level of variation.

It's not only the wear to the hair, head, breast and knee, but also the large scratch over the bottom half of the obverse. On any other occasion it would get a details label.

I was going to say no because I can't see the diagonal running down from the end of the 5

It looks unbarred. As the A crossbar was added after the V had been punched in, this error can occur on any A in the legend. Whether a particular missing crossbar is documented is hit and miss. Also, they can be very weak, so any crud or corrosion, and the variety cannot be easily confirmed.

It's a bit of a curate's egg. The wear, or lack of it to the reverse suggests better than the last coin, with the weakness in the top crowns a striking issue. The 'silicone' could be something deposited in cleaning. The colour makes it a bit difficult to decide, and doesn't help the aesthetics. Given the state of the reverse, you might be right about the obverse die being worn.

I can't usually find the energy to moan about TPGs, but this is so wrong I couldn't help myself. How the hell does this get a 65 label, or did they have excessive stocks of them that needed using up? Have my suspicions about the consignor influencing the grade been confirmed? https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-george-iii-soho-penny-1797-soho-ms65-brown-ngc-/a/3067-31649.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

It depends on how well it was struck. Seeing things in hand is always easier to make an assessment.

Is that more plentiful in Oz, or worldwide? I would have said they were slightly more common than the 35 coins, but possibly a reasonable number of 36s were set aside following the King's death?

Could be a bit better than that. The lions' faces are good and there only appears to be wear to one laurel leaf. Not sure what the swirls are on the obverse though - could have been wiped to remove something.

Expensive. No bargains to be had.

Something to keep Madness amused for a while - 1513. Tournai groat struck in the name of Henry VIII.

I think you will struggle to get this one going. Most of us will be able to put a piece of music to a composer, but there's not a hope in hell that we will be able to guess the year it was written. Even with modern music, the release date for a single or album isn't necessarily the year in which it was written.

That sounds like a question for the Royal Mint, as on the face of it, both are possible. Do we know of any overdates with the same die & number? This would shed a light on whether the die number was exclusive to the die and not the year, but does rely on the die being flawed to confirm its reuse.

Given the current direction of your collecting, for the first time I would say these are not very useful books, though all three are useful resources for any expansion in your collecting habits and for general reading around the question of what coins are available. You have already identified the coins you need, so any articles you can find about coins or coin types on your list would be of more use - such as the BNJ article you have on 1787 shillings and sixpences.